Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/221,688

POWER STORAGE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 13, 2023
Examiner
SCHULER, JACOB JEROME
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-65.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
5 currently pending
Career history
5
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
76.5%
+36.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 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 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. Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (JP 2015195191A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 26 November 2024, is used for rejection below) in view of Lee et al. (KR 102729830B1, English equivalent US20240063476, provided in the IDS mailed on 26 August 2024, is used for the rejection below). Regarding claim 1, Ogata discloses a power storage device [0009] comprising: an electrode body [0013]; and an exterior body that accommodates the electrode body and that is made of a laminate film (figure 1, exterior material 1), wherein: the laminate film includes a metal layer (figure 1, intermediate layer 5-aluminum foil layer [0060]) and a resin layer laminated on a surface of the metal layer facing the electrode body (innermost layer 6-thermoplastic resin layer –[0060]); a through hole penetrating the metal layer in a thickness direction is provided in the metal layer (figure 1, hole 2); and wherein the laminate film further includes a resin portion disposed in the through hole (figure 1, embedded portion 7 which may be formed from resin or metal [0063]). However, Ogata does not disclose wherein the diameter of the through hole disposed through the metal layer of the laminate film is 3 mm or more and 10 mm or less. Lee discloses a power storage device having a through hole (figure 2, degassing hole 113a) disposed through a metal layer in the laminate film that has a diameter of 1 mm to 9 mm [0025]. The range of 1 mm to 9 mm of the degassing hole in Lee includes the range of 3 mm or more and 10 mm or less diameter disclosed within the present application, and is used to facilitate diffusion of gas out of the power storage device [0027]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the area before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power storage device disclosed by Ogata so that the through hole in the metal layer has the set dimensions disclosed by Lee to facilitate diffusion of gas out of the power storage device. Regarding claim 3, Ogata discloses the power storage device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the resin portion includes a resin material of a kind different from a material used for the resin layer [0063]-[0064]. Ogata discloses that the embedded portion 7 can be formed from polyolefin resins such as polyethylene and polypropylene while the innermost layer 6 can be formed from polyethylene, polypropylene, and ethylen-propylen copolymers to allow gas to diffuse through the laminate film. As such, Ogata teaches that the resin portion and the resin layer can be formed from different resins and still facilitate diffusion of the gas through the laminar film. Regarding claim 4, Ogata discloses the power storage device of claim 3, and further discloses a resin material having a lower moisture permeability than the material used for the resin layer. As previously described with relation to Claim 3, Ogata discloses that the embedded portion 7 and the innermost layer 6 can each be constructed from polyethylene or polypropylene while maintaining the diffusion of gas out of the laminate film. As polyethylene and polypropylene are different polymers with different moisture permeabilities, and can be used interchangeably for the embedded portion and the innermost layer, Ogata discloses where the resin material used for the resin portion can have a lower moisture permeability than the resin material used for the innermost layer. Regarding claim 5, Ogata discloses the power storage device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an area ratio of the through hole to an area of the metal layer is 3% or more and 40% or less. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144. Regarding claim 6, Ogata discloses the power storage device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a hole that is macroscopically visible is not provided in the resin layer (figure 1, innermost layer 6). As shown in figure 1 of Ogata, the innermost layer 6 has no holes extending through the layer that are macroscopically visible. Additionally, Lee also discloses a resin layer (figure 2, polymer layer 16) that has macroscopically visible holes extending through the resin layer. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (JP 2015195191A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 26 November 2024, is used for rejection below) in view of Lee et al. (KR 102729830B1, an English equivalent US20240063476, provided in the IDS mailed on 26 August 2024, is used for the rejection below) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Naritomi et al. (US 20140065472A1). Regarding claim 2, Ogata discloses the power storage device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a part of the resin layer protruding into the through hole serves as the resin portion. Naritomi discloses a power storage device having a metal layer and a resin layer with a part of the resin layer protruding into a through hole of the metal layer to serve as the resin portion (figure 11, resin composition 64). As disclosed in Naritomi, the resin composition 64 is used to seal gaps within the lid 61 to assist in limiting the flow of gas out of the battery to extend the life of the battery [0128]-[0129] As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the embedded portion and the innermost layer disclosed by Ogata so that the embedded portion is a part of the innermost layer to better control the flowrate of the gas out of the battery module. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JEROME SCHULER whose telephone number is (571)272-8487. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm. 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 5712721330. 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. /J.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1727 /BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

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
Grant Probability
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 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