Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/037,674

Electrode for Secondary Battery, Secondary Battery Including the Same, and Method of Manufacturing Electrode

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 18, 2023
Examiner
PILLAY, DEVINA
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
339 granted / 778 resolved
-21.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
840
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 778 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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (a method of manufacturing an electrode for a secondary battery) and Group III (drawn to a secondary battery), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/09/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I drawn to claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities. A claim is supposed to comprise a single sentence starting with a capital letter and ending with a period. Please change “The” in “The average particle size” to “the”. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman (US 2017/0256367 A1) in view of Wixom (US 2020/0313191 A1). Regarding claim 1, Raman discloses an electrode for secondary battery comprising (see Fig. 1 [0034]): an electrode current collector (108); and an electrode layer (112/114) positioned on the electrode current collector, wherein the electrode layer comprises an electrode composition in which an active material, and a conductive material and a binder are dry-mixed ([0045]). Raman discloses that the average particle size of the binder is less than 0.1 microns ([0028]) and further discloses that the conductive material ([0044]) has a surface area of 10-100m2/g and can comprise porous carbon ([0040]). Wixom discloses a porous carbon material can be used in combination with a fibrilizable binder in a dry process ([0057]) to form an electrode precursor and furthermore the porous carbon can have pores ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm ([0057]) and discloses that the large pores facilitates ion transport, which improves the electrical current density and rate retention for an electrode of given thickness and porosity, or enables electrodes to be processed to higher thickness or lower porosity for given capacity or rate retention ([0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the carbon materials used of Raman with those of Wixom so that an average diameter of the micropore formed in the conductive material is the same as or larger than an average particle size of the binder as disclosed by Wixom because the large pores facilitates ion transport, which improves the electrical current density and rate retention for an electrode of given thickness and porosity, or enables electrodes to be processed to higher thickness or lower porosity for given capacity or rate retention. Regarding claim 2, modified Raman discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In addition, as noted from the modification above, Wixom discloses that the average diameter of the micropore formed in the conductive material is 10 nanometers to about 1000 nanometers ([0012]) which overlaps with the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Regarding claim 3, modified Raman discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In addition, Raman discloses that the average particle size of the binder is less than 1 micron ([0028]) which overlaps with the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Regarding claim 4, modified Raman discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In addition, as noted from the modification above, Wixom discloses that the specific surface area of the conductive material is 17 m2/g. Regarding claim 5, modified Raman discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In addition, Raman discloses a content of the conductive material is from 0.1 % by weight to 10% by weight or less based on the total weight of the electrode composition ([0044]). Wixom discloses that the porous carbon (processing additive) can be present in an amount from 2-10% ([0064]). Regarding claim 6, modified Raman discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In addition Wixom through modification above discloses that the conductive material comprises a 3D porous carbon material ([0071]). In addition, Raman discloses the binder comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0047]). Regarding claim 7, modified Raman discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In addition, Raman discloses that the binder and conductive material can be used to form a lithium ion cathode electrode ([0056]), however, does not disclose the active material comprises lithium manganese oxide. Wixom discloses that the binder, porous carbon is mixed with lithium manganese oxide (LMO) to form a battery cathode ([0066][0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrode material of modified Raman to have LMO as disclosed by Wixom to form a battery cathode because Raman discloses that forming a lithium ion cathode electrode is a desired product. Regarding claim 8, modified Raman discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In addition, Raman discloses the electrode composition is in the form of a free-standing film, and the free-standing film is present on the electrode current collector ([0007][0008]). Regarding claim 9, modified Raman discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Raman does not explicitly disclose that the free-standing film has an elastic modulus value of 30 MPa to 400 MPa. Wixom discloses that the processing additive lead to improved mechanical strength and processibility ([0089]). It would have been obvious to modify the amount of processing additive (porous carbon) in the free-standing film of modified Raman to be optimized so that the claimed elastic modulus/mechanical strength/processibility can be achieved. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00. 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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. DEVINA PILLAY Primary Examiner Art Unit 1726 /DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 18, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604560
SOLAR CELLS FORMED VIA ALUMINUM ELECTROPLATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603600
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR EFFICIENT CONVERSION OF HEAT TO ELECTRICITY VIA EMISSION OF CHARACTERISTIC RADIATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588412
Thermoelectric element, thermoelectric generator, Peltier element, Peltier cooler, and methods manufacturing thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581857
INTEGRATED THERMOELECTRIC DEVICE TO MITIGATE INTEGRATED CIRCUIT HOT SPOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580267
BATTERY FRAME
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
44%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+26.6%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 778 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