Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/206,672

BATTERY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 07, 2023
Examiner
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
851 granted / 1253 resolved
+2.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1306
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.1%
+9.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1253 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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. Specification The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted. 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 1-4 are 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 claim 1, Applicant claims “the metal layers facing each other” in lines 14-15. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this plurality of metal layers. As best understood, this appears to be directed toward the same metal layer defined in line 13, but its not clear how this metal layer turns into a plurality of metal layers facing each other. Clarification is required. In claim 1, Applicant claims “inner surfaces of the laminate film are welded to each other”. It is not clear how there are multiple inner surfaces of the laminate film. In the claim, there is only mention of a single laminate film. It is not clear how the laminate film can have multiple inner surfaces when there is a single laminate film covering the electrode body. Clarification is required. In claim 2, Applicant claims “the metal layer in the welded portion”. This is unclear which “metal layer” is being referred to. In claim 1, Applicant claims that there are multiple metal layers in the welded portion (see “in a welded portion, a first resin layer is disposed between the metal layers facing each other”, in lines 14-15 of claim 1). In claim 2, there is a recitation that “the metal layer” (singular) has a defined thickness. It is unclear which metal layer is being referred to. In claim 3, Applicant adds “an inner resin layer” to the claimed battery. However, it is not clear where this “inner resin layer” is located. Per the claim “the first resin layer and the second resin layer each include the inner resin layer”. Does this mean that the first and second resin layer are actually multiple layers of material including the inner resin layer AND the first resin layer or the inner resin layer AND the second resin layer, respectively? Clarification is required to address this indefiniteness. Allowable Subject Matter The claims, in their current form, appear to be allowable as no prior art documents were found to render the claim obvious. The closest prior art, JP2004111303A teaches a similar structure of a laminated film that wraps around a terminal of a battery and includes a metal layer and heat-sealed/welded resin layers around the terminal, but fails to teach or suggests the claimed laminate film being welded to itself at the corner portion of the current collector terminal. However, it is noted that there are several clarity issues with the claims, as noted above in the rejections under 35 USC 112 and a full search will still need to be conducted once these clarity issues are resolved. Relevant Prior Art JP2011249343A – Discloses a laminate film (41) that is wrapped around electrode leads/terminals and comprises resin layers 43b, metal layer 41b and two additional resin layers (41a and 41c). This document, however, fails to teach or suggest laminating the inner surfaces of the laminate film together. JP2004111303A – Discloses a current collector terminal disposed on a side surface portion of the electrode body and teaches heat sealing/welding a resin layer around the terminal. However, this reference does not teach the claimed laminate that is welded to itself at the corners of the terminal. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm. 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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. /MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 12, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 18, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 18, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603294
LITHIUM-ION SUPPLY ELECTRODE FOR REAL-TIME MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595177
CARBONACEOUS MATERIAL FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597638
SOLID ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE, ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY USING THE SAME AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586808
Apparatus and Method for Manufacturing Unit Cells
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583743
METHOD FOR CARBON FORMATION FREE OPERATION OF REFORMERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
68%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+9.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1253 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month