Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/037,228

BATTERY MODULE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 16, 2023
Examiner
AMPONSAH, OSEI K
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
488 granted / 680 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
748
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 680 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05-16-2023 and 06-18-2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0205048 hereinafter Enomoto in view of WO 2019/087708 A1 [English equivalent US 2020/0365891] hereinafter Harada. Regarding Claim 1, Enomoto teaches a battery module [10] (see annotated figure 1 below) comprising: a plurality of cylindrical cells (lithium secondary batteries) [11] that are disposed side by side; and a thermal conductive material (heat absorbing material) [20] disposed in contact with side surfaces of the cylindrical cells (paragraphs 15, 18, 24, 27), wherein each cylindrical cell [11] comprises an electrode body (i.e., a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode), a non-aqueous electrolyte, and a cell case [12] housing the electrode body and the electrolyte (paragraph 19). PNG media_image1.png 667 548 media_image1.png Greyscale Enomoto does not specify that at the negative electrode, a lithium metal deposits during charge and the lithium metal dissolves during discharge. However, Harada teaches a lithium secondary battery [10] comprising: a positive electrode [11], a negative electrode [12], a separator [13] disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte that comprises a lithium salt (paragraphs 16, 52), wherein the negative electrode is an electrode on which lithium metal is deposited at the time of charge, and the lithium metal dissolves in the non-aqueous electrolyte at the time of discharge (paragraph 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such batteries with the negative electrode and lithium salt before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Harada discloses that such configuration can form a battery with increased capacity (paragraphs 6, 10). Regarding Claim 8, Enomoto teaches a battery module case that comprises a pair of posts [30] and insulating plate [42 or 47] (i.e., first and second holder) that accommodates the plurality of cylindrical cells and the thermal conductive material (heat absorbing material), wherein a first end of the cylindrical cell is housed in the first holder, and the second end is housed in the second holder (see annotated figure 1). Regarding Claim 9, Enomoto teaches that the thermal conductive material (heat absorbing material) [20] includes a resin, and particles (filler) packed in the resin, and the particles contain an inorganic substance that decomposes through an endothermic reaction (paragraph 15). Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto and Harada as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0171536 hereinafter Kaneda. The combination of Enomoto and Harada is described above and incorporated herein. Regarding Claims 2 and 3, the combination teaches a lithium secondary battery that comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraph 16 of Harada). The combination does not specify that the battery further comprises a spacer disposed between the separator and at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein a region facing the positive electrode or the negative electrode has a first region facing the spacer, and a second region not facing the spacer, and wherein a height of the spacer is 20 µm or more. However, Kaneda teaches a lithium secondary battery that comprises a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, a spacer, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraphs 34-35), wherein the spacer [10] is disposed between the separator and the positive (negative) electrode plate, wherein a region facing the positive electrode plate has a first region facing the spacer and a second region not facing the spacer, and wherein a height of the spacer is 1 to 30 µm (paragraphs 116, see figures 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a spacer between the separator and the positive (negative) electrode plate before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kaneda discloses that the volume increase of the electrode plates due to expansion thereof during charge can be absorbed more effectively with such modification (paragraph 41). Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto and Harada as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0056472 hereinafter Abe. The combination of Enomoto and Harada is described above and incorporated herein. Regarding Claim 4, the combination does not specify a ratio of a volume Vs of gaps in the electrode plate group, relative to a true volume Vr of the electrode plate group being 30% or more and 45% or less. However, Abe teaches a secondary battery that comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraph 39), wherein the positive (negative) electrode comprises an electrode active material layer having a porosity of 20 to 40 vol. % (35 to 50 vol. %) (paragraphs 57, 71). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an electrode active material layer having such porosity before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Abe discloses that such modification can form a battery with improved cycle characteristics (paragraphs 58, 72). Regarding Claims 5-6, the combination teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte contains an oxalate salt [i.e., lithium difluoro oxalate borate] (paragraph 60 of Harada) and a mass ratio of the oxalate salt to the electrode plate group is 0.0004 to 0.0019 (i.e., 60 to 99 mass % of electrode material and 0.005 to 0.2 mol/L of oxalate salt) (paragraphs 69, 116 of Abe). Regarding Claim 7, the combination teaches a proportion of the lithium metal with respect to all lithium disposed on the negative electrode is 92 mass% or more (i.e., lithium metal is used as the negative electrode material) (paragraph 40 of Harada). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST. 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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. /OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586819
Non-Aqueous Electrolyte and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580223
STABILIZED SOLID GARNET ELECTROLYTE AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573615
All-Solid-State Battery and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573717
MICROPOROUS MEMBRANES, SEPARATORS, LITHIUM BATTERIES, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567648
EXPLOSIVE ENVIRONMENT NEUTRALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 680 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