Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/068,920

METHOD FOR FORMING ALIGNED STRUCTURE OF GRAPHITE, METHOD FOR FABRICATING ELECTRODE FOR BATTERY HAVING ALIGNED GRAPHITE AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY HAVING ALIGNED GRAPHITE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 20, 2022
Examiner
CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Korea Institute Of Machinery & Materials
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
587 granted / 940 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
988
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 940 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 . 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. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN110571406A) in view of Jo (KR20000028032A) and Matsubara (previously-cited US2004/0072076A1). Wang discloses the claimed invention as follows (limitations not disclosed are crossed out below): Claim 5. A method for forming an electrode for a battery, the method comprising: coating an active material composition (second slurry; [0032], but first see [0031] and [0032]) including a graphite particles (see [0031] and [0032]), a binder (PVDF; see [0031] and [0032]) and a solvent (NMP; see [0031] and [0032]) on a current collector (see [0036]); wherein the graphite particles include a bulk particles having an average diameter of 1 µm to 30 µm (see “1 micrometer” in [0032]) and fine particles having an average diameter that is equal to or more than 0.05 µm and less than 1 µm (see “0.1 micrometer” in [0031]), with a weight ratio of the bulk particles to the fine particles of 10:1 to 3:1 (see “9:1” in [0033]). Wang does not disclose the limitations crossed out above. Matsubara discloses a method for forming an electrode for a battery, wherein an active material composition (1) including graphite particles, a binder, and a solvent (see [0091]) is coated on a current collector (2). The solvent can be NMP (see [0095]). Matsubara teaches applying a magnetic field (using magnets 4; see Fig. 2 and [0096]) to the active material composition coated on the current collector to align the graphite particles (see [0098]), for enhanced discharge capacity and cycle life (see abstract). Jo teaches an active material for an electrode for a battery, comprising graphite particles, PVDF binder, and the solvent can be NMP. A current collector coated with the active material is introduced into a freeze-drying process to volatilize the solvent. See last two paragraphs on second page, and the entire third page except the last two paragraphs. In view of the teachings of Matsubara, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a magnetic field to align the graphite particles for each of the slurries coated onto the current collector (see Wang, [0036]), for the same benefits as disclosed by Matsubara. Further, in view of the teachings of Ho, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use freeze drying (which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to include freezing and subliming) to volatilize the NMP solvent, as a choice among conventional techniques for removing the solvent, with predictable results. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Jo and Matsubara, further in view of APA (admitted prior art). Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the graphite can be natural or artificial graphite (see [0017]). In the previous office action the examiner took official notice of the fact pyrolytic graphite is obtained by thermal decomposition. This statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03(C). Since Wang teaches the graphite could be artificial graphite, and APA teaches a known type of artificial graphite, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use pyrolytic graphite as the graphite used in the process of modified Wang. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 and 6 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. 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 LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET. 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 21, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12550268
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CIRCUIT WIRING BY THREE-DIMENSIONAL ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528254
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A 3D ELECTROMECHANICAL COMPONENT HAVING AT LEAST ONE EMBEDDED ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12506458
PACKAGING MODULE AND PACKAGING METHOD OF BAW RESONATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12501551
Method for Embedding a Component in a Printed Circuit Board
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12500494
METHOD FOR HARDENING A BRIDGE ASSEMBLY OF A ROTATIONAL BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+25.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 940 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