Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/931,900

SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 14, 2022
Examiner
KENLAW, GRACE A
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Prime Planet Energy & Solutions Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
63 granted / 121 resolved
-12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
148
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.7%
+10.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 121 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claim Status Claims 3-5 and 8-12 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2 and 7 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in claim 2, Fig. 5 and [0054] of the original specification. Claims 13-18 are newly added; support for these claims can be found in [0049] and [0054] of the original specification. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 13-18 have been examined on the merits. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Objections Claims 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 15, line 3 “and area size” should read “an area size” In claim 18, line 3 “and area size” should read “an area size” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “not joined to” in claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 16 and 17 is used by the claims to mean “not directly and inseparably joined to,” (see Fig. 5 where all of E appears joined to 43b but only 90 is inseparably fixed thereto, and the permanent joining techniques of [0036], [0058]) while the accepted meaning is “not directly, inseparably or indirectly joined to.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination, this limitation is interpreted as meaning “not directly and inseparably joined to”. Claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected for being indefinite. Claims 2, 6, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected based on dependence on claim 1. Claim 15 is rejected based on dependence on claim 14. Claims 16-18 are rejected based on dependence on claim 7. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected based on dependence on claim 16. In claim 2, it is not clear if the limitation “a direction approximately vertical” refers to the previously recited “a direction approximately vertical” of claim 1 or another direction. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for being indefinite. For examination, this limitation is interpreted according to the former interpretation. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the direction in which the extension part extends" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-18 are rejected based on dependence on claim 7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakimoto (US 20220320695 A1) in view of Hokanson (US-20060166088-A1). Regarding claim 1, Wakimoto discloses a secondary battery ([0032]; Fig. 1; 20), comprising: an electrode body (Fig. 2; 3); a case main body (Fig. 2; 1) that has an opening ([0033]) for accommodating the electrode body (3); and a cover (Fig. 2; 2) that is attached to (Fig. 2) the opening ([0033]) of the case main body (1), wherein the cover (2) comprises an electrical collector terminal (Fig. 2; 6, 7 or 8, 9) that is attached via an insulating material (Fig. 2; 11 or 13; [0036]), the electrode body (3) comprises an electrical collector tab (Fig. 2; 40 or 50), the electrical collector tab (40 or 50) comprises: an extension part (Fig. 10; 40 or 50, excluding 90) that extends from the electrode body (Fig. 10; 3a or 3b); and a join part (Fig. 10; 90) joining to the electrical collector terminal (Fig. 10; 6, 7 or 8, 9), the extension part (40 or 50) is not joined (Fig. 10) to the electrical collector terminal (6, 7 or 8, 9). PNG media_image1.png 392 538 media_image1.png Greyscale Wakimoto fails to disclose a branch part that extends from a tip end area of the extension part in a direction different from a direction of the extension part, the branch part comprises a first branch part and a second branch part, the first branch part extends from the tip end area of the extension part in a direction approximately vertical to a direction in which the extension part extends from the electrode body, and the second branch part extends from the tip end area of the extension part in a direction opposite to a direction in which the first branch part extends, both the first branch part and the second branch part are provided with a join part joining to the electrical collector terminal. Hokanson discloses a battery ([0001]) comprising: an extension part (170) that extends from an electrode body (126”); a branch part (Fig. 10; 172, 174) that extends from a tip end area (annotated Fig. 10; TEA) of an extension part (Fig. 10; 170) in a direction (annotated Fig. 10; X) different from a direction (annotated Fig. 10; Y) of the extension part (170), the branch part (172, 174) comprises a first branch part (Fig. 10; 172) and a second branch part (Fig. 10; 174), the first branch part (172) extends from the tip end area (TEA) of the extension part (170) in a direction (annotated Fig. 10; a direction to the right of X) approximately vertical (Fig. 10) to a direction (annotated Fig. 10; Y) in which the extension part (170) extends from the electrode body (Fig. 10; 126”), and PNG media_image2.png 514 587 media_image2.png Greyscale the second branch part (174) extends from the tip end area (TEA) of the extension part (170) in a direction (annotated Fig. 10; a direction to the left of X) opposite to a direction (annotated Fig. 10; a direction to the right of X) in which the first branch part (172) extends, both the first branch part (172) and the second branch part (174) are provided with a join part (Fig. 10; 116, 176) and the extension part (170) is not joined (Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wakimoto by substituting the configuration of the electrode collector tab and join parts of Hokanson for the configuration of the electrode collector tab and join part of Wakimoto, such that both the first branch part and the second branch part are provided with a join part joining to the electrical collector terminal and the extension part is not joined to the electrical collector terminal, in order to prevent heat transfer to the separator as taught by Hokanson ([0009]). Regarding claim 2, Wakimoto in view of Hokanson discloses wherein the first branch part (172) and the second branch part (174) extend from the tip end area (TEA) of the extension part (170) in a direction (annotated Fig. 10; X) approximately vertical to the direction (Y) in which the extension part (170) extends from the electrode body (3). PNG media_image3.png 514 587 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6, Wakimoto in view of Hokanson discloses wherein the extension part (Wakimoto 40 or 50 replaced by Hokanson 170) is accommodated into the case main body (1) in a state of being bent ([0035]). Regarding claim 7, Wakimoto discloses wherein a secondary battery ([0032]; Fig. 1; 20), comprising: an electrode body (Fig. 2; 3); a case main body (Fig. 2; 1) that has an opening ([0033]) for accommodating the electrode body (3); and a cover (Fig. 2; 2) that is attached to (Fig. 2) the opening ([0033]) of the case main body (1), wherein the cover (2) comprises a positive electrode electrical collector terminal (Fig. 2; 6, 7), and a negative electrode electrical collector terminal (Fig. 2; 8, 9) that are attached via an insulating material (Fig. 2; 11 and 13; [0036]), the electrode body (3) comprises positive electrode collector tabs (Fig. 2; 40) and negative electrode collector tabs (Fig. 2; 50), the positive electrode collector tabs (40) are superimposed (“stacked”; [0046]) and joined (Fig. 10) to the positive electrode electrical collector terminal (6, 7), the negative electrode collector tabs are superimposed (“stacked”; [0046]) and joined (Fig. 10) to the negative electrode electrical collector terminal (8, 9), each of the positive electrode collector tabs (40) and each of the negative electrode collector tabs (50) comprises: an extension part (Fig. 2, 10; 40 and 50, excluding 90) that extends from the electrode body (3); the extension part (40 or 50) is not joined (Fig. 10) to the positive electrode electrical collector terminal (6, 7) or the negative electrode electrical collector terminal (8, 9), a join part (Fig. 10; 90) joining to the positive electrode electrical collector terminal (6, 7) or the negative electrode electrical collector terminal (8, 9), and the extension part (40, 50) is accommodated into the case main body (1) in a state of being bent ([0035]). Wakimoto fails to disclose a branch part that extends from a tip end area of the extension part in a direction different from a direction of the extension part, the branch part comprises a first branch part and a second branch part, the first branch part extends from the tip end area of the extension part in a direction approximately vertical to the direction in which the extension part extends from the electrode body, the second branch part extends in a direction opposite to the direction in which the first branch part extends, both the first branch part and the second branch part are provided with a join part joining to the positive electrode electrical collector terminal or the negative electrode electrical collector terminal. Hokanson discloses a battery ([0001]) comprising: an extension part (170) that extends from an electrode body (126”); a branch part (Fig. 10; 172, 174) that extends from a tip end area (annotated Fig. 10; TEA) of an extension part (Fig. 10; 170) in a direction (annotated Fig. 10; X) different from a direction (annotated Fig. 10; Y) of the extension part (170), the branch part (172, 174) comprises a first branch part (Fig. 10; 172) and a second branch part (Fig. 10; 174), the first branch part (172) extends from the tip end area (TEA) of the extension part (170) in a direction (annotated Fig. 10; a direction to the right of X) approximately vertical (Fig. 10) to the direction (annotated Fig. 10; Y) in which the extension part (170) extends from an electrode body (Fig. 10; 126”), and PNG media_image2.png 514 587 media_image2.png Greyscale the second branch part (174) extends in a direction (annotated Fig. 10; a direction to the left of X) opposite to the direction (annotated Fig. 10; a direction to the right of X) in which the first branch part (172) extends, both the first branch part (172) and the second branch part (174) are provided with a join part (Fig. 10; 116, 176). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wakimoto by substituting the configuration of the electrode collector tab and join parts of Hokanson for the configuration of the electrode collector tab and join part of Wakimoto, such that both the first branch part and the second branch part are provided with a join part joining to the positive electrode electrical collector terminal and the negative electrode electrical collector terminal, and the extension part is accommodated into the case main body in a state of being bent (as taught by Wakimoto), in order to prevent heat transfer to the separator as taught by Hokanson ([0009]). Regarding claim 13, Wakimoto in view of Hokanson discloses wherein the tip end area (Hokanson TEA) of the extension part (170) is not joined (Hokanson Fig. 10) to the electrical collector terminal (6, 7, or 8, 9). Regarding claim 14, Wakimoto in view of Hokanson discloses wherein both the first branch part (Hokanson 172) and the second branch part (Hokanson 174) have a portion (Hokanson Fig. 10; portion of 172 and 174 excluding 176 and 116 respectively) not joined (Hokanson Fig. 10) to the electrical collector terminal (6, 7 or 8, 9). Regarding claim 16, Wakimoto in view of Hokanson discloses wherein the tip end area (Hokanson TEA) of the extension part (Hokanson 170) is not joined (Hokanson Fig. 10) to the positive electrode electrical collector terminal (6, 7 ) or the negative electrode electrical collector terminal (8, 9). Regarding claim 17, Wakimoto in view of Hokanson discloses wherein both the first branch part (172) and the second branch part (174) have a portion (Hokanson Fig. 10; portion of 172 and 174 excluding 176 and 116 respectively) not joined (Hokanson Fig. 10) to the positive electrode electrical collector terminal (6, 7) or the negative electrode electrical collector terminal (8, 9). Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakimoto (US 20220320695 A1) in view of Hokanson (US-20060166088-A1) as applied to claims 14 and 17 above and further in view of Inoue (6,027,831). Regarding claim 15, Wakimoto in view of Hokanson discloses an area size (Hokanson Fig. 10; area of 176 or 116) of the join part (Hokanson 116, 176) in the first branch part (172) and the second branch part (174) and an area size (Hokanson Fig. 10; area of 172 or 174) of the first branch part (Hokanson 172) and the second branch part (Hokanson 174). Wakimoto in view of Hokanson fails to disclose wherein an area size of the join part in the first branch part or the second branch part is equal to or more than 30% of and area size of the first branch part or the second branch part. Inoue discloses wherein an area size (“total area of junction surface”; col. 3, line 55) of a join part (“junction surface”; col. 3, lin. 55) in an other part (“lead plate 9”; col. 3, ln. 56) is equal to (“0.1 to 0.7 times”; col. 3, ln. 56) or more (“0.1 to 0.7 times”; col. 3, ln. 56) than 30% (“0.1 to 0.7 times”; col. 3, ln. 56) of an area size (“the total sectional area of the connected lead plates 9”; col. 3, ln. 56-57) of the other part (“lead plate 9”; col. 3, ln. 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wakimoto in view of Hokanson by substituting the area size of the join part in the first branch part or the second branch part and the area size of the first branch part or the second branch part of Wakimoto in view of Hokanson for those of Inoue such that, an area size of the join part in the first branch part or the second branch part is equal to or more than 30% of an area size of the first branch part or the second branch part as Inoue teaches in order to decrease the contact resistant value and Joule heat between the branch parts and the electrical collector terminals as taught by Inoue (col. 5, ln. 62-67). Regarding claim 18, Wakimoto in view of Hokanson discloses an area size (Hokanson Fig. 10; area of 176 or 116) of the join part (Hokanson 116, 176) in the first branch part (172) and the second branch part (174) and an area size (Hokanson Fig. 10; area of 172 or 174) of the first branch part (Hokanson 172) and the second branch part (Hokanson 174). Wakimoto in view of Hokanson fails to disclose wherein an area size of the join part in the first branch part or the second branch part is equal to or more than 30% of and area size of the first branch part or the second branch part. Inoue discloses wherein an area size (“total area of junction surface”; col. 3, line 55) of a join part (“junction surface”; col. 3, lin. 55) in an other part (“lead plate 9”; col. 3, ln. 56) is equal to (“0.1 to 0.7 times”; col. 3, ln. 56) or more (“0.1 to 0.7 times”; col. 3, ln. 56) than 30% (“0.1 to 0.7 times”; col. 3, ln. 56) of an area size (“the total sectional area of the connected lead plates 9”; col. 3, ln. 56-57) of the other part (“lead plate 9”; col. 3, ln. 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wakimoto in view of Hokanson by substituting the area size of the join part in the first branch part or the second branch part and the area size of the first branch part or the second branch part of Wakimoto in view of Hokanson for those of Inoue such that, an area size of the join part in the first branch part or the second branch part is equal to or more than 30% of an area size of the first branch part or the second branch part as Inoue teaches in order to decrease the contact resistant value and Joule heat between the branch parts and the electrical collector terminals as taught by Inoue (col. 5, ln. 62-67). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 22, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555875
CONNECTION POLE FOR A RECHARGEABLE BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE-BATTERY HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548773
POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL, POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, LITHIUM-ION BATTERY, AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12525604
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12519162
BATTERY CELL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506206
BATTERY PACK AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+36.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 121 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month