Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/233,053

METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
KOROVINA, ANNA
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
29%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 29% of cases
29%
Career Allow Rate
101 granted / 345 resolved
-35.7% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
390
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.7%
+12.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 345 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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. Claims 1-13 are pending and considered in the present Office action. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim (s) 10 and 13 is/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. Claim 10 makes reference to “the exterior member”, however, there are two exterior members (i.e., lid-shaped exterior member, and cup-shaped exterior member). It is unclear which exterior member claim 10 is limiting. Examiner assumes at least one of the cup-shaped exterior member or the lid-shaped exterior member comprises a step on an inner peripheral side. Claim 13, “ the end portion of the lid-shaped exterior member ” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner assumes “an end”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mori (JP 2019110024 , of record ), hereinafter Mori . Regarding Claim 1 , Mori suggests a method of manufacturing a secondary battery, the method comprising: providing an electrode assembly (35) in a cup-shaped exterior member (2); injecting an electrolytic solution (36) into the cup-shaped exterior member; providing a lid-shaped exterior member (3, 31, 37) so as to cover a cavity of the cup-shaped exterior member (2) with a lid and to be fitted into at least a part of the cavity, see Fig. 1, [0019-0023]; and irradiating a boundary portion between the cup- shaped exterior member and the lid-shaped exterior member facing each other with laser (41) to form a welded portion (e.g., 51, 53) by providing the lid-shaped exterior member (see e.g., Fig. 2A, 3A), wherein: each of the cup-shaped and lid-shaped exterior members includes a first extending surface constituting the boundary portion and a second extending surface facing the first extending surface while being spaced apart from each other, and the laser is emitted from the second extending surface of one of the cup-shaped and lid-shaped exterior members toward the second extending surface of the other of the cup-shaped and lid-shaped exterior members with the boundary portion interposed therebetween (see Figs. 2A and 3A). Regarding Claim 2 , Mori suggests the laser is emitted across the boundary portion , see e.g., Figs. 2A and 3A . Regarding Claim 3 , Mori suggests the laser is emitted so as to cross the boundary portion, see e.g., Figs. 2A and 3A. Regarding Claim 4 , Mori suggests the second extending surface is a side surface of the cup-shaped exterior member and a side surface of the lid-shaped exterior member , see e.g., Figs. 2A and 3A . Regarding Claim 5 , Mori suggests the one of the second extending surfaces of the cup-shaped and lid-shaped exterior members is a laser incident portion , see e.g., Figs. 2A and 3A . Regarding Claim 6 , Mori suggests the laser (41) is emitted from an outer peripheral side of the cup-shaped or lid-shaped exterior member toward an inner peripheral side with the boundary portion interposed therebetween , see e.g., Figs. 2A and 3A . Regarding Claim 7 , Mori suggests each of the cup-shaped and lid-shaped exterior members further includes a third extending surface (i.e., interface between 52 and 2) connecting an end portion of the first extending surface and an end portion of the second extending surface, and the cup-shaped or lid-shaped exterior member is irradiated with the laser (42) such that the welded portion (53) is formed to be spaced apart from the third extending surface of the cup-shaped and lid-shaped exterior member , i.e., 53 is spaced apart from the interface formed between 2 and 52, see e.g., Figs. 2B and 3B) . Regarding Claim 8 , Mori suggests in a sectional view, the lid-shaped exterior member (3, 31, 37) comprises an exterior member having a bottom portion (37) and a rising side portion (37) configured to rise from an outer peripheral edge of the bottom portion (see e.g., Fig. 3A) , and having an outer curved surface (i.e., corner, about 90° , see e.g., Figs. 3A and 4 ) formed of the bottom portion and the rising side portion . Regarding Claim 9 , Mori suggests the boundary portion has at least a contact region where the cup-shaped exterior member and the lid-shaped exterior member are in contact with each other, and the contact region is irradiated with the laser , see e.g., Figs. 3A . Regarding Claim 10 , Mori suggests the lid-shaped exterior member comprises a step on an inner peripheral side , see e.g., Figs. 3B and 410. Regarding Claim 11 , Mori suggests as the lid-shaped exterior member (3, 31, 37) , a member formed by further including a protruding portion (e.g., 52) continuous with the rising side portion (37) of the lid- shaped exterior member (3, 31, 37) and extending in a direction different from the extending direction of the rising side portion (i.e., protruding portion 52 extends in the X direction, while rising side portion 37 extends in the Y direction) . 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. 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. Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Shinohara (US 6,573,001), hereinafter Shinohara . Regarding Claim 12 , Mori does not suggest the cup-shaped exterior member and the lid-shaped exterior member each have a thickness of 300 µm or less. However, Shinohara suggests a sealed battery comprising a lid-shaped exterior member (i.e., 31) having a thickness T1, T3 fixed to a cup-shaped exterior member (i.e., 10 ) having a thickness L1, L2 , see e.g., Figs. 3-4 . Shinohara suggests the cup-shaped exterior member (10) and the lid-shaped exterior member (31) each have a thickness of 300 µm or less (i.e., 50 µm ≤ T3 ≤ T1 and 50 µm ≤ L1 ≤ L2 ) to reduced heat stress, leading to less incidence of cracking, thereby improving productivity , e.g., col. 6 lines 43-51, col. 7 line 45 – col. 8 line 60, and Figs. 9-10 . It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the cup-shaped exterior member and the lid-shaped exterior member each have a thickness of 300 µm or less with the expectation of reducing heat stress, thereby reducing the incidence of cracking, which results in improved productivity, as suggested by Shinohara. Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Shimizu (US 2022/0102789), hereinafter Shimizu . Regarding Claim 1 3 , Mori does not suggest the cup-shaped exterior member comprising a member in which an outer peripheral edge portion is curved such that an end portion of the cup-shaped exterior member is spaced apart from the end portion of the lid-shaped exterior member in a sectional view. However, Shimizu suggests a cup-shaped exterior (120) member comprising a member (110) in which an outer peripheral edge portion is curved (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 3, where 110 includes a surface S1 which is a ben t /oblique) such that, in a sectional view, an end portion of the cup-shaped exterior member (402, 414 , 330 ) is spaced apart from an end portion of the lid-shaped exterior member, see e.g., Fig. 3C , [0054] . The aforementioned structure enables a firm, hermetic, strong bond between the cup-shaped exterior member and the lid-shaped exterior member, which is easily performed by laser welding, [0037-0039, 0054, 0 102]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the cup-shaped exterior member comprises a member in which an outer peripheral edge portion is curved such that an end portion of the cup-shaped exterior member is spaced apart from a end portion of the lid-shaped exterior member in a sectional view with the expectation of forming a firm, hermetic, strong bond between the cup-shaped exterior member and the lid-shaped exterior member that is easily performed by laser welding, as suggested by Shimizu. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9835 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 7am - 6 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721481 . 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. /ANNA KOROVINA/ /ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583799
PARTITION MEMBER AND ASSEMBLED BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580181
COMPOSITE BATTERY ELECTRODE STRUCTURES COMPRISING HIGH-CAPACITY MATERIALS AND POLYMERS AND METHODS OF FORMING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580225
SOLID-STATE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559430
DOPED TITANIUM NIOBATE AND BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12542271
Lithium Secondary Battery
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
29%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (+24.3%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 345 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