Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/360,693

HIGH ENERGY DENSITY ELECTROLYTE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
WYLUDA, KIMBERLY
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ess Tech Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
166 granted / 238 resolved
+4.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
276
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
62.8%
+22.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 238 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
CTNF 18/360,693 CTNF 94687 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: HIGH ENERGY DENSITY ELECTROLYTE FOR A REDOX FLOW BATTERY . Claim Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: L3 of the claim should recite “…and electrolyte in a positive compartment” in order to be grammatically correct. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: L3 of the claim should recite “the electrolyte solution” in order to have correct antecedent basis . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 3 and 6-8 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the redox active species has a concentration range of 2.0 M up to 3.0 M”. However, Claim 3 is dependent on Claim 1, which requires the redox active species to have a concentration of greater than 2.0 M, and therefore a concentration of 2.0 M falls outside the required range set forth in Claim 1. For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the redox active species has a concentration range of greater than 2.0 M up to 3.0 M”. Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the calcium salt is calcium chloride having a concentration range of 0 M up to 1.5 M”. However, Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 1, which requires the electrolyte to comprise the calcium salt and therefore it is unclear how the calcium salt can be calcium chloride having a concentration of 0 M. For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the calcium salt is calcium chloride having a concentration range of greater than 0 M up to 1.5 M”. Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the manganese salt is manganese chloride having a concentration range of 0 M up to 1.5 M”. However, Claim 7 is dependent on Claim 1, which requires the electrolyte to comprise the manganese salt and therefore it is unclear how the calcium salt can be manganese chloride having a concentration of 0 M. For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the manganese salt is manganese chloride having a concentration range of greater than 0 M up to 1.5 M”. Claim 8 recites the limitation “further comprising boric acid having a concentration range of 0 M up to 0.25 M”. However, it is unclear how the electrolyte can simultaneously comprise boric acid while also having a concentration of boric acid at 0 M. For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “further comprising boric acid having a concentration range of greater than 0 M up to 0.25”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7, 9-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 102332596 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) . Regarding Claims 1-3 , Yu discloses an electrolyte for a redox flow battery ([0009]), comprising: a redox active species dissolved in the electrolyte and having a concentration of 0.1 M to 4 M, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than 2.0 M and further encompasses the range of greater than 2.0 M up to 3.0 M, in order to constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery, wherein the redox active species is an iron salt ([0010]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the electrolyte to comprise the iron salt in the encompassing portion of the range disclosed by Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery, as desired by Yu. Modified Yu further discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a plurality of dissolved supporting salts in order to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, wherein the supporting salts may be chosen to be a potassium salt, an ammonium salt, and a calcium salt ([0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a potassium salt, an ammonium salt, and a calcium salt as supporting salts, as disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, as desired by modified Yu. Moreover, modified Yu discloses wherein the electrolyte may further comprise a manganese salt in order to reduce battery self-discharge and improve battery efficiency ([0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a manganese salt as a supporting salt, as disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully reduce battery self-discharge and improve battery efficiency, as desired by modified Yu. Regarding Claims 4-6 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the potassium salt is potassium chloride, the ammonium salt is ammonium chloride, the calcium salt is calcium chloride, and the manganese salt is manganese chloride ([0011]-[0012]). Specifically, modified Yu discloses wherein the potassium chloride, the ammonium chloride, and the calcium chloride have a total concentration in the range of 0.05 M to 5 L ([0011]), which encompasses the ranges of 0.5 M up to 1.5 M, 0.5 M up to 2.5 M, and greater than 0 M up to 1.5 M, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the electrolyte to comprise potassium chloride, ammonium chloride, and calcium chloride in the ranges of 0.5 M up to 1.5 M, 0.5 M up to 2.5 M, and greater than 0 M up to 1.5 M, respectively, such that the potassium chloride, the ammonium chloride, and the calcium chloride have a total concentration in the range disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, as desired by modified Yu. Regarding Claim 7 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the manganese salt is manganese chloride having a concentration range of 0.01 M to 0.10 M ([0012]), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of greater than 0 M up to 0.25 M. Regarding Claim 9 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the electrolyte is an aqueous electrolyte ([0009]). Regarding Claim 10 , Yu discloses a redox flow battery ([0009]) comprising: an electrolyte solution, wherein a composition of the electrolyte solution is shared between electrolyte in a negative electrode compartment and electrolyte in a positive compartment ([0009], e.g. [0028]), the electrolyte comprising dissolved iron having a concentration of 0.1 M to 4 M, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 2.0 M, in order to constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery ([0010]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the electrolyte to comprise the dissolved iron in the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery, as desired by Yu. Modified Yu further discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises dissolved supporting salts in order to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, wherein the dissolved supporting salts may be chosen to comprise an ammonium salt ([0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an ammonium salt in the dissolved supporting salts, as disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery Regarding Claims 12-14 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and discloses the dissolved iron having a concentration of at least 2.0 M to 4 M in order to constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery ([0010], as rendered obvious above). Modified Yu further discloses wherein the dissolved supporting salts may further comprise a calcium salt, wherein the ammonium salt and the calcium salt have a total concentration in the range of 0.05 M to 5 L in order to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance ([0011]). However, modified Yu does not explicitly disclose wherein: a discharge capacity of the redox flow battery is more uniform over a plurality of cycles when the dissolved supporting salts comprise the calcium salt than when the electrolyte solution does not comprise the calcium salt. a discharge capacity of the redox flow battery is more uniform over a plurality of cycles when the dissolved supporting salts comprise the calcium salt and the ammonium salt than when the dissolved supporting salts do not comprise the calcium salt or the ammonium salt; a discharge capacity of the redox flow battery remains stable over at least 10 cycles. The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses that when an electrolyte solution comprises dissolved iron at a concentration of 2.5 M and further comprises dissolved supporting salts, such as an ammonium salt at a concentration of 1.0 M and a calcium salt at a concentration of 0.5 M, the above properties are achieved ([0047]-[0049], [0051], [0056],-[0057], Tables 1-2, Figs. 2, 8). The Examiner notes that dissolved iron at a concentration of 2.5 M, ammonium salt at a concentration of 1.0 M, and calcium salt at a concentration of 0.5 M fall within the suitable ranges disclosed by modified Yu. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the dissolved iron at a concentration of 2.5 M, the ammonium salt at a concentration of 1.0 M, and the calcium salt at a concentration of 0.5 M, as disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery and increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, respectively, as desired by modified Yu. In light of the above, modified Yu discloses wherein a discharge capacity of the redox flow battery is necessarily and inherently more uniform over a plurality of cycles when the dissolved supporting salts comprise the calcium salt than when the electrolyte solution does not comprise the calcium salt; a discharge capacity of the redox flow battery is necessarily and inherently more uniform over a plurality of cycles when the dissolved supporting salts comprise the calcium salt and the ammonium salt than when the dissolved supporting salts do not comprise the calcium salt or the ammonium salt; and a discharge capacity of the redox flow battery necessarily and inherently remains stable over at least 10 cycles, as evidenced by [0047]-[0049], [0051], [0056],-[0057], Tables 1-2, Figs. 2, 8 of the instant specification. Regarding Claim 15 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the dissolved supporting salts may be chosen to comprise potassium chloride in order to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance ([0011]) and manganese chloride in order to reduce battery self-discharge and improve battery efficiency ([0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further utilize potassium chloride and manganese chloride as dissolved supporting salts, as disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance while also reducing battery self-discharge and improving battery efficiency, as desired by modified Yu. Regarding 16 and 19-20 , Yu discloses an electrolyte composition for a redox flow battery, wherein the redox flow battery is an iron redox flow battery ([0009]), comprising: an iron salt having a concentration of 0.1 M to 4 M, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 2.0 M, in order to constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery ([0010]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the electrolyte to comprise the iron salt in the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery, as desired by Yu. Modified Yu further discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a supporting salt and additional supporting salts in order to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, wherein the supporting salt may be chosen to comprise an ammonium salt and the additional supporting salts may be chosen to comprise a calcium salt ([0011]). Specifically, modified Yu discloses wherein the ammonium salt and the calcium salt have a total concentration in the range of 0.05 M to 5 L ([0011]), which encompasses the ranges of 0.5 M up to 2.5 M and up to 1.5 M, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ammonium salt and the calcium salt in the ranges of 0.5 M up to 2.5 M and up to 1.5 M, respectively, such that the ammonium salt and the calcium salt have a total concentration in the range disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, as desired by modified Yu. Regarding Claim 17 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the iron salt participates in redox reactions during operation of the redox flow battery ([0010]), and wherein the ammonium salt and the additional supporting salts do not participate in redox reactions during operation of the redox flow battery ([0011]), as evidenced by [0016] of the instant specification. Regarding Claim 18 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, modified Yu does not disclose wherein a maximum charging cell voltage of the redox flow battery decreases with continued cycling when the ammonium salt is absent from the electrolyte composition. The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses that when an electrolyte solution comprises an iron salt at a concentration of 2.5 M and an ammonium salt at 1.0 M, the above property is achieved ([0047]-[0049], [0052], Tables 1-2, Figs. 3-4). Modified Yu discloses the iron salt having a concentration of at least 2.0 M to 4 M in order to constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery ([0010] of Yu, as rendered obvious above) and further discloses wherein the ammonium salt and the calcium salt have a total concentration in the range of 0.05 M to 5 L in order to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance ([0011] of Yu) The Examiner notes that iron salt at a concentration of 2.5 M and the ammonium salt at a concentration of 1.0 M fall within the suitable ranges disclosed by modified Yu. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the iron salt at a concentration of 2.5 M and the ammonium salt at a concentration of 1.0 M, as disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery and increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, respectively, as desired by modified Yu. In light of the above, modified Yu discloses wherein a maximum charging cell voltage of the redox flow battery necessarily and inherently decreases with continued cycling when the ammonium salt is absent from the electrolyte composition, as evidenced by [0047]-[0049], [0052], Tables 1-2, Figs. 3-4 of the instant specification . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 102332596 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) , as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US PGPub 2023/0085103 A1) . Regarding Claim 8 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein additives can be added to the electrolyte in order to achieve batter results ([0012]). However, modified Yu does not disclose wherein the electrolyte further comprises boric acid having a concentration range of greater than 0 M up to 0.25 M. Liu teaches an electrolyte for an iron redox flow battery with improved CE, reduced electrolyte solution crossover, and simplified solution refreshing ([0014]). Specifically, Liu teaches wherein the electrolyte may further comprise boric acid having a concentration range of 0.01 M up to 1.0 M ([0049]-[0050]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of greater than 0 M up to 0.25 M. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize boric acid having a concentration in the encompassing portion of the range taught by Liu in the electrolyte of modified Yu in order to achieve better results, such as improved CE, reduced electrolyte solution crossover, and simplified solution refreshing . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 102332596 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) , as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Evans et al. (US PGPub 2018/0316033 A1) and Selverston (WO 2019/246538 A1) . Regarding Claim 11 , modified Yu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, modified Yu does not disclose wherein the electrolyte solution in the negative electrode compartment has a lower pH than the electrolyte solution in the positive compartment, and wherein the dissolved iron and the dissolved supporting salts remain fully dissolved in both the negative electrode compartment and the positive electrode compartment. Evans teaches wherein during operation of an iron redox flow battery, ferric irons from the low pH redox side (e.g., more acidic positive electrode compartment) to the high pH plating side (e.g., less acidic negative electrode compartment) can result in precipitation of Fe(OH)3, which can damage the separator and cause permanent battery performance and efficiency. Adding specific organic acids to the positive electrolyte or the negative electrode in response to electrolyte pH changes may mitigate precipitation formation during battery charge and discharge cycling ([0022]). Moreover, Selverston teaches a rebalancing system for a redox flow battery, such as one in which an electrolyte solution in the negative electrode compartment has a lower pH than an electrolyte solution in the positive electrode compartment ([0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the electrolyte solution in the negative electrode compartment of modified Yu to have a lower pH than the electrolyte solution in the positive electrode compartment of modified Yu, as taught by Selverston, in order to mitigate precipitation formation during battery charge and discharge cycling, as taught by Evans. Furthermore, modified Yu does not explicitly disclose wherein the dissolved iron and the dissolved supporting salts remain fully dissolved in both the negative electrode compartment and the positive electrode compartment. The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses that when an electrolyte solution comprises dissolved iron at a concentration of 2.5 M and dissolved supporting salts, such as an ammonium salt, at 1.0 M, the above property is achieved ([0047]-[0049], Tables 1-2, Fig. 2). Modified Yu discloses the dissolved iron having a concentration of at least 2.0 M to 4 M in order to constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery ([0010] of Yu, as rendered obvious above) and further discloses wherein the ammonium salt has a total concentration in the range of 0.05 M to 5 L in order to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance ([0011] of Yu) The Examiner notes that dissolved iron at a concentration of 2.5 M and ammonium salt at a concentration of 1.0 M falls within the suitable range disclosed by modified Yu. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the dissolved iron at a concentration of 2.5 M and the ammonium salt at a concentration of 1.0 M, as disclosed by modified Yu, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully constitute the electrochemical active material for the redox flow battery and increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, reduce the internal resistance of the battery, and improve the battery performance, respectively, as desired by modified Yu. In light of the above, modified Yu discloses wherein the dissolved iron and the dissolved supporting salts necessarily and inherently remain fully dissolved in both the negative electrode compartment and the positive electrode compartment, as evidenced by [0047]-[0049], Tables 1-2, Fig. 2 of the instant specification. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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. /KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Examiner, Art Unit 1725 giving unts ave Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 4 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 5 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 6 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 7 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 8 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 9 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 10 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 11 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 12 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 13 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 14 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 15 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 16 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/360,693 Page 17 Art Unit: 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12512535
Battery Cell Comprising a Pouch Case Comprising an Insulating Coating Layer and Battery Module Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12506178
Electrode Assembly Comprising Adhesive on Separator Sheet and Apparatus and Method for Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12500286
BATTERY MODULE COMPRISING SIDE SEPARATOR WITH A BIASING PORTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12469906
BATTERY MODULE COMPRISING A FIRE EXTINGUISHER, BATTERY RACK COMPRISING SAME, AND POWER STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12451482
SLURRY FOR SECONDARY BATTERIES, POSITIVE ELECTRODE FOR SECONDARY BATTERIES, AND SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
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
70%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+13.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 238 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