Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/214,984

BATTERY AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE USING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 27, 2023
Examiner
LEE, DANIEL H.
Art Unit
1746
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BYD Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
381 granted / 542 resolved
+5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
560
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§102
9.9%
-30.1% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 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 . Claim Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 10, please correct “a battery occupying in the accommodating space”. Removing “in” would suffice. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj et al. (“Bhardwaj”, US 9,040,187 B2) in view of Rockford (US 2016/0093861 A1). Regarding claims 1 and 10, Bhardwaj discloses a battery pack with cells (i.e. electrode cores) of different capacities electrically coupled in parallel (title). Bhardwaj depicts in Fig. 2 cells having different thicknesses and/or sizes (4:22-33). Bhardwaj teaches conductive tabs may extend through seals in the pouch to provide terminals for battery cells, which may then be used to electrically couple a battery cell with one or more other battery cells to form a battery pack (4:54-60). In Fig. 5, Bhardwaj depicts a portable electronic device (i.e. housing) with a processor, display, and memory (i.e. plurality of functional devices). Bhardwaj does not explicitly teach accommodating grooves. However, Rockford discloses a power supply system for a portable electronic device (abstract) and teaches that one way to increase the structural soundness of a housing of a portable electronic devices [sic] is to add structural ribs or stiffening features to the housing ([0020]). These types of structural support features can make the portable electronic device less susceptible to damage and in some cases can include integrated features for helping to mount various internal components within the housing ([0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include structural ribs or stiffening features (which form the claimed accommodating grooves) in order to increase structural soundness and make the device less susceptible to damage, as taught by Rockford. Regarding claims 2-3 and 11-12, Bhardwaj depicts in Fig. 1 the wiring connections between cells through conductive tabs and terminals (4:54-60) and shows a plurality of connection portions and a plurality of wire sections (Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that there are many ways to make the electrical connections using one or more wires and one or more tabs and terminals, including disposing on circumferences and integrally forming a terminal with a wire section. Regarding claims 4 and 13, Bhardwaj depicts gaps between cells with an electrical connection (i.e. wire portion) depicted in the gap (Fig. 1), which reads on embedded in the gap. Regarding claims 5 and 14, Bhardwaj teaches jelly rolls enclosed in a flexible pouch, which is formed by folding a flexible sheet along a fold line, followed by sealing by applying heat along a side seal and along a terrace seal (4:47-53). Bhardwaj teaches folding a single flexible sheet instead of a first and second packaging film. However, folding a single sheet followed by sealing the edges and sealing two sheets together is considered an obvious difference. Accommodating grooves would necessarily be present to conform to the shape of the battery cell / jelly roll. Regarding claims 6 and 15, Bhardwaj does not expressly teach the lead-out portions of the electrode cores and the connection wiring are disposed closer to the first packaging film than to the second packaging film. However, deciding which part of the sheet/film to place components closer to is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art and simply a matter of design choice. Regarding claims 7 and 16, Bhardwaj depicts a battery cell in Fig. 3, where a jelly roll is enclosed in a flexible pouch, which is formed by folding a flexible sheet along a fold line and sealed, for example, by applying heat along a side seal and along a terrace seal (4:47-53). Conductive tabs may extend through seals in the pouch (for example, formed using sealing tape) to provide terminals (4:54-60), as discussed above. Regarding claims 8 and 17, Bhardwaj depicts electrical connections (see Fig. 1) but does not expressly teach the outer side of the wire portion is covered with an insulating film. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an insulated wire in Bhardwaj to prevent short circuit, as is well known in the art. Regarding claims 9 and 18, Bhardwaj teaches cells of different thickness and/or sizes (4:22-32). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0183169 A1 discloses battery with multiple jelly rolls in a single pouch. US 2016/0336562 A1 discloses packaging of bare cell stacks within device enclosures for portable electronic devices. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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. DANIEL H. LEE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1746 /DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12261143
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SUBSTRATE LAYERED BODY AND LAYERED BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 25, 2025
Patent 12241004
MEMBRANES COMPRISING A THERMALLY CURED ADHESIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 04, 2025
Patent 12215254
Honeycomb Core Splice Adhesive with Improved Fire Retardancy
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 04, 2025
Patent 12213868
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FILAMENT WINDING OF BIOCOMPATIBLE THREADS AND MANUFACTURED FABRIC PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 04, 2025
Patent 12203597
TANK AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR TANK
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 21, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+25.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 542 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