Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/018,509

ENERGY STORAGE APPARATUS AND ENERGY STORAGE MODULE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 27, 2023
Examiner
KERNS, KEVIN P
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1157 granted / 1467 resolved
+13.9% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
1521
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1467 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 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. With regard to independent claim 1, the last limitation “the film outer body being bent or curved between the housing portions adjacent each other to extend in a zigzag manner” is unclear, since the film outer body comprises a housing portion and a sealing portion as claimed (and also shown in applicants’ Figure 9). It is understood that the film outer body is being bent along adjacent electrodes. Since claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected for the same reason. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first sides" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. With regard to claim 3, the limitation “the housing portions bulge in a thickness direction of the film outer body” is unclear, since the housing portion appears to be part of the film outer body. With regard to claim 5, the limitation “into the recesses, the housing portions are fitted” is unclear. Should “,” after “the recesses” be replaced with text for clarity? Claim 6 recites the limitation "the respective recesses" bridging the 4th and 5th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the respective projections" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outer side" in the 11th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 8-10 depend from claim 7, these claims are rejected for the same reason. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first inclined portions" in the 22nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 8-10 depend from claim 7, these claims are rejected for the same reason. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwag (US 2020/0112000), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 27, 2023. Regarding independent claim 1, Kwag discloses an energy storage apparatus (abstract; paragraphs [0055]-[0068], [0095]-[0097], [0103]-[0105], [0113]-[0116], [0129], [0130], [0138]-[0141], [0150]-[0152]; and Figures 1, 2B, 3, 5, and 9-11), in which the energy storage apparatus comprises the following structural features: a plurality of electrode assemblies (10) that are cylindrical; and a film outer body including a plurality of housing portions (G) (see Figures 1, 2B, and 9) that individually wrap the plurality of electrode assemblies (10), and a sealing portion (barrier wall (150)) that seals each housing portion (G) and connects the plurality of housing portions (150) to each other, wherein the film outer body (G, 150) is bent or curved to extend in a zigzag manner (see Figure 9). Regarding claim 2, Kwag discloses that the sealing portion (150) includes a first side that seals an end of the housing ((100S1) of Figure 9) in an axial direction of electrode assemblies (10), and the film outer body (G, 150) is bent or curved to make two first sides corresponding to adjacent two of the housing portions (G) extend in a direction intersecting each other (see Figures 1 and 9). Regarding claim 3, Kwag discloses that the housing portions (G) bulge in a thickness direction (of the film outer body (G, 150)?), and the housing portion protrude, in a direction orthogonal to an arrangement direction of electrode assemblies (10) and the axial direction, outward from the sealing portion (150) that is bent or curved (see Figures 1 and 9). Regarding claim 4, Kwag discloses an energy storage module comprising a plurality of the energy storage apparatuses according to claim 1, and a holder (100) that holds the plurality of energy storage apparatuses (see Figures 9 and 11). Regarding claim 5, Kwag discloses that the holder (100) includes a side plate extending in an arrangement direction of electrode assemblies (10), wherein the side plate includes a plurality of recesses arranged in the arrangement direction and into the recesses in which housing portions (G) are fitted (see Figures 9 and 11). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag (US 2020/0112000). Kwag discloses the features of claims 1, 4, and 5 above, and further including that the side plate of the holder (100) has a repeated pattern of recesses and projections in the arrangement direction to form a generally corrugated plate shape (see Figures 9 and 11), Kwag does not explicitly disclose that the side plate is arranged between two of the energy storage apparatuses, wherein the housing portions (G) of one of the energy storage apparatuses are fitted into respective recesses from one main front surface side, and the housing portions (G) of the other energy storage apparatus are fitted into respective projections from a back surface side. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the side plates of the holder (100) disclosed by Kwag (in Figures 9 and 11) include a plurality of electrode assemblies (10) that are fitted into recesses around outer surfaces (nearest the holder (100)), such that a respective plurality of projections and a corresponding respective plurality of recesses would be arranged adjacent (between) two of the energy storage apparatuses, for the purpose of obtaining an energy storage module comprising the plurality of the energy storage apparatuses with a more compact structure while improving heat dissipation performance (see abstract). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest an energy storage apparatus comprising the following structural features (of independent claim 7, from which claims 8-10 depend): a sealing portion that includes first connectors and second connectors that are arranged between two adjacent housing portions and connect the two housing portions, and an outer edge extending over a plurality of housing portions on an outer side with respect to the housing portions in an axial direction of electrode assemblies, wherein the outer edge includes a first inclined portion that is continuous from one of the first connectors and the housing portions, that is bent, with respect to a connection portion between the first connector and the housing portions, to a side of the second connectors in an orthogonal direction (orthogonal to the axial direction), and that includes a valley fold fitted between the housing portions adjacent each other, and a second inclined portion that is continuous from one of the second connectors and adjacent two first inclined portions arranged with the second connector interposed therebetween, and that is bent, with respect to a connection portion between the second connector and the two first inclined portions, to a side of the first connectors in the orthogonal direction, wherein the first inclined portion and the second inclined portion overlap each other on the housing portions as viewed from the axial direction to form an overlapping portion. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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. /KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 December 7, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603316
CELL STACK, METHOD OF PRODUCING A CELL STACK AND FUEL CELL OR ELECTROLYSIS CELL INCLUDING A CELL STACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583748
PREPARATION METHOD OF CESIUM DIFLUOROPHOSPHATE FOR AQUEOUS NEGATIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, AND SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586874
SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586871
Busbar assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580203
ELECTRODE HAVING COLUMNAR STRUCTURE PROVIDED WITH MULTILAYER PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1467 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