Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/271,780

Electrode, Electrode Assembly, And Secondary Battery Comprising Same

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 11, 2023
Examiner
EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
440 granted / 764 resolved
-7.4% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
799
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
61.8%
+21.8% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 764 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed 7/11/23, 8/14/24, and 6/12/25 have been considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (JP 2003-151558). Regarding claim 1, Ishida teaches an electrode for a secondary battery (abstract) comprising: an electrode current collector, or electrode core material (11); and a mixture layer, or positive electrode mixture layer (13), and a gas adsorption layer, or linear coating of gas adsorption element (12) (Figure 1), wherein the mixture layer has a pattern structure, i.e. striped as seen in Figure 1, and wherein the gas adsorption layer (11) is disposed in a region where the mixture layer is not disposed (Figure 1). As for claim 2, it is seen in Figure 1 that the mixture layer (13) and gas adsorption layer (12) form one layer without irregularities on the surface). Regarding claim 4, Ishida teaches that the coating layer has a thickness of 0.03mm to 0.1mm (p. 4 of machine translation). As for claims 6-7, Ishida teaches that the gas adsorbent may be activated carbon ([0008]). With regard to claims 9-10, Ishida teaches the electrode discussed above in a secondary battery including both electrode having a gas adsorption layer (p. 9 claim 6 of the machine translation), a separator, and an electrolyte (abstract). 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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida. The teachings of Ishida as discussed above are incorporated herein. Regarding claim 3, Ishida teaches that the thickness of the positive electrode layer including the gas adsorption layer is, for example 140 µm wherein the current collector has a thickness of 20 µm (p. 7). For thickness of 60 µm or smaller, which falls within the range of 30-100 µm for the gas adsorption layer, the limitations of claim 3 are met. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima face case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 As for claim 5, Ishida is silent on the area of the gas adsorption layer relative to the mixture layer; however, Ishida teaches that both the thickness and the width of the gas adsorption layer are result effective (middle of p. 4 of machine translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to determine the optimum area of the gas adsorption layer. MPEP 2144.05 II B Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 2001-0095831). The teachings of Ishida as discussed above are incorporated herein. Ishida teaches that the gas adsorbent material may be a metal oxide (p. 4 of machine translation) but is silent on the metals of claim 8. Lee teaches a gas adsorbent metal oxide, specifically zirconium oxide (abstract). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use zirconium oxide such as suggested by Lee as the gas adsorbent material of Ishida and the results of the substitution, i.e. gas adsorption, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm. 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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. /ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603302
SINGLE CELL FOR FUEL CELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586797
SEPARATOR FOR FUEL CELL AND SINGLE CELL FOR FUEL CELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580272
NANOCOMPOSITE MEMBRANE, ELECTROLYTE-SEPARATOR COMPOSITE FOR A BATTERY, AND METHOD OF MAKING A NANOCOMPOSITE MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580260
CYLINDRICAL SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573699
BATTERY MODULE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
58%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+17.3%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 764 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