Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/173,059

BATTERY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 23, 2023
Examiner
SIDDIQUEE, MUHAMMAD S
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
SK On Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
793 granted / 1022 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1044
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
65.9%
+25.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1022 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2023 and 10/3/2023 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith. Drawings 4. The drawings were received on 2/23/2023. These drawings are acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20220037726 A1) Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a battery device comprising a plurality of cell assemblies (210) each including a plurality of battery cells; a housing including an accommodation space in which the plurality of cell assemblies are accommodated; and a cooling plate (150) installed in the housing to cool the plurality of cell assemblies, wherein the cooling plate includes a plurality of seating portions (115) on which the cell assemblies are seated, respectively, and a heat transfer delay portion (130) disposed between the plurality of seating portions and preventing or reducing heat transfer between the seating portions adjacent to each other [Fig. 3, 5, 7; paragraph 0054-0057, 0078-0081, 0083-0084, 0095-0098]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches that the heat transfer delay portion (130) is disposed in a direction intersecting a region between the plurality of seating portions adjacent to each other [Fig. 3, 5]. Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches that a width of the heat transfer delay portion disposed between seating portions adjacent to each other has a value of 1/2 or more of an opposing width of the seating portions adjacent to each other [Fig. 3, 5]. Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches that the cooling plate (150) is disposed on a lower side of the first housing (110) to cover a lower portion of the accommodation space [Fig. 3, 5]. Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches that the first housing includes a sidewall (113) forming an edge of the housing and a partition wall (250) intersecting the accommodation space to divide the accommodation space into a plurality of spaces in which the cell assemblies are accommodated, respectively, and wherein the sidewall and the partition wall are fastened to the cooling plate [Fig. 3, 5]. Regarding claims 13-15, providing fastening members and heat transfer member in a battery system is common in the art and is within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan and would be obvious. 9. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20220037726 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Nemesh et al (US 20160079637 A1). Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches a cooling member (150) for cooling the battery [paragraph 0095-0096], however, remains silent about refrigerant as a cooling media. However, it is known in the art to utilize refrigerant as a cooling media for cooling battery system as taught by Nemesh [Fig. 2-3; paragraph 0005, 0009, 0022, 0030]. And it would be obvious to dispose heat transfer delay portion in a region of the cooling plate in which the cooling passage is not disposed for safe operation. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches that the heat transfer delay portion (130) includes at least one opening (131) formed in the cooling plate [Fig. 3, 5]. 10. Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20220037726 A1) and Nemesh et al (US 20160079637 A1) as applied in claim 4 and further in view of Hantschel et al (US 20230015836 A1). Regarding claims 6-10, Choi/Nemesh remains silent about filler; however, it is known in the art to utilize filler such as mica for propagation protection element of a battery module as taught by Hantschel [paragraph 0141-0145]. It is well known that cooling passage is provided between two opposing plates and providing the openings therein is within the technical grasp of an ordinary skilled artisan and would be obvious. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. 11. Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20220037726 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Shin et al (US 20220115737 A1). Regarding claims 16-19, Choi remains silent about gas channel/gas outlet, however, in a battery system comprising plurality of battery modules having plurality of batteries is supplied with gas channel/gas outlet for safer operation by removing the gas generated within the system as taught by Shin [Fig. 1-7; paragraph 0016-0017, 0089-0091, 0104-0110]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. 12. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20220037726 A1) Regarding claim 20, Choi discloses a battery device, comprising a plurality of cell assemblies (210) each including a plurality of battery cells; a housing (110) including sidewalls forming an accommodation space (115) in which the plurality of cell assemblies (210) are accommodated, and a plurality of partition walls (250) intersecting the accommodation space to divide the accommodation space into a plurality of spaces in which the cell assemblies are accommodated, respectively; and a cooling plate (150) covering a lower portion of the accommodation space and fixed to the sidewall and the partition wall to cool the plurality of cell assemblies, wherein the plurality of cell assembly includes a casing (260) configured to cover the plurality of battery cells (220) in a state in which at least a portion of lower surfaces of the plurality of battery cells are exposed, and wherein the cooling plate (150) includes a plurality of seating portions on which lower surfaces of the cell assemblies are seated, respectively, and a heat transfer delay portion (130) disposed below the partition wall (250) and preventing or reducing heat transfer between the seating portions adjacent to each other [Fig. 3, 5, 7, 12; paragraph 0054-0057, 0078-0081, 0083-0084, 0095-0098, 0114-0119]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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

Feb 23, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603384
BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592398
FUEL CELL COMPRISING A BIPOLAR MODULE CAPABLE OF GENERATING HEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586845
PHASE CHANGE MATERIAL (PCM)-BASED CONDUCTIVE THERMAL ACTUATOR SWITCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586836
BATTERY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580243
BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+20.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1022 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