Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/038,940

Electric Energy Store

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 25, 2023
Examiner
MCCONNELL, WYATT P
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
829 granted / 1031 resolved
+15.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1054
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1031 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 11 and 20 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. Claim 11 recites “a toothing pattern configured to . . . increase resistance to tensile forces.” Because there is no baseline resistance to tensile forces defined in the claim, there is no way to determine what level of resistance to tensile force the toothing pattern must impart to be considered an increased resistance to tensile force. Claim 20 recites “material weakenings may be in…”. The term “may be” refers to something that is optional. It is unclear if the this recitation is meant to require material weakenings to be present, and then modifies those material weakinings in ways that are optional, or instead the “may be” also applies to the presence of the “material weakenings”. In other words, it is unclear if the claim requires the presence of the material weakenings, or instead merely defines an optional feature that may be present. For examination purposes the broadest of these interpretations will be applied (i.e., that the material weakenings are optional). Further regarding claim 20, it is unclear what is meant by “material weakingings . . . in beads on an upper side of the housing lower part by a foil”. Here, the term “beads” appears to refer to a raised ridge. However, it is unclear whether “by a foil” requires these beads to be formed by a foil, or it instead the claim requires the beads to be located by a foil. 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. Claim(s) 11, 12, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149177 to Sugeno (“Sugeno”). Regarding claims 11, 12, and 20, Sugeno disclose battery packs for use in electric vehicles. Sugeno at paragraph [0002]. The battery pack includes housing plates (20f) and (20e) that cooperate with battery casing (61) to receive/hold the battery cells (10) of the battery pack. Id. at paragraphs [0095], [0098], and [0120]. Protrusions (31b) extending from the inner surface of each of the housing plate (20f) and (20e) respectively act as teeth engaging with corresponding holes 41b formed in upper and lower surface of the battery casing respectively adjacent to plate (20f) and (20e). Id. at paragraphs [0097] and [0106]. Thus housing plate (20f) corresponds to the recited housing upper part, housing plate (20e) to the recited housing lower part, battery casing (61) to the recited intermediate element, and protrusions (31b) and corresponding holes (41b) to the recited connection having a toothing. Regarding the recited properties, the Office notes that the structure is a toothing and thus will necessarily have the recited properties due to the interlocking lateral joint of the sidewalls of the protrusions (31b) and the sidewalls of the corresponding holes (41b) as well as the butting between the lower surface of the housing plates (20f and 20e) and a respective corresponding surface portion of the battery casing (61). Further regarding claims 18, the battery casing includes wall portions that extend from the upper outer surface to the lower outer surface of the battery casing and defining the space that extends between the two housing plates (20f and 20e). Id. at paragraph [0127]. These are included around the perimeter of the battery casing, and also as cylindrical units in a central part of the battery casing. Id. at Figure 15. These wall portions are considered to correspond to the recited framework of support elements. Moreover, the battery cells are completely encased in the battery housing such that these wall portions are necessarily longer than the battery extending towards the two housing plates (20f and 20e). Included in the perimeter wall are holes (41b) which are cavities configured for receiving the protrusions (31b) of the housing plates. Further regarding claim 19, it is first noted that “for a flowing cooling fluid” is merely an intended use, since the presence of flowing cooling fluid is not required by the claim. Thus, the claim merely requires a clearance capable of having a flowing cooling fluid. Returning to Sugeno, there is clearance between the housing plates (20f and 20e) and the upper and lower surfaces of the battery casing (61) that is partially filled by tabs (91a and 91b) leaving some space in the areas not filled by the tabs. This unfilled space is sufficient clearance for a cooling to flow through, therefore. Further regarding claim 21, the battery casing is formed of an electrically insulating resin, thus being configured to provide the recited electrical insulation. Further regarding claim 22, as noted with respect to claim 18, the perimeter and four cylindrical wall portions of the battery casing shown in Figure 15 are considered to correspond to the recited support elements, and they are made of an electrically insulating resin. Additionally, partition plates (93a and 93b) extend between the housing plates (20f and 20e) and are located between the battery cells and the perimeter walls of the battery casing (61), which at least partially define the continuous cavity in which the battery cells are held. Thus, the partition plates (93a and 93b) are considered to correspond to the recited stiffening elements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) s 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugeno. Sugeno is applied as described above with respect to claims 11-18. Further regarding claim 13, 16, and 17, the protrusions (31b) of Sugeno are cylindrical in shape, not rounded/spherical beads. Nonetheless, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized that other shapes, including beads, that serve the same function of providing a registered connection between the housing plate and battery casing are alternative options to achieve the same effect. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Further regarding claim 14, as noted the protrusion and holes are provided so that when paired they properly align (i.e., geometrically map) the respective sidewall and battery casing. Moreover, they act to lock the two pieces together at least in the lateral direction, ensuring the proper location, spacing, and clearances of that desired arrangement. Further regarding claim 15, because the protrusion and hole pairs are aligned in a similar manner as those of applicants, they are considered to provide the recited geometric protection. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F. 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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. /WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 25, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603347
METHOD FOR DESIGNING BATTERY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592380
BATTERY ELECTRODE COMPOSITION COMPRISING CARBON AND SILICON WITH SPECIFIC PROPERTIES FOR SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592413
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586862
BATTERY PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586786
CORE-SHELL PARTICLE AND LITHIUM ION BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+9.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1031 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