Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/271,812

Electrode Stack For Lithium Secondary Battery And Lithium Secondary Battery Including The Same

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 11, 2023
Examiner
GATEWOOD, DANIEL S
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
850 granted / 1096 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
1157
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.7%
+13.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1096 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
ELECTRODE STACK FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/17/2025, 4/11/2025, 9/18/2024, and 7/11/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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 1-4, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deschamps et al. (US 2015/0311491 A1) and further in view of Bak et al. (US 2009/0253043 A1). Regarding claims 1, 8, and 10-13, Deschamps et al. disclose electrode stack for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract discloses a stack of battery cells for a lithium battery.), comprises: one or more positive electrodes (Fig. 5, elements 3 and 4 disclose a positive electrode active material and a positive current collector, respectively.) and one or more negative electrodes (Fig. 5, elements 1” and 1’ disclose a negative electrode active material and a negative current collector, respectively.) alternatingly stacked with a separator (Fig. 5, element 2 disclose an electrolyte between the positive and negative electrode.) therebetween, wherein an insulation layer is formed on at least one outermost one of the one or more positive electrodes of the electrode stack (Fig. 5, element 7 discloses an outer protective film. Further, claim 19 discloses the protective film placed on the outer face consists of an elastomer material such as SBR or polybutadiene which are insulating materials.), wherein each of the one or more positive electrodes includes a positive electrode collector (Fig. 5, element 4); a positive electrode active material layer (Fig. 5, element 3); and a protective layer disposed between the positive electrode collector and the positive electrode active material layer (Fig. 5, element 6 discloses an inner protective layer.), wherein the protective layer includes an inorganic compound (Paragraph 0054 discloses the addition of carbon black which is an inorganic compound due to it being an amorphous carbon lacking carbon-hydrogen bonds.). However, Deschamps et al. do not teach wherein the insulation layer has an average thickness of 1 µm to 8 µm comprising a lithium iron phosphate-based oxide. Bak et al. teach a secondary battery, which may include an electrode assembly (Abstract). The electrode assembly (Fig. 2, element 200) may include a positive electrode plate (Fig. 2, element 210) provided with a positive electrode active material layer (Fig. 2, element 213), a negative electrode plate (Fig. 2, element 220) provided with a negative electrode active material layer (Fig. 2, element 223), a separator interposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (Fig. 2, element 230) and an insulation coating layer coated on the positive electrode plate (Fig. 2, element 215). The insulation coating layer may include a first coating layer (Fig. 2, element 215a. Further, paragraphs 0009; 0041 disclose the first coating layer can comprise LiFePO4.) coated on the positive electrode coating portion (See Abstract; paragraphs 0025-0028). Finally, the first coating layer (equated to the insulation layer of the present claim) can have a thickness ranging 1-10 µm (Paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deschamps with Bak in order to improve durability and thermal stability. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Deschamps and Bak et al. teach the electrode stack of claim 1. Further, Deschamps et al. teach wherein the one or more of the positive electrodes includes at least two positive electrodes (Claim 9; Fig. 2-5 disclose several battery cells comprising multiple (five) positive electrodes, elements 3 and 4.). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Deschamps and Bak et al. teach the electrode stack of claim 2. Further, Deschamps et al. teach wherein each of the outermost positive electrodes is a single-sided positive electrode having the positive electrode active material layer formed on one side of the positive electrode collector of each of the outermost positive electrodes, one of the outermost positive electrodes is disposed on a first outermost side of the electrode and another outermost side of the electrode stack and another outermost positive electrode is disposed on a second outermost sides of the electrode stack, and the insulation layer is formed on the positive electrode collector of each of the outermost positive electrodes opposite to the positive electrode active material layer (Paragraph 0106; Fig. 3 discloses wherein a single-sided positive electrode having a positive electrode active material film, element 3, formed on one surface of a positive electrode current collector, element 4, is positioned on either surface of the outermost edge of an electrode laminate, and the outer protective film, element 7, is formed on the opposite surface of the surface on which the positive electrode current collector is formed.). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Deschamps and Bak et al. teach the electrode stack of claim 3. Further, Deschamps et al. teach wherein, between the outermost positive electrodes, the electrode stack includes: a first double-sided negative electrode having a first negative electrode active material layer formed on both sides of a first negative electrode collector; a double-sided positive electrode having the positive electrode active material layer formed on both sides of the positive electrode collector of the double-sided positive electrode; and a second double-sided negative electrode having a second negative electrode active material layer formed on both sides of a second negative electrode collector wherein the first double-sided negative electrode, the double-sided positive electrode, and the second double-sided negative electrode alternatingly stacked with a separator disposed therebetween (Paragraph 0108; Fig. 5 disclose between single-sided positive electrodes located on both surfaces of the outermost edge (see elements 3 and 4), a double-sided negative electrode having a negative electrode active film, element 1”, formed on either surface of the a negative electrode current collector, 1’; a double-sided positive electrode having a positive electrode active material film, element 3, formed on either surface of the positive electrode current collector, element 4; and a double-sided negative electrode having the negative electrode active material film, element 1”, formed on either surface of the negative electrode current collector, element 1, are alternative stacked with an electrolyte membrane, element 2, therebetween.). Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deschamps et al. (US 2015/0311491 A1) and Bak et al. (US 2009/0253043 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2019-0071317 A) Regarding claims 5-7, the combination of Deschamps and Bak et al. teach the electrode stack of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the insulation layer comprises a cellulose-based compound or a ceramic. Kim et al. teach formation of an insulation layer for a lithium battery (Title; Abstract). Further, the insulation layer can comprise SBR, CMC, and alumina (Paragraph 0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the insulation material of Deschamps with Kim in order to improve adhesive strength. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Deschamps and Bak et al. teach the electrode stack of claim 8. However, they do not teach wherein an amount of the polymer is in a range of 50 wt% to 90 wt% based on a total weight of the insulation layer. Kim et al. teach formation of an insulation layer for a lithium battery (Title; Abstract). Further, the insulation layer can comprise SBR, CMC, and alumina (Paragraph 0088). Further, the amount of SBR can be controlled to be 69.5 wt% or more and 72.5 wt% or less of the total solid content of the insulating layer (100 wt%) (Paragraph 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the insulation material of Deschamps with Kim in order to improve adhesive strength. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30. 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 Tavares-Crockett 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. Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 1729 /DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 January 22nd, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603380
BATTERY PACK INCLUDING HINGED FLAP FOR RELEASE OF VENT GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597650
PORTABLE POWER SOURCE WITH LOW POWER DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597608
CATION-DISORDERED ROCKSALT TYPE HIGH ENTROPY CATHODE WITH REDUCED SHORT-RANGE ORDER FOR LI-ION BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597610
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592390
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE CONTAINING SAME, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
78%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+19.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1096 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