Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/008,009

NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 02, 2022
Examiner
BLACKWELL-RUDASIL, RYAN KENZIE
Art Unit
1722
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
10 granted / 14 resolved
+6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
44
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
49.8%
+9.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 14 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Status of Claims Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 5-12 are withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended. Status of Amendments The amendment filed on January 14th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of April 19th, 2025 The 102 rejections over Yasuhiro (JP 2020095812 A) are maintained. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 14th, 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuhiro (JP 2020095812 A). Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Yasuhiro teaches a negative electrode comprised of a current collector [00010], an active material layer comprised of silicon (as required by claim 3) particles [00044], a conductive material [00035], As required by claim 4, the electrode further comprises a first binder polymer such as cellulose or styrene-butadiene rubber [00036]. Cracks form in the negative active material after charging/discharging [00045]. A second binder polymer comprised of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) is contained within the negative electrode active material layer [00011] is present and impregnated in and between those cracks. Element 70 corresponds to the active material and element 72 corresponds to the second binder polymer ([00044] – [00046], figures 2b and 2c below). PNG media_image1.png 404 362 media_image1.png Greyscale Additionally, the limitation of “wherein the second binder polymer is ejected from an electrolyte in which the second binder polymer has been dissolved” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 2, Yasuhiro teaches an example of the molar ratio of PVDF to HFP in the PVDF-HFP copolymer, where “the HFP substitution amount is 11 mol%” [00067]. The molar mass of the PVDF-derived monomer is 64 g/mol and the molar mass of the HFP-derived monomer is 150 g/mol. Assuming a sample of said copolymer comprises 100 mol, there would be 89 mol of PVDF monomers and 11 mol of HFP. 89 mol of the PVDF-derived monomer has a mass of 5696 g and 11 mol of the HFP-derived monomer has a mass of 1650 g. The total mass of the sample would be the sum of those two masses: 7346 g. The weight % of HFP of the sample is equivalent to 1650 g / 7346 g which is equivalent to 22.5%, which is greater than the claimed 20 weight %. Therefore, Yasuhiro’s example anticipates the claimed weight % range of the HFP monomer where the weight % is greater than 20%. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on January 14th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on page 7 that Yasuhiro does not disclose that the claimed second binder polymer that is impregnated between the cracks is ejected from an electrolyte that previously dissolved said binder polymer. The Examiner agrees that Yasuhiro does not explicitly disclose this. However, the Applicant has not established how the ejection of the second binder polymer changes the structure of the claimed negative electrode. If a structural difference is indeed present as a result of the ejection, then the limitation of “wherein the second binder polymer is ejected from an electrolyte in which the second binder polymer has been dissolved” changes the scope of the claims and new prior art would need to be applied. Otherwise, Yasuhiro’s negative electrode still anticipates the Applicant’s claims and the rejection on record is appropriately maintained. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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. /R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 02, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 02, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
May 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 18, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Nov 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 14, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603379
ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597600
LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586785
LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12555776
ANODE MATERIALS FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES, AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548800
SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD OF PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
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
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 14 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