Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/153,962

SECONDARY BATTERY

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 12, 2023
Examiner
LU, ZIHENG NMN
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
45 granted / 55 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
83
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
66.5%
+26.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 55 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 amendments filed 12/10/2025 have been entered. Claim 1 is amended and Claims 12 and 13 are new. Support for the amendments can be found in Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0031, 0044, 0045, 0049 and 0051 of the instant specification. Claims 1-13 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amendments to Claim 1 (see page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks – side portion integrally formed with the upper section), Nakanishi teaches that the lid and cylinder are welded together (0078). Welding can be viewed as integrally forming the side and upper portions of the case. Additionally, examiner notes that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” (See MPEP 2144.04 V. B.) Regarding new Claim 12 (see page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks), Nakanishi teaches that the cap plate (part 53) is electrically connected to the second current collector plate via the terminal connector part (part 9). As the terminal connector part forms an outermost surface of the battery housing, it can be viewed as part of the case. Therefore, the cap plate would be electrically connected to the second current collector plate via the case. Claim Objections Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “the protrusion of cap plate” should read “the protrusion of the cap plate”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In Claims 7-10, it is unclear whether “the protrusion” refers to the protrusion in the cap plate or the protrusion protruding along an edge of the terminal hole. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that “the protrusion” refers to the protrusion protruding along an edge of the terminal hole. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakanishi (US 20040023107 A1, cited in the 8/24/2023 IDS). Regarding Claim 1, Nakanishi teaches a battery (Title) comprising an electrode assembly (part 4) and a case (part 5) accommodating the electrode assembly (Fig. 1). The case has a side portion (part 51) and an upper surface portion (0052) closing one end of the side portion (Fig. 1). The side portion and upper surface portion are welded together (0078) and can thus be viewed as integrally formed. The case has an opening at a first end opposite to the upper surface portion sized to accommodate the electrode assembly (part 53) and a terminal hole (parts 52 and 8) in the upper surface portion at a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 1 - the case has openings covered by lids and the lids have terminal holes). A first current collector plate (part 6) is electrically coupled to the electrode assembly (0082) and a terminal (part 7) is electrically connected to the current collector plate (0088) and extends through the terminal hole (Fig. 1). A cap plate (cover) seals the opening of the case (Fig. 1 – part 53). Due to the grooves (part 54) in the cap plate, the cap plate can be viewed as having protrusions. PNG media_image1.png 335 1090 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 1. The terminal comprises a head outside the case (part 8) and a fastening part (part 76) coupled to an inner surface of the case through the terminal hole in the case (Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 3, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 2. The fastening part has a larger diameter than the terminal hole in the case (Fig. 1 – parts 76 and 52) Regarding Claim 4, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 3. The battery comprises insulation members between the terminal and the case (parts 72 and 73; 0088). Regarding Claim 6, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 1. The stepped portions of the lid 52 can be viewed as protrusions protruding in one direction (horizontally) along an edge of the terminal hole (Fig. 1). PNG media_image2.png 494 722 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 9, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 6. The battery comprises an insulation member between the terminal and the case (insulators 72 and 73). The insulation member is coupled around an outer peripheral surface of the protrusion (Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 10, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 9. Nakanishi teaches that the insulation member is under pressure and forms an airtight seal between the lid and the terminal (0091). As the insulation member is in contact with both the protrusion and the terminal (Fig. 1), there would be pressure on both the protrusion and the terminal and therefore the protrusion can be seen as being compressed with the insulation member according to a shape of the terminal on the outside of the insulation member. Regarding Claim 11, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 6. The terminal is a negative terminal and the case has a positive polarity (0078). Regarding Claim 12, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 1. The battery comprises a second current collector plate (part 61) coupled to the electrode assembly and the case (Fig. 1). The cap plate is electrically connected to the second current collector plate via a terminal connecting part (Fig. 1 – parts 53, 61, and 9). As the terminal connector part forms an outermost surface of the case (Fig. 1), it can be viewed as part of the case. Thus, the cap plate is electrically connected to the second current collector via the case. Regarding Claim 13, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 1. The protrusion of the cap forms a bottom-most surface of the secondary battery (Fig. 1). 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 Nakanishi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wu (US 20210328313 A1). Regarding Claim 5, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 4. Nakanishi does not teach that the insulation member has a diameter gradually increasing toward the inside of the case according to a shape of the fastening part in a region where the terminal is inserted into the inside of the case. Wu teaches a battery with a terminal with a conical section (Figs. 11 and 30, part 130). Nakanishi and Wu are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary battery cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the terminal shape of Nakanishi with the conical terminal shape taught by Wu as it is a known terminal shape for a battery and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a terminal with a shape suitable for a battery. Modified Nakanishi teaches that the insulation member forms an airtight seal with the terminal and the case (0091). Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the insulation member to conform with the conical shape of the terminal of modified Nakanishi as changes in shape, absent any unexpected results, have been held to be obvious (See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B). This would result in the insulation member also having a conical shape, meaning that at least a portion of the insulation member would have a diameter gradually increasing toward the inside of the case according to a shape of the fastening part in a region where the terminal is inserted into the inside of the case. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nemoto (US 20180130995 A1). Regarding Claim 7, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 6. The protrusion of Nakanishi protrudes horizontally rather than toward the inside of the case. Nemoto teaches a battery where the lid comprises a protrusion toward the inside of the case (Fig. 2, part 11c1). The protrusion digs in to the insulating material and helps keep the lid sealed around the mounting/terminal hole (0058). Nakanishi and Nemoto are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary battery cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the case of Nakanishi to comprise a protrusion protruding toward the inside of the case along an edge of the terminal hole in order improve the sealing around the terminal hole. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Huang (US 20210234220 A1). Regarding Claim 8, Nakanishi teaches the battery of Claim 6. The protrusion of Nakanishi protrudes horizontally rather than toward the outside of the case. Huang teaches a battery comprising a case with a terminal hole (part 13), a terminal extending through the terminal hole (part 11), and an insulating/sealing member between the terminal and the case (parts 12 and 14) (Figs. 3 and 4). The case, along the edge of the terminal hole comprises a protrusion protruding toward the outside of the case (0066; Fig. 4) PNG media_image3.png 426 655 media_image3.png Greyscale The protrusion clamps the insulating/sealing member (part 12) and allows for a more stable arrangement of the insulating /sealing member (0066). Nakanishi and Huang are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary battery cases. The insulators of Nakanishi are used to maintain an airtight seal between the lid of the case and the terminal (0091) similar to the insulating/sealing members of Huang and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the case of Nakanishi to comprise a protrusion protruding toward the outside of the case along an edge of the terminal hole in order to allow for a more stable arrangement of the insulator/sealing member. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wong (US 20200212372 A1) teaches a battery housing where the side and upper surface portion are integrally formed and where the bottom plate/cap plate has a protrusion (Fig. 1). Phillips (US 20110086252 A1) teaches a battery housing where the side and upper surface portion are integrally formed and where the bottom plate/cap plate has a protrusion (Fig. 2F). Sumihiro (US 20100221599 A1) teaches a battery housing where the side and upper surface portion are integrally formed and where the bottom plate/cap plate has a protrusion (Fig. 1A). Wang (US 20200168884 A1) teaches a battery housing where the side and upper surface portions are integrally formed and the upper surface portion comprises a terminal hole (Fig. 2) Yokoo (US 20210066697 A1) teaches a battery where the electrode current collector is electrically connected to both the sides and bottom of the case (Fig. 1, parts 24a and 50). 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. /ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592442
Exterior Thermal Battery Cover
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580196
POSITIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, PREPARATION METHOD FOR SAME, POSITIVE ELECTRODE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12562431
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEPARATOR AND SEPARATOR MANUFACTURED THEREBY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12548851
SEPARATOR COATING MATERIALS FOR RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12537221
ELECTROLYTE FOR SECONDARY BATTERY AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
82%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+15.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 55 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