Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/086,153

Case for Secondary Battery, and Secondary Battery, Module, and Device Comprising Same

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 21, 2022
Examiner
NEDIALKOVA, LILIA V
Art Unit
1724
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
SK On Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
233 granted / 423 resolved
-9.9% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
476
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 423 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on November 18, 2025. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 2, 4 and 5 are canceled. Claims 1, 3 and 6-16 are pending review in this action. The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of the filed Replacement Drawings. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on December 1, 2025 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 3 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the newly added limitation: “wherein the polyolefin-based resin layer and the metal layer are covered only by the polymer resin film layer and do not contact the reinforcing layer”. This limitation does not appear to be supported by the specification. Specifically, in addition to being covered by the polymer resin film layer (261), the polyolefin-based resin layer (21c) is also covered by metal layer (21b) and the other polyolefin-based resin layer (22c). Similarly, in addition to being covered by the polymer resin film layer (261), the metal layer (21b/22b) is also covered by protective layer (21a/22a) and polyolefin-based resin layer (21c/22c) (see instant figures 5-7). In addition, the specification does not appear to explicitly or implicitly teach that the metal layer (21b/22b) does not contact the reinforcing layer (262). The text of the specification is silent on this issue. Applicant appears to rely on the figures, however even the figures do not appear to support such an assertion – specifically, it appears that the corner of each metal layer (21b/22b) is in fact in contact with a corner of the reinforcing layer (262) (see instant figures 5-8). Claim 1 further recites the newly added limitation: “the reinforcing layer surrounds the polymer resin layer while contacting only the protective layer”. This limitation does not appear to be supported by the specification. Specifically, in addition to contacting the protective layer (21a/22a), the reinforcing layer (262) contacts at least the polymer resin layer (261) and the sealant disposed on the electrode terminal (241) (see paragraphs [0057, 0060, 0062] and figures 5-8). Claim Interpretation A review of the instant figures and specification appears to suggest that the amendments, which have triggered the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) above, were intended to be directed to the following instantly described features of the case for a secondary battery. The polyolefin-based resin layer (21c/22c) is covered by the polymer resin layer (261) and does not contact the reinforcing layer (262). The reinforcing layer (262) surrounds the polymer resin layer (261) and contacts the protective layer (21a/22a), but does not contact the polyolefin-based resin layer (21c/22c). In the interest of compact prosecution, the following rejections are provided to address the instant claims in view of the above features. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 3, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0028417, hereinafter Yim. Regarding claim 1, Yim teaches a battery case (200). The battery case (200) accommodates an electrode assembly (100) of a secondary battery (paragraph [0057] and figure 6). The battery case (200) comprises a lower case (220) and an upper case (210). The upper case (210) is disposed on an upper side of the lower case (220) (paragraph [0057] and figure 5). The lower case (220) and the upper case (210) are fused at a sealing part (230) to seal the case (200) (paragraph [0059] and figure 5). The sealing part (230) comprises a first sealing part, in which an electrode terminal (110) connected to the electrode assembly (100) exists (figure 6). The sealing part (230) comprises a second sealing part, which is a remaining area except for the first sealing part (figure 6). The edge of the first sealing part is laminated with a polyolefin-based resin layer (213), a metal layer (212) and a protective layer (211) (paragraphs [0034-0036] and figure 5). The battery case (200) comprises a polymer resin layer (241) formed on an edge of the first sealing part and a reinforcing layer (242) surrounding the polymer resin layer (241) (paragraphs [0047, 0050, 0054] and figure 3). The polyolefin-based resin layer (213) and the metal layer (212) are covered by the polymer resin layer (241) and do not contact the reinforcing layer (242) (figure 3). The reinforcing layer (242) surrounds the polymer resin layer (241) and contacts the protective layer (211), but does not contact the polyolefin-based resin layer (213) and the metal layer (212) (figure 3). Regarding claim 3, Yim teaches that the first sealing part comprises a sealing part existing in a portion where the electrode terminal (110) protrudes and a sealing part which is a remaining area except for the portion where the electrode terminal (110) protrudes. The edges of all sealing parts are not exposed to the outside by the reinforcing layer (242) (figure 6). Regarding claim 12, Yim teaches that the reinforcing layer (242) is a single layer (figure 3). Regarding claim 14, Yim teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (100) (paragraph [0064] and figure 6). The electrode assembly (100) comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraph [0005]). The secondary battery further comprises the battery case (200) according to claim 1 for accommodating the electrode assembly (100) (paragraph [0067]). Regarding claim 15, Yim teaches a battery module comprising the secondary battery of claim 14 (paragraph [0019]). Regarding claim 16, Yim teaches a device comprising the battery module as a power source (paragraph [0003]). Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0219847, hereinafter Hong. Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches a battery case (120). The battery case (120) accommodates an electrode assembly (110) of a secondary battery (100) (paragraph [0019] and figure 1). The battery case (120) comprises a lower case (122) and an upper case (121). The upper case (121) is disposed on an upper side of the lower case (122) (paragraph [0030] and figure 2). The lower case (122) and the upper case (121) are fused at a sealing part (124 and 126) to seal the case (120) (paragraphs [0032, 0049] and figure 4). The sealing part (124 and 126) comprises a first sealing part, in which an electrode terminal (114) connected to the electrode assembly (110) exists (figure 4). The sealing part (124 and 126) comprises a second sealing part, which is a remaining area except for the first sealing part (figure 4). The edge of the first sealing part is laminated with a polyolefin-based resin layer (120c), a metal layer (120a) and a protective layer (120b) (paragraphs [0025-0029] and figures 2 and 3). The battery case (120) comprises a polymer resin layer (142) formed on an edge of the first sealing part and a reinforcing layer (141) surrounding the polymer resin layer (142) (paragraphs [0021, 0041-0044] and figure 3). The polyolefin-based resin layer (120c) and the metal layer (120a) are covered by the polymer resin layer (142) and do not contact the reinforcing layer (141) (figure 3). The reinforcing layer (141) surrounds the polymer resin layer (142) and contacts the protective layer (120b), but does not contact the polyolefin-based resin layer (120c) and the metal layer (120a) (figure 3). Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hong teaches that the polymer resin layer (142) is a silicone-based adhesive (paragraph [0043]). Regarding claim 9, Hong teaches that the reinforcing layer (141) is an epoxy resin (paragraph [0042]). Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is proviso upon the limitation "rubber-based resin", which is not required by claim 9; therefore the limitations of claim 10 do not come into force. Regarding claim 12, Hong teaches that the reinforcing layer (141) is a single layer (figure 3). Regarding claim 13, Hong teaches that the polymer resin layer (142) is a silicone-based adhesive and the reinforcing layer (141) is an epoxy resin (paragraphs [0042, 0043]). Silicone and epoxy have different vitrification temperatures. Regarding claim 14, Hong teaches a secondary battery (100) comprising an electrode assembly (110) (paragraph [0020] and figure 1). The electrode assembly (110) comprises a positive electrode (111), a negative electrode (112) and a separator (113) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraph [0022]). The secondary battery further comprises the battery case (120) according to claim 1 for accommodating the electrode assembly (110) (paragraph [0020]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0028417, hereinafter Yim as applied to claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0197642, hereinafter Boday. Regarding claims 6 and 7, Yim teaches that the polymer resin layer (241) may be a resin used for conformal coating (paragraphs [0048, 0050]). Yim fails to teach a specific resin. It is well known in the art that resins used for a conformal coating include silicones and epoxies – see, e.g. Boday (paragraph [0011]). Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select silicone resin or an epoxy resin for the material of the polymer resin layer (241) without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results. Silicone resin and epoxy resin are both thermosetting resins. Regarding claim 11, Yim teaches that the reinforcing layer (242) may be nylon (paragraphs [0034, 0060]). Yim teaches that the polymer resin layer (241) may be a resin used for a conformal coating (paragraphs [0048, 0050]). Yim fails to teach a specific resin. It is well known in the art that resins used for conformal coating include silicones and epoxies – see, e.g. Boday (paragraph [0011]). Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a silicone resin or an epoxy resin for the material of the polymer resin layer (241) without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results. Nylon and epoxy resin/silicone resin have different vitrification temperatures. Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0219847, hereinafter Hong. Regarding claims 8 and 13, Hong teaches that the combined thickness of the polymer resin layer (142) and the reinforcing layer (141) is 50 µm or less (paragraph [0044]). The two are shown to have approximately equal thicknesses in the area of the stepped part (128) (figure 3). It is thus understood that each of the polymer resin layer (142) and the reinforcing layer (141) has a thickness of 25 µm or less. Hong’s optimum range overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of 10 µm to 300 µm and 10 µm to 800 µm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0219847, hereinafter Hong as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0028417, hereinafter Yim. Regarding claims 15 and 16, Hong teaches a secondary battery cell (100) (paragraph [0003]). Hong fails to teach a battery module. It is well-known in the art to assemble a plurality of battery cells into a battery module for the purpose of powering various electronic devices – see, e.g. Yim (paragraph [0019]). Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assemble a plurality of Hong’s battery cells into a battery module for the purpose of powering an electronic device. Response to Arguments Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the previously presented Yim reference and the newly provided Hong reference have been found to address the amended claims as detailed above. 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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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. /STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724 LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA Examiner Art Unit 1724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Nov 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 09, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603277
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586818
DEXTRIN-DADMAC BASED DOUBLE NETWORK POLYMER GEL ELECTROLYTE, METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME AND ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580252
Pouch-Type Battery Case and Pouch-Type Secondary Battery
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12531310
SEPARATOR FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12476277
SOLID ELECTROLYTE, METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME, AND LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SOLID ELECTROLYTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 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
55%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+21.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 423 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