Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/330,668

Bipolar Electrode and Bipolar Storage Battery

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 07, 2023
Examiner
GARCIA, BETHANY CLAIRE
Art Unit
1721
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Furukawa Battery Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
55 granted / 85 resolved
At TC average
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
128
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 85 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/10/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application (JP2020-204830) as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because: Lines 3-4 of the claim recite “an adhesion layer” between a positive electrode and a first surface of the bipolar plate, as well as “an adhesion layer” between a negative electrode and a second surface of the bipolar plate. The claim clearly establishes these two adhesion layers are separate structures on opposite sides of the bipolar plate, which is supported by the instant specification (see [0044-0053] and adhesion layer 30 in Fig. 3): PNG media_image1.png 276 604 media_image1.png Greyscale 18/330,668 – Fig. 3 However, dependent Claims 8, 9, and 13 only refer to “the adhesion layer,” which introduces confusion about which adhesion layer of Claim 1 is being referenced. Although Claim 1 is not indefinite, Examiner recommends distinguishing the adhesion layers of Claim 1 as “a first adhesion layer” between a positive electrode and a first surface of the bipolar plate, and “a second adhesion layer” between a negative electrode and a second surface of the bipolar plate. Examiner then recommends updating the limitations of Claims 8, 9, and 13 to reference “the first adhesion layer” and/or “the second adhesion layer,” which will resolve the 35 USC 112(b) rejections for Claims 8, 9, and 13. Appropriate correction is required. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 3-5, 8-16, and 19 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. Claims 8, 9, and 13 include limitations pertaining to “the adhesion layer.” It is unclear whether the claims are referring to “the adhesion layer” of Claim 1 between the positive electrode and the first surface of the bipolar plate, and/or the adhesion layer between the negative electrode and the second surface of the bipolar plate. For the purpose of this action, the claims will be Examined as “at least one of the first and second adhesion layers.” Claims 9-12 and 14-16 are also rejected, as they depend upon rejected Claim 8 or 13. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3, 11, 15, and 19 include limitations pertaining to “the surface of the conductor.” It is unclear whether “the surface of the conductor” in each claim is referring to the “first surface of the conductor” (line 8 of Claim 1) and/or the “second surface of the conductor” (line 9 of Claim 1). For the purpose of this action, the claims will be Examined as “at least one of the first and second surfaces of the conductor.” Claims 4 and 5 are also rejected, as they depend upon Claim 3. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kao et al., US 20120237816 A1. Regarding Claim 1, Kao discloses a bipolar electrode for a bipolar storage battery (conductive bipolar substrate for a bipolar lead-acid battery [0034-0047], Figs. 1-3), comprising: a bipolar plate in which a conduction through hole is formed (polymer matrix 302’ having conductive pellets 304 embedded within [0037, 0043-0046], Figs. 1-3); a positive electrode stuck to a first surface of the bipolar plate with an adhesion layer (positive electrode active material 108 disposed on conductive foil 106 [0037-0043], Fig. 2A; conductive foils 306 attached to opposite surfaces of the polymer matrix 302' by adhesive 305 [0046], Figs. 3F-G); and a negative electrode stuck to a second surface of the bipolar plate with an adhesion layer (negative electrode active material disposed on conductive foil [0037-0043]; conductive foils 306 attached to opposite surfaces of the polymer matrix 302' by adhesive 305 [0046], Figs. 3F-G), wherein: the bipolar electrode includes a conductor disposed in the conduction through hole of the bipolar plate (conductive pellets 304 embedded within matrix 302’ [0043-0046]), a first bonding portion to which the positive electrode is electrically bonded on a first surface of the conductor (electrical connection and “first bonding portion” formed between first conductive foil and conductive pellet during pressing [0046]; Annotated Fig. 3G) and a second bonding portion to which the negative electrode is electrically bonded on a second surface of the conductor (electrical connection and “second bonding portion” formed between second conductive foil and conductive pellet during pressing [0046]; Annotated Fig. 3G), and the conductor has a projecting portion surrounding a periphery of the bonding portion on each of the first surface and the second surface (conductive pellets 104 protrude partly beyond the surfaces of the layer 302’ [0043-0044 and Claim 1]; Annotated Fig. 3G after adhesive application and pressing). PNG media_image2.png 104 202 media_image2.png Greyscale Kao – Fig. 3F PNG media_image3.png 309 1122 media_image3.png Greyscale Kao –Annotated Fig. 3G Regarding Claim 2, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses the projecting portion is formed integrally with the conductor ([0038-0040, 0046], see Annotated Fig. 3G in Claim 1). Regarding Claim 6, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses the bipolar electrode is a bipolar electrode for a bipolar lead-acid battery (conductive bipolar substrate for a bipolar lead-acid battery [0034-0047], Figs. 1-3). Regarding Claim 7, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses a bipolar storage battery comprising the bipolar electrode (the bipolar substrate 100 can be used in a bipolar battery, e.g., a bipolar lead-acid battery 200 as shown in FIGS. 2A-2C [0041]). Regarding Claim 13, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses a height of the projecting portion is more than or equal to a thickness of the adhesion layer (the size of the conductive pellets is slightly larger than the thickness of the matrix, so that the pellets can make electrical contact with a conductive foil 106 on either side of the matrix [0037, 0043], matrix may include adhesive 305 [0047]; Fig. 3G shows height of pellets 304 exceeding height of matrix 302’/adhesive 305). Regarding Claim 14, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses the projecting portion is formed integrally with the conductor ([0038-0040, 0046], see Annotated Fig. 3G in Claim 1). Regarding Claim 16, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses the bipolar electrode is a bipolar electrode for a bipolar lead-acid battery (conductive bipolar substrate for a bipolar lead-acid battery [0034-0047], Figs. 1-3). Regarding Claim 17, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses the bipolar plate 102 is about 300 µm thick [0038], and the size of the conductive pellets 104 is preferably 300 µm to about 1,000 µm [0040]. Kao also discloses the pellets 104 should protrude beyond the thickness of the matrix 102/302’ into the adjacent conductive foil layers 306 [0043-0046]. Therefore, assuming an equal protrusion thickness on each of the upper and lower surfaces of the pellet, each projecting portion would have a thickness up to 350 µm (see Annotated Fig. 3G), which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 20 µm and 500 µm.” The court has held that "when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP § 2131.03. PNG media_image4.png 444 1168 media_image4.png Greyscale Kao – Annotated Fig. 3G Regarding Claim 18, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses the projecting portion is formed integrally with the conductor ([0038-0040, 0046], see Annotated Fig. 3G in Claim 1). Regarding Claim 20, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao discloses the bipolar electrode is a bipolar electrode for a bipolar lead-acid battery (conductive bipolar substrate for a bipolar lead-acid battery [0034-0047], Figs. 1-3). 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. 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 3-5, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Blunk et al., US 20050031933 A1. Regarding Claims 3 and 19, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao does not disclose “the projecting portion is a part separate from the conductor and adheres to the surface of the conductor.” However, this limitation is taught by Blunk. Blunk teaches using conductive adhesive (primer 110 and adhesive 112 [0032], Fig. 4) to join two protruding electrical contact portions on a bipolar plate (contact region 100: ridge 76 on first plate 58, ridge 80 on second plate 60 [0026-0030], Figs. 3-4). Blunk teaches the conductive adhesive fills any gaps or irregularities between the conductive plates 58 and 60, while also providing corrosion resistance and high thermal conductivity ([0030-0033]). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the conductive adhesive of Blunk (primer 110 and adhesive 112) as an extra layer on the projecting part of Kao’s conductor, in order to conductively adhere the conductor to each neighboring electrode, with additional benefits such as corrosion resistance and gap filling between layers. PNG media_image5.png 298 970 media_image5.png Greyscale Modified Kao Regarding Claim 4, modified Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kao discloses the projecting portion (Blunk, primer 110 and adhesive 112) is an adhesion seal having an adhesive layer at least on a surface facing the conductor (Blunk, conductive adhesive primer 110 is applied to contact surface 90 of the first sheet 58, and contact surface 92 of the second sheet 60 [0030-0049], Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 5, modified Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kao discloses the projecting portion (Blunk, primer 110 and adhesive 112) is formed by a liquid gasket (“liquid” limitation met by Blunk’s primer and adhesive being resins that “brushed, dabbed, sprayed, or rolled onto the sheets” and then cured at various temperatures [0045-0054]; “gasket” limitation met by Blunk’s seal formed at contact regions 100 is a “sustained sealing engagement” [0031]). Regarding Claim 15, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao does not disclose “the projecting portion is a part separate from the conductor and adheres to the surface of the conductor.” However, this limitation is taught by Blunk. Blunk teaches using conductive adhesive (primer 110 and adhesive 112 [0032]) to join two protruding electrical contact portions on a bipolar plate (contact region 100: ridge 76 on first plate 58, ridge 80 on second plate 60 [0026-0030], Figs. 3-4). Blunk teaches the conductive adhesive fills any gaps or irregularities between the conductive plates 58 and 60, while also providing corrosion resistance and high thermal conductivity ([0030-0033]). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the conductive adhesive of Blunk (primer 110 and adhesive 112) as an extra layer on the projecting part of Kao’s conductor, in order to conductively adhere the conductor to each neighboring electrode, with additional benefits such as corrosion resistance and gap filling between layers. See Claim 3 for Blunk – Fig. 4 and Modified Kao. Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Moomaw et al., US 20180219227 A1. Regarding Claim 8, Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kao does not disclose details regarding the composition of the adhesion layer, and does not disclose “the adhesion layer is formed by curing a liquid adhesive.” However, this limitation is taught by Moomaw et al. Moomaw teaches a lead-acid battery 200, wherein a liquid adhesive is cured to bond adjacent layers in a bipolar plate 121A ([0037-0039, 0057], Fig. 2). Moomaw teaches when an adhesive is coated on two aligned surfaces, compression is then used to join the two layers, and heat is applied to cure the adhesive ([0057]). Moomaw teaches compressing and heating the liquid adhesive is effective at creating a high quality bond without forming air bubbles or other defects between the two bonded surfaces ([0057]). Examiner notes Kao’s bipolar plate assembly includes applying an adhesive layer and then compressing the assembly (Kao, [0043, 0046], Figs. 3F-G). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the adhesion layer be formed by curing a liquid adhesive, in the bipolar electrode of Kao, as Moomaw teaches a cured liquid adhesive is effective at forming a defect-free bond between adjacent bipolar plate components. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) [MPEP § 2143.02]. PNG media_image6.png 800 682 media_image6.png Greyscale Moomaw – Fig. 2 Regarding Claim 9, modified Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kao discloses a height of the projecting portion is more than or equal to a thickness of the adhesion layer (the size of the conductive pellets is slightly larger than the thickness of the matrix, so that the pellets can make electrical contact with a conductive foil 106 on either side of the matrix [0037, 0043], matrix may include adhesive 305 [0047]; Fig. 3G shows height of pellets 304 exceeding height of matrix 302’/adhesive 305). Regarding Claim 10, modified Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kao discloses the projecting portion is formed integrally with the conductor ([0038-0040, 0046], see Annotated Fig. 3G in Claim 1). Regarding Claim 12, modified Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kao discloses the bipolar electrode is a bipolar electrode for a bipolar lead-acid battery (Kao, conductive bipolar substrate for a bipolar lead-acid battery [0034-0047], Figs. 1-3). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kao as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Blunk et al., US 20050031933 A1. Regarding Claim 11, modified Kao discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Kao does not disclose “the projecting portion is a part separate from the conductor and adheres to the surface of the conductor.” However, this limitation is taught by Blunk. Blunk teaches using conductive adhesive (primer 110 and adhesive 112 [0032]) to join two protruding electrical contact portions on a bipolar plate (contact region 100: ridge 76 on first plate 58, ridge 80 on second plate 60 [0026-0030], Figs. 3-4). Blunk teaches the conductive adhesive fills any gaps or irregularities between the conductive plates 58 and 60, while also providing corrosion resistance and high thermal conductivity ([0030-0033]). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the conductive adhesive of Blunk (primer 110 and adhesive 112) as an extra layer on the projecting part of modified Kao’s conductor, in order to conductively adhere the conductor to each neighboring electrode, with additional benefits such as corrosion resistance and gap filling between layers. See Claim 3 for Blunk – Fig. 4 and Modified Kao. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT. 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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. /BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603329
Acidic Surface Treatment for Multivalent Battery Metal Anode
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592402
HUMIDIFIER FOR FUEL CELL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592451
VENT FEATURE PROTECTION BRACKETS FOR ELECTRIFIED VEHICLE TRACTION BATTERY PACKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580221
SOLID-STATE COMPOSITE ELECTROLYTES COMPRISING ARAMID POLYMER FIBRILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12555866
POWER STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.4%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 85 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