Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/317,783

SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 15, 2023
Examiner
ROLDAN RAMOS, CHRISTIAN
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
218 granted / 316 resolved
+4.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
346
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
56.7%
+16.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 316 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/27/2026. Status of Claims Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the application, of claims 8-17 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-7 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action. Claim Objections Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1-7, it is suggested to amend “the base plate” to - -the plate-shaped base- - to conform to prior recitation. In claim 2, it is suggested to amend “the center” to - -a center- -. In claim 3, it is suggested to amend “the first edge and the second edge” to - -the at least one of the first edge and the second edge- - to conform to prior recitation. In claims 3-5, it is suggested to amend “the rib” to - -the at least one rib- - to conform to prior recitation. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0233540). Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches a secondary battery (paragraph [0003]) comprising: a case (5) (paragraph [0038]) (see figure 1); an electrode assembly (i.e., electrode body) (10) that is wound and accommodated in the case (paragraph [0038]) (see figure 1); and a support plate (paragraph [0051]-[0052]) (see figure 5) including a plate-shaped base plate disposed at one end of the electrode assembly (see figures 5-6) and supporting the one end of the electrode assembly (see figures 5-6) (paragraph [0051]-[0052]), and at least one rib (121) vertically protruding from the base plate (see figure 6) to be inserted into a wound inner portion of the electrode assembly or to be in contact with an outer surface of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0051]-[0053]). PNG media_image1.png 553 562 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Kato teaches wherein the at least one rib extends vertically from the center of the base plate (see figure 6) and along a length direction of the base plate (see figure 5) and is inserted into the wound inner portion of the electrode assembly (see figure 6) (paragraph [0051]-[0053]). PNG media_image2.png 298 404 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches the rib extends vertically from at least one of a first edge and a second edge of the base plate (122a, 122b) and along a length direction of the base plate (see figure 5) (paragraph [0053]) and contacts the outer surface of the electrode assembly (see figure 5 below), the length direction being substantially parallel with the first edge and the second edge (see figures 5-6 below) (paragraph [0051]-[0053]). PNG media_image3.png 305 696 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 553 562 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7, kato teaches the base plate has a surface having a plurality of trenches (i.e., openings) (123a, 123b) (paragraph [0053]) formed in a length direction of the base plate (see fig. 5). PNG media_image5.png 305 518 media_image5.png Greyscale 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. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0233540) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0073380). Regarding claims 4-5, Kato teaches the battery including the base plate and at least one rib as described above in claim 1. Kato does not teach the at least one rib made or coated with an insulated material. Kim, also directed to a battery with an electrode assembly (paragraph [0002]) teaches a rib (900) comprising an insulative material (paragraph [0060]-[0061]) which prevents deformation and supports the entire area of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0061]-[0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rib of Kato to be made or coated with an insulated material as suggested by kim, with a reasonable expectation of success in which deformation is prevented and increased support is provided in the electrode assembly. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0233540) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0287429). Regarding claim 6, kato teaches the battery including the electrode assembly and the base plate as described above in claim 1. Kato does not teach the base plate has a plurality of holes. Cho, also directed to a battery (paragraph [0003]), teaches a base plate (20) (paragraph [0030]) (see figure 2) having a plurality of holes (24) (paragraph [0038]). Cho teaches the plurality of holes allow electrolyte to flow and impregnate uncoated regions of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0039]). Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate of Kato to include a plurality of holes as taught by Cho in order to allow electrolyte to flow and impregnate uncoated regions of the electrode assembly. Pertinent Prior Art The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sugimori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0203693). Sugimori teaches a base plate (18) made of an insulating material (paragraph [0015]). Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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. /CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 15, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 01, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603361
Pouch Type Battery Case and Pouch Type Secondary Battery
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603311
METAL FUEL FLOW BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586816
ENERGY STORAGE DEVICES WITH POLYMER ELECTROLYTES AND FILLERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586806
Bipolar Plate, Cell Frame, Battery Cell, Cell Stack, and Redox Flow Battery
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580213
FUEL CELL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
69%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+16.7%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 316 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