Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/277,025

WATERPROOF BATTERY PACK CASE CONFIGURED SUCH THAT OVER-FUSION THEREOF IS PREVENTED

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
APICELLA, KARIE O
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
834 granted / 1040 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1093
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1040 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 . 2. Claims 1-11 are pending in this office action. Priority 3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted August 11, 2023; July 22, 2024; October 24, 2024; and, January 2, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakata et al. (JPH11297286A). With regard to Claim 1, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, a battery pack case comprising a first case, called an upper case (37), and a second case, called a lower case (35), configured such that outer peripheries of the first case (37) and the second case (35) are coupled to each other by ultrasonic welding, wherein: the outer periphery of the first case (37) comprises a flat portion, the lower edge of the upper case (37) (see annotated figure below), and a projecting portion, called a pyramidal projection (39), formed as a result of a middle of the first case (37) in a thickness direction projecting from the flat portion, the outer periphery of the second case (35) comprises a receiving portion, called a groove (36), configured to be fused with the projecting portion (39) and an outer guide portion, called an upper edge (42), projecting from the receiving portion (36) so as to face the flat portion (paragraphs 0018-0020), and a control rib (38) projecting from at least a part of the flat portion is provided (paragraph 0018). With regard to Claim 2, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, wherein the projecting portion (39) comprises: an energy director, or a point, disposed at a distal end of the projecting portion (39), the energy director being configured such that at least a part of the energy director is melted, into a melted portion (43), when fusion is performed by welding, and; and a support portion, the bottom of groove (36), configured to support the energy director (paragraphs 0020-0021). With regard to Claim 3, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, wherein the energy director is configured such that a sectional area of a distal end of the energy director is less than a sectional area of a proximal end of the energy director because it tapers down into a point or pyramidal shape (paragraphs 0018-0021). With regard to Claim 4, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, wherein the energy director is configured to have an inclined structure in which a sectional area of the energy director between the proximal end and the distal end is gradually decreased toward the distal end of the energy director into a taper or pyramidal shape (paragraphs 0018-0021). With regard to Claim 6, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, wherein the projecting portion (39) is continuously formed along the outer periphery of the first case (37), the receiving portion (36) is continuously formed along the outer periphery of the second case (35), the control rib (38) is continuously or discontinuously formed, almost along the entire circumference of the upper case (37), at an inner surface of the battery pack case based on the projecting portion (39), the outer guide portion (42) is continuously formed at an outer surface of the battery pack case based on the projecting portion (39), and the flat portion and the outer guide portion (42) do not contact each other since they are obstructed by the projecting portion (39) (paragraphs 0018-0020; see annotated figure below), and the control rib (38) and the receiving portion (36) contact each other when the first case (37) and the second case (35) are coupled to each other (paragraph 0018). PNG media_image1.png 300 290 media_image1.png Greyscale With regard to Claim 7, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, wherein when the control rib (38) is discontinuously formed, being formed almost along the entire circumference, an inner guide portion (see annotated figure) projecting from the receiving portion (36) so as to face the flat portion is further formed at the inner surface of the battery pack case based on the projecting portion (39) (paragraphs 0018-0021). With regard to Claim 8, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, wherein the projecting portion (39) is inserted between the inner guide portion (see annotated figure) and the outer guide portion (42) of the second case (35) (paragraphs 0018-0021). With regard to Claim 9, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, wherein the inner guide portion (see annotated figure) is provided with a rib recess (36) configured to allow the control rib (38) to be inserted thereinto (paragraphs 0018-0021). With regard to Claim 10, Sakata et al. disclose in Figures 6-7, wherein when the first case (37) and the second case (35) are coupled to each other, the projection portion (39) and the outer guide portion (42) do not contact each other because the projecting portion (39) melts into a melted portion (43) and makes contact with recess (36), and the outer guide part (42) makes contact with the shoulder (41) (paragraph 0020). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (JPH11297286A), as applied to Claims 1-4 and 6-10 above. With regard to Claim 5, Sakata et al. disclose the battery pack case in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the control rib has a projecting height equal to or greater than a height of the support portion and less than a height of a distal end of the energy director. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the control rib to have a projecting height equal to or greater than a height of the support portion and less than a height of a distal end of the energy director, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). With regard to Claim 11, Sakata et al. disclose the battery pack case in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein a sectional thickness of the first case and a sectional thickness of the second case are equal to each other. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture a sectional thickness of the first case and a sectional thickness of the second case to be equal to each other, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). Conclusion 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST. 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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. /KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603364
Battery Cell, Battery, Electrical Device, and Manufacturing Method and Device for Battery Cell
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603325
ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICES, PLASTIC COMPOSITION, USE AND PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603349
BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603404
BATTERY MODULE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING BATTERY MODULE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603283
POSITIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY, SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK AND POWER CONSUMING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+12.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1040 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