Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/032,336

BATTERY MODULE HAVING STRUCTURE ENABLING UNIFORM PRESSURE TO BE APPLIED DURING SWELLING, AND BATTERY PACK AND VEHICLE COMPRISING SAME

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 17, 2023
Priority
Feb 15, 2021 — RE 10-2021-0020137 +1 more
Examiner
CANTELMO, GREGG
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
992 granted / 1332 resolved
+9.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1361
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1332 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment In response to the amendment received on March 19, 2026 ; Claims 1, 3 and 5-10 are pending. Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request; The specification objection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in light of the amendment; The 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of the amendment. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed December 23, 2025 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 unduly merges two different embodiments (claim 4 – stepped shape with claim 5 – curved shape in continuous surface contact). According to the disclosure the swelling absorbing pads can have a stepped shape (Fig. 8) PNG media_image1.png 134 443 media_image1.png Greyscale or a curved shape in continuous surface contact (Fig. 9) PNG media_image2.png 135 444 media_image2.png Greyscale It is apparent that the embodiments of claims 4 and 5 are distinct embodiments. The amendment to claim 1 incorporated the allowable subject matter of claim 4, to one embodiment but then unduly introduces new matter in claim 5 by merging two distinct embodiments together. Applicant is advised to cancel claim 5 to overcome this rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites that the thickness of the swelling absorbing pad is smaller in a central region than edge regions. Claim 3 no longer further limits claim 1 in light of claim 1 now including the previously claimed claim 4. Currently, claim 1 recites that the swelling absorbing pads having stepped shape where the pad surfaces become lower (i.e., thinner) in a direction from edge regions of the pads towards as central region of the pads. The design of claim 1 now is such that the stepped shape of the pads becoming lower (i.e., thinner) in a direction from edge regions towards a central region is understood to define a design where the thickness of the central region is smaller than edge regions. As such claim 3 no longer further limits claim 1 in light of the structure modified by the amendment. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 6-10 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim 1 has been amended to include the allowable subject matter set forth in the previous Office Action (see item 12, incorporated herein). Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm. 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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. /GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 19, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12614802
BATTERY CASE
3y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12609390
BATTERY PACK, VEHICLE AND ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE
3y 5m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12609397
BATTERY RACK, POWER STORAGE DEVICE, AND CONTAINER
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12609410
HIGH HEAT-RESISTANT CONNECTOR, AND BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE SAME
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12609400
BATTERY AND POWER CONSUMING DEVICE
3y 4m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1332 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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