Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/990,921

BATTERY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF BATTERY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 21, 2022
Examiner
CORNO JR, JAMES ANTHONY JOHN
Art Unit
1722
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
37%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 37% of cases
37%
Career Allow Rate
48 granted / 130 resolved
-28.1% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
182
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
61.7%
+21.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 130 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Arguments The objections to claims 14 and 15 have been overcome by the amendment and are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-9, filed January 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Senoue (US 2020/0243897 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20210098330 A). 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. Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoue (US 2020/0243897 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20210098330 A; citations refer to attached English translation). Regarding claim 14, Senoue teaches a method of manufacturing a battery comprising preparing a first electrode with a plurality of through holes (the anode; [0097]), applying a first paste to the walls of the through holes to create a first layer (the separator; [0099]), and applying a second paste to the surface of the separator to form a second layer (the cathode; [0103]), wherein the first paste includes a first inorganic particle group (boehmite; [0099]), and the second paste includes a second inorganic particle group with a size of 10 µm (lithium cobaltate; [0103]). Senoue does not teach that the first particles are smaller than the second particles. Kim teaches that forming an electrode-coated lithium-ion battery separator in two layers, with a first layer comprising larger particles and second layer comprising smaller particles, improves battery performance (Kim [0013]-[0014]), and the smaller particles (400) can be seen to fill voids between the larger particles (300) (Kim Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the separator of Senoue in two layers as taught by Kim to improve battery performance. Regarding claim 15, the first electrode of modified Senoue includes through holes penetrating from a first face (top) to the opposite face (bottom) (Senoue Figs. 2 and 3). The first layer is made by aspirating the first paste through the through holes from one face to another (sucked through by vacuum; Senoue [0099]). Senoue does not teach forming the second layer by aspirating the first paste through the through holes from one face to another. Senoue teaches that the second layer may be formed by either pushing through with a syringe or pulling through with a vacuum (Senoue [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the fine number of options suggested by Senoue to apply the second coating, including aspirating the paste. Regarding claim 16, the first paste includes a binder (PVDF) and a dispersant (water) (Senoue [0099]). The second paste includes a binder (PVDF) and a dispersant (NMP) (Senoue [0103]). Regarding claim 17, the battery is filled with an electrolyte (LiPF6 in EC/EMC/DMC) (Senoue [0105]) that impregnates the separator (Senoue [0076]). Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches that the first particles should have a diameter of 500 nm to 3 µm (Kim [0017]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any particle size within the range disclosed by Kim, including values within the range of the instant claim. Regarding claim 19, modified Senoue teaches a coating thickness of 3-40 µm (Senoue [0045]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any coating thickness within the range disclosed by modified Senoue, including values within the range of the instant claim. Modified Senoue does not teach that an average diameter of the voids is 1/2 to 1/3 of the thickness of the first layer. However, applicant has indicated that applying a coating by the method of modified Senoue (pulling a slurry comprising ~50 wt% inorganic particles through the openings; Senoue [0099]) results in voids with diameters 1/2 to 1/3 of the thickness of the first layer (Table 1 of the instant specification). The coatings of modified Senoue are therefore assumed to have such voids. Regarding claim 20, the first layer contacts the first electrode and the second layer contacts the second electrode along an axial direction of the through holes (Senoue Fig. 6 and Kim Fig. 4). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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. /J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 12, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12519134
Electrolyte Solution Additive for Lithium Secondary Battery, and Non-Aqueous Electrolyte Solution and Lithium Secondary Battery Which Include the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506140
ANODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12388069
METHOD OF PRODUCING ELECTRODE, METHOD OF PRODUCING BATTERY, ELECTRODE, AND BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Patent 12355104
MULTIFUNCTIONAL ELECTRODE SEPARATOR ASSEMBLIES WITH BUILT-IN REFERENCE ELECTRODES AND THERMAL ENHANCEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12294058
ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted May 06, 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
37%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+38.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 130 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