Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/085,051

SEPARATOR FOR FUEL CELL

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 20, 2022
Priority
Oct 13, 2022 — RE 10-2022-0131791
Examiner
SIDDIQUEE, MUHAMMAD S
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
805 granted / 1036 resolved
+12.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1053
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
86.9%
+46.9% vs TC avg
§102
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§112
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1036 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant amended the claims with added limitations and are rejected under new grounds of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al (US 20230038586 A1). Regarding claims 1-20, Shinozaki discloses a separator (30) for a fuel cell, which is stacked on a reaction layer (11) including a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) (12), the separator (30) comprising a plate body stacked on the reaction layer (11); a wave pattern (60a, 70, 60b) provided on one surface of the plate body that faces the reaction layer, the wave pattern being configured to define a reaction channel (32) disposed between the reaction layer and the plate body and provided in a first direction in which a reactant gas is supplied, so that the reactant gas flows along the reaction channel; and a land (31, 31a) continuously provided along a lateral end of the wave pattern, wherein an entire surface of the land (31, 31a) is in planar contact with the reaction layer (11) [Fig. 1-2; paragraph 0041-0082]. Conclusion 7. 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 MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Milton I Cano can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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. /MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
May 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jul 08, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683215
BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12683236
RUPTURE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A RUPTURE DEVICE
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12683198
INTELLIGENT BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12683227
BATTERY PACK WITH ENERGY ABSORBING END PLATE
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12671080
LITHIUM-ION BATTERY ANODE
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+20.1%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1036 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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