Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/344,748

ELECTRODE FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY, AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 29, 2023
Examiner
MARTIN, ANGELA J
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
6 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
35%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
586 granted / 868 resolved
+2.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -32% lift
Without
With
+-32.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
81 currently pending
Career history
949
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
64.1%
+24.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 868 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . The Applicant amended independent claim 1; and canceled claims 3, 6-8, 10. The pending claims are claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinoki et al., US 2010/0248026, in view of Kawakami, US 5582931, in further view of Lee et al., US 2017/0309915. Regarding claim 1, Hinoki et al., teaches an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract), comprising: a current collector (abstract), and an active material layer on the current collector (abstract), a coating layer (0097; 0144; 0147-0150), and the polyethylene particles are included in at least one selected from the active material layer (0079; 0083; 0087) and are included in the coating layer (0031; 0034; 0104); coating layer further comprises inorganic particles (0011; 0016; 0020) and a binder (0077; 0084; 0086); and the polyethylene particles have a ratio of a major axis length to a minor axis length of 2.00 (0223); and polyethylene particles have a thickness of 0.1μm to 4 μm (0032; 0074;). Hinoki et al., does not teach flake-shaped polyethylene particles. Kawakami teaches a battery electrode comprising polyethylene particles in the shape of flakes (col. 10, lines 35-47). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Kawakami into the teachings of Hinoki et al., because although Hinoki et al., does not teach the shape of the polyethylene particles, Kawakami teaches the various shapes of particles, including flake-shaped (col. 10, lines 35-47), which would provide more variety in the shape of the particles. Hinoki and Kawakami do not teach the inorganic particles comprise CeO2, CaO, GaO, Y2O3, SrTiO3, BaTiO3, Mg(OH)2, or a combination. Lee et al., teaches inorganic particles comprising CeO2 (0016), CaO2 (0016), Y2O3 (0016), BaTiO3 (0016). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Lee into the teachings of Hinoki modified by Kawakami because “an electrode that is surface-coated with inorganic particles…shut down does not take place at high temperature, leading to thermal runaway (0008). Regarding claim 2, Hinoki et al., modified by Kawakami and Lee, teaches the flake-shaped polyethylene particles have an average particle size (D50) of 0.5 μm to 4 μm (abstract; 0019-0020). Regarding claim 4, Hinoki et al., teaches the active material layer comprises an active material (0079; 0083; 0087) and further comprises at least one selected from a conductive material (0076; 0081; 0199) and a binder (0077; 0079-0081). Regarding claim 5, Hinoki et al., teaches the polyethylene particles are included in an amount of less than 8% by mass (0115) based on a total weight of the active material layer (0115). Regarding claim 9, Hinoki et al., teaches a weight ratio of the sum of the polyethylene particles and the inorganic particles to the binder is 80:20 to 99:1 (0029; 0074; 0111). Regarding claim 11, Hinoki et al., teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (abstract). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that: “In the interest of advancing prosecution of the present application, and without acquiescing to the rejections, claim 1 is amended herein to delete "boehmite," and to recite, in part, "wherein the flake-shaped polyethylene particles have a thickness of 0.2 µm to 4 µm, and wherein a weight ratio of the flake-shaped polyethylene particles to the inorganic particles is 95:5 to 10:90." Applicant submits that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest the remaining features of claim 1.” However, a new reference, Lee et al., US 2017/0309915, teaches inorganic particles comprising CeO2 (0016), CaO2 (0016), Y2O3 (0016), BaTiO3 (0016). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Lee into the teachings of Hinoki modified by Kawakami because “an electrode that is surface-coated with inorganic particles…shut down does not take place at high temperature, leading to thermal runaway (0008). Hinoki et al., teaches an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract), comprising: the polyethylene particles are included in at least one selected from the active material layer (0079; 0083; 0087) and the polyethylene particles have a ratio of a major axis length to a minor axis length of 2.00 (0223); and polyethylene particles have a thickness of 0.3 μm to 4 μm (0032; 0074; 0104). Hinoki et al., does not teach flake-shaped polyethylene particles. Kawakami teaches a battery electrode comprising polyethylene particles in the shape of flakes (col. 10, lines 35-47). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Kawakami into the teachings of Hinoki et al., because although Hinoki et al., does not teach the shape of the polyethylene particles, Kawakami teaches the various shapes of particles, including flake-shaped (col. 10, lines 35-47), which would provide more variety in the shape of the particles. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm. 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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. ANGELA J. MARTIN Examiner Art Unit 1727 /ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727 /BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 29, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 28, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 17, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 12, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 19, 2025
Response Filed
May 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597613
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE COMPOSITION, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, AND SECONDARY BATTERY AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE CONTAINING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592429
HEAT EXHANGER AND BATTERY SYSTEM INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586866
High-Strength Separator
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562370
Electrode for Lithium Secondary Battery, Method of Preparing the Same and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12548862
ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
35%
With Interview (-32.4%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 868 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