Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/075,841

LITHIUM-ION BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK AND POWERED DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 06, 2022
Examiner
KLINE, SYDNEY LYNN
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
CONTEMPORARY AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
20 granted / 26 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
68
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
72.1%
+32.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 26 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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/30/2026 has been considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment In response to the amendment received on 11/12/2025: Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended and claim 8 is canceled. The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Claim Interpretation All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizu et al. JP-2015167149-A (hereinafter “Ishizu”) in view of Onoda et al. JP-2019029307-A (hereinafter “Onoda”), Lee et al. "A review of recent developments in membrane separators for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries,” 2014, Energy Environ. Sci., Pages 3857-3880 (hereinafter “Lee”), and Kaneko et al. US-20170338515-A1 (hereinafter “Kaneko”). Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Ishizu discloses lithium-ion battery (lithium secondary battery) (see paragraphs [0001]-[0002] and [0007]), comprising: an electrode assembly 20 and an electrolyte solution for impregnating the electrode assembly in Fig. 4 (see paragraphs [0018] and [0050]), wherein the electrode assembly 20 comprises a negative electrode sheet 22, a separator 21 and a positive electrode sheet 24, and the negative electrode sheet 22, the separator 21 and the positive electrode sheet 24 are wound into a wound structure in a winding direction, and wherein the wound structure comprises an arc bending portion in Figs. 2 and 4 (see paragraphs [0011]-[0016]); the arc bending portion comprises a first bending portion and a second bending portion; the first bending portion is an innermost arc bending portion (measured by r in Fig. 4) formed by winding the negative electrode sheet 22, and comprises a negative electrode current collector (negative electrode metal foil) 22a and a negative electrode material layer 22b located on a convex surface of the negative electrode current collector in Fig. 4 (see paragraphs [0013]-[0016]); the second bending portion is located on an outer side of the first bending portion and adjacent to the first bending portion with the separator 21 being therebetween, and comprises a positive electrode current collector (positive electrode metal foil) 24a and a positive electrode material layer 24b located on a concave surface of the positive electrode current collector in Fig. 4 (see paragraphs [0013]-[0016]); and R (radius of curvature r based on the inner surface of the negative electrode current collector 22a) is a minimum curvature radius of the convex surface of the negative electrode current collector 22a of the first bending portion, and L (thickness from 22a to 24a) is a shortest distance between the convex surface of the negative electrode current collector 22a of the first bending portion and the concave surface of the positive electrode current collector 24a of the second bending portion (see comparison of Fig. 1 of instant application to annotated Fig. 4 of Ishizu below) (see paragraphs [0014]-[0016]). PNG media_image1.png 499 467 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 1 of Instant Application PNG media_image2.png 691 607 media_image2.png Greyscale Fig. 4 of Ishizu annotated with r+L Ishizu further discloses R may be 150 μm (0.15 mm) and L may be about 92.5 μm (30 μm on one side of negative electrode current collector + 40 μm on one side of positive electrode current collector + 22.5 μm average separator thickness) (see paragraphs [0019] and [0022]). These values result in a coefficient β (derived from R/(R+L)) of approximately 0.62, which falls within and therefore anticipates the range for β of 0.015≤β≤0.95. Ishizu is not specific on the separator thickness. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium-ion battery separators, Lee discloses it is well-known in the art to use separators with a thickness of about 20-25 μm in lithium-ion batteries in order to have lower internal resistance and exhibit high energy and power densities (see pgs. 3857-3859 and Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a separator with a thickness of about 20-25 μm in the lithium-ion battery disclosed by Ishizu in order to have lower internal resistance and exhibit high energy and power densities, as is common in the art, as disclosed by Lee, and arrive an L value of about 92.5 μm. Ishizu additionally discloses this structure results in a reduction in lithium precipitation on the negative electrode (see paragraph [0045]). Ishizu also discloses the electrolyte is not particularly limited (see paragraph [0050]). Ishizu and Lee are silent on the electrolyte solution containing a fluorosulfonate salt and/or a difluorophosphate salt substance; and a percentage mass content w% of the fluorosulfonate salt and/or the difluorophosphate salt substance in the electrolyte solution and the corner lithium plating coefficient β satisfying a second formula of 0.01≤w × β≤20. However, in the same field of endeavor of preventing lithium precipitation in wound lithium-ion batteries (see paragraph [0008]), Onoda discloses including LiBOB and a fluorosulfonate salt substance in the electrolyte solution of lithium-ion wound batteries having R portions (curved surfaces between two flat portions) (see paragraphs [0007]-[0010], [0027], and [0046]). Onoda additionally discloses the use of lithium fluorosulfonate in the electrolyte reliably prevents lithium precipitation (see paragraphs [0010], [0027], and [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium-ion battery disclosed by Ishizu wherein the electrolyte solution containing a fluorosulfonate salt substance, as disclosed by Onoda, in order to reliably prevent lithium precipitation. Onoda also discloses the w% (wt%) of the lithium fluorosulfonate may preferably be 0.3 to 1.5 w% of the total amount of the nonaqueous electrolyte (see paragraph [0027]). With the coefficient β value disclosed by Ishizu and Lee of 0.62 (see above) a w × β value ranges from 0.186 to 0.93, which falls within and therefore anticipates the range of 0.015≤w × β≤20. Onoda additionally discloses including LiBOB and a fluorosulfonate salt within this range in the electrolyte to prevent unevenness in the formation of the SEI film and form a film derived from LiBOB in a substantially uniform manner, thereby suppressing lithium precipitation (see paragraph [0027]). Therefore, in the combined invention of Ishizu, Lee, and Onoda, the lithium-ion secondary battery would contain a percentage mass content w% of the fluorosulfonate salt substance in the electrolyte solution and the corner lithium plating coefficient β satisfying a second formula of 0.01≤w × β≤20, as Onoda discloses a proper wt% of the fluorosulfonate salt prevents unevenness in the formation of the SEI film and form a film derived from LiBOB in a substantially uniform manner, thereby suppressing lithium precipitation. Onoda also discloses the electrolyte may further contain fluoroethylene carbonate (MFEC) as appropriate compound in the nonaqueous electrolyte (see paragraph [0024]). Ishizu, Onoda, and Lee are silent on a percentage mass content of the fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte solution is 0.01% to 15% and 0.1% to 2%. However, in the same field of endeavor of electrolytes in lithium-ion batteries (see abstract), Kaneko discloses an electrolyte comprising VC, fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), and a boron complex (preferably LiBOB) as additives, with fluoroethylene carbonate being included in an amount of preferably 1.0 mass % or more and 2.0 mass % or less (a skilled artisan would recognize mass % is an equivalent measurement to percentage mass) (see paragraphs [0018], [0034], [0036], [0039], and [0104]). This range falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed ranges of a percentage mass content of the fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte solution of 0.01% to 15% (meeting Claim 1) and 0.1% to 2% (meeting Claim 15). Kaneko additionally discloses when the mass % conditions are satisfied, a good SEI film can be formed on an electrode and if the fluoroethylene carbonate content is too high, the amount of gas generated during charging/discharging will be large so that the cycle characteristics will deteriorate (see paragraph [0034]). A skilled artisan would as such recognize this as an appropriate amount of fluoroethylene carbonate to include in the nonaqueous electrolyte of modified Ishizu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium-ion secondary battery disclosed by Ishizu and Lee wherein the electrolyte solution contains fluoroethylene carbonate and a percentage mass content of the fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte solution falls within 0.01% to 15% and 0.1% to 2%, as disclosed by Onoda and Kaneko, in order to achieve good SEI film formation and avoid deterioration of cycle characteristics. Regarding Claim 2, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). In the combined invention of Ishizu, Onoda, and Lee (see claim 1 above), the w% disclosed by Onoda of the lithium fluorosulfonate is 0.3 to 1.5 w% of the total amount of the nonaqueous electrolyte (see paragraph [0027]) and the coefficient β is 0.62, achieved from the R and L values disclosed by Ishizu in view of Lee of 150 μm and 92.5 μm, respectively. This results in a w × β ranging from 0.186 to 0.93, which falls within and therefore anticipates the range of 0.02≤w × β≤5. Regarding Claim 3, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). As in Claim 1 above, Ishizu discloses R may be 150 μm (0.15 mm) and L may be about 92.5 μm (30 μm on one side of negative electrode current collector + 40 μm on one side of positive electrode current collector + 22.5 μm average separator thickness) (see paragraphs [0019] and [0022]). These values result in a coefficient β (derived from R/(R+L)) of approximately 0.62, which falls within and therefore anticipates the range for β of 0.015≤β≤0.8. Ishizu is not specific on the separator thickness. However, Lee discloses it well-known in the art to use separators with a thickness of about 20-25 μm in lithium-ion batteries in order to have lower internal resistance, and exhibit high energy and power densities (see pgs. 3857-3859 and Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a separator with a thickness of about 20-25 μm in order to have lower internal resistance, and exhibit high energy and power densities, as is common in the art, as disclosed by Lee, and arrive an L value of about 92.5 μm which results in a β value of approximately 0.62. Regarding Claims 4 and 10, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). As discussed in Claim 1 above, Ishizu discloses R may be 150 μm (0.15 mm) (see paragraph [0022]), which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of R being 2 μm to 5000 μm (meeting Claim 4) and 50 μm to 500 μm (meeting Claim 10). Regarding Claims 5 and 11, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). As discussed in Claim 1 above, Ishizu in combination with Lee discloses an L value of approximately 92.5 μm, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of L being 20 μm to 900 μm (meeting Claim 5) and 50 μm to 500 μm (meeting Claim 11). Regarding Claim 6, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ishizu, Lee, and Kaneko are silent on a structural formula of the fluorosulfonate salt being (FSO3)xMx+, wherein Mx+ is selected from one or two more of Li+, Na+, K+, Rb+, Cs+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Ba2+, Al3+, Fe2+, Fe3+, Ni2+and Ni3+ and a structural formula of the fluorosulfonate salt being (F2PO2)yMy+, wherein My+ is selected from one or two more of Li+, Na+, K+, Rb+, Cs+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Ba2+, Al3+, Fe2+, Fe3+, Ni2+and Ni3+. However, Ononda discloses using lithium fluorosulfonate (a fluorsulfonate salt) with the formula FSO3Li (see paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0010], and [0027]). A skilled artisan would understand that a salt has an ionic bond and as such the charge on Li would be Li+ and, to balance the charges, the subscript on FSO3 would be 1. As such, this formula falls within and therefore anticipates the general formula of (FSO3)xMx+, wherein Mx+ is selected from one or two more of Li+, Na+, K+, Rb+, Cs+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Ba2+, Al3+, Fe2+, Fe3+, Ni2+and Ni3+. Onoda additionally discloses the use of lithium fluorosulfonate in the electrolyte reliably prevents lithium precipitation (see paragraphs [0010], [0027], and [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium-ion battery disclosed by Ishizu, Lee, and Kaneko wherein the electrolyte solution contains lithium fluorosulfonate with the formula as disclosed by Onoda, in order to reliably prevent lithium precipitation. Regarding Claims 7 and 12-14, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above). Ishizu, Lee, and Kaneko are silent on the percentage mass content w% of the fluorosulfonate salt and/or the difluorophosphate salt substance in the electrolyte solution having a range of 0.02% to 25%, 0.02% to 20%, 0.05% to 10%, and/or 0.1 % to 5%. However, Onoda discloses the w% (wt%) of the lithium fluorosulfonate may preferably be 0.3 to 1.5 w% of the total amount of the nonaqueous electrolyte (see paragraphs [0026]-[0027]). This range falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed ranges of the percentage mass content w% of the fluorosulfonate salt substance in the electrolyte solution having a range of 0.02% to 25% (meeting Claim 7), 0.02% to 20% (meeting Claim 12), 0.05% to 10% (meeting Claim 13), and 0.1 % to 5% (meeting Claim 14). Onoda additionally discloses including LiBOB and a fluorosulfonate salt within this range to the electrolyte prevents unevenness in the formation of the SEI film and form a film derived from LiBOB in a substantially uniform manner, thereby suppressing lithium precipitation (see paragraphs [0010], [0027], and [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium-ion secondary battery disclosed by Ishizu, Lee, and Kaneko wherein the percentage mass content w% of the fluorosulfonate salt substance in the electrolyte solution falls in a range of 0.02% to 25%, 0.02% to 20%, 0.05% to 10%, and/or 0.1 % to 5%, as disclosed by Onoda, in order to prevent unevenness in the formation of the SEI film and form a film derived from LiBOB in a substantially uniform manner, thereby suppressing lithium precipitation. Regarding Claim 17, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ishizu further discloses a battery module (battery can) 19 comprising one or more of the lithium-ion battery according to the aforementioned claim 1 in Figs. 1 and 3 (see paragraphs [0002], [0011], and [0051]). Regarding Claim 18, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above). Ishizu further discloses a battery pack (lithium secondary batteries have excellent volumetric efficiency when packed i.e., lithium secondary batteries in a battery pack) comprising one or more of the battery module according to the aforementioned claim 17 (see paragraphs [0002] and [0051]). Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizu in view of Onoda, Lee, and Kaneko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inagaki US-20080176142-A1 (hereinafter “Inagaki”). Regarding Claims 9 and 16, modified Ishizu discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ishizu, Onoda, Lee, and Kaneko are silent on the porosity of the negative electrode active layer being 20% to 50% and/or 30% to 50%. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium-ion batteries (batteries in which lithium ions are transferred between a negative electrode and a positive electrode to charge and discharge) (see abstract and paragraphs [0006]-[0007]), Inagaki discloses forming a negative electrode active material layer with a porosity of 32.1%, 32.7%, 37.4%, 39.6%, etc. (see paragraphs [0055], [0078], and [0206] and Tables 4 and 5). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the porosity of the negative electrode active layer being 20% to 50% (meeting Claim 9) and/or 30% to 50% (meeting Claim 16). Inagaki additionally discloses proper porosity results in the ability of impregnation with the nonaqueous electrolyte being outstandingly improved, making it possible to attain an excellent large-current performance and cycle performance (see paragraphs [0055] and [0250] and Tables 4 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium-ion secondary battery disclosed by Ishizu, Onoda, Lee, and Kaneko wherein the porosity of the negative electrode active layer is 20% to 50% and/or 30% to 50%, as disclosed by Inagaki, in order to attain an excellent large-current performance and cycle performance. 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 SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm. 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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. /S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729 /ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 12, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597643
LAMINATED ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597612
NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580240
Battery Pack for Exchangeable Insertion into a Receiving Compartment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580190
POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12548810
BATTERY, ELECTRIC APPARATUS, METHOD FOR PREPARING BATTERY, AND APPARATUS FOR PREPARING BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 26 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