Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/149,422

SECONDARY BATTERY

Final Rejection §102§DP
Filed
Jan 03, 2023
Examiner
GILLIAM, BARBARA LEE
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
2 (Final)
20%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 10m
To Grant
31%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 20% of cases
20%
Career Allow Rate
20 granted / 102 resolved
-45.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 10m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
121
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 102 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 Amendment The amendment filed October 14, 2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-11 are pending. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/607306 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because KIM et al. claims a secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate, and a separator; a case accommodating the electrode assembly and having an opening; a cap plate coupled to and sealing the opening in the case; a first terminal plate on the cap plate and electrically connected to the first electrode plate; and a first current collector plate between the first terminal plate and the electrode assembly to electrically connect the first terminal plate to the electrode assembly, wherein the first current collector plate has a first protrusion that passes through the cap plate and is connected to the first terminal plate, wherein the first protrusion is at central area of the first terminal connection part and protrudes toward the cap plate and wherein the first current collector plate further comprise a first connection part that is vertically bent from the first terminal connection part toward the electrode assembly and extends to the first electrode connection part and is between the first terminal connection part between the first electrode connection parts. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments, filed October 14, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over KIM et al. and 35 USC 102(a)(2) over YONG et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of double patenting rejection is made in view of KIM et al. US 18/607306 (US 2025/0105471 A1). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In commonly owned US 2023/0207977, LEE teaches a secondary battery comprising: a case having an accommodating space therein; an electrode assembly in the case and having an uncoated portion at one end thereof; a current collector plate electrically connected to the uncoated portion of the electrode assembly, a region of the current collector plate welded to the uncoated portion having a smaller thickness than other regions of the current collector plate where the current collector plate contacts the uncoated portion; and a cap assembly sealing the case. In commonly owned US 2023/0178833 A1, YONG et al. teaches A secondary battery comprising: a case having an internal space; an electrode assembly accommodated in the internal space of the case;a current collector electrically connected to the electrode assembly; and a cap assembly comprising:a cap plate sealing the case; an electrode terminal coupled to the current collector and extending through the cap plate; a gasket between the electrode terminal and the cap plate and having a flange portion, the flange portion of the gasket being between an upper surface of the cap plate and the electrode terminal; and a fasteninq plate havinq a terminal hole throuqh which the electrode terminal passes and a protrusion protrudinq from an inner side of the terminal hole toward the electrode terminal, the protrusion of the fasteninq plate contactinq an upper surface of the flanqe portion of the qasket. 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 BARBARA GILLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM& 2nd Friday 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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. BARBARA L GILLIAM Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1727 /BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 03, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP
Oct 14, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12431493
NONAQUEOUS MAGNESIUM BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Patent 10998588
POWER STORAGE MODULE INCLUDING A COOLING MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted May 04, 2021
Patent 9831043
Electrochemical Energy Storage Systems and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 28, 2017
Patent 9722216
ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 01, 2017
Patent 9312562
BATTERY CELL PLATE FRAME ASSEMBLY AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 12, 2016
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
20%
Grant Probability
31%
With Interview (+11.3%)
4y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 102 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