Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/362,709

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

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
GATEWOOD, DANIEL S
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
850 granted / 1096 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
1157
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.7%
+13.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1096 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
ELECTRODE FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME 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 Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2023 and 4/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: please amend to “ wherein a thickness ratio of an entire functional layer comprising the first functional layer and the second functional layer ; and the active material layer ” . 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. (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 -4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (US 2023/0089391 A1). Regarding claims 1 , 2, 6, 7, 9-11 , 13, 18, and 19 , Tang et al. teach a n electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (Abstract discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery.) , the electrode comprising: a current collector (Fig. 1; Example 1 discloses an aluminum foil current collector.) ; an active material layer on the current collector (Fig. 1; paragraph s 0053 ; 0095 disclose a positive electrode active material layer which can comprise 80-99 wt.% a second positive electrode active material, 0.5-10 wt.% a second conductive agent and 0.5-10 wt.% a second binder .) ; and a functional layer between the current collector and the active material layer wherein the functional layer comprises a first functional layer and a second functional layer (Fig. 1 discloses a PTC coating layer, or thermosensitive coating layer, coupled with a composite fusion layer. These two layers are between the current collector and the positive electrode active layer. The PTC/thermosensitive coating layer is in contact with the current collector and the composite fusion layer is in contact with the positive electrode active material layer.) , the first functional layer comprises a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) resin (Paragraphs 0052; 0081 disclose the thermosensitive coating layer comprises 20-90 wt.% thermosensitive polymer microspheres, 2.9-48.9 wt.% a first conductive agent, and 2-40 wt.% a first binder. Paragraph 0109 discloses the first binder can comprise PVDF. Paragraph 0106 discloses the thermosensitive polymer microspheres may be selected from one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene , polystyrene, and polyvinyl chloride.) , and the second functional layer comprises a lithium transition metal phosphate (Paragraphs 0054 discloses the composite fusion layer includes a second conductive agent, a second binder, and a second positive electrode active material with option first positive electrode active material. Paragraph 0107 discloses either the first and/or second positive electrode active material can comprise LiFePO 4 .) . Regarding claims 3 and 4 , Tang et al. teach the electrode of claim 1, wherein a thickness ratio of the first functional layer and the second functional layer is about 3:7 to about 7:3 (Paragraph 0114 discloses the thickness of the thermosensitive coating layer may range from 0.1 μm to 5 μ m . Paragraph 0115 discloses the thickness of the composite fusion layer may range from 0.001 μm to 0.5 μm . These ranges overlap with the claimed thickness ratio.) , wherein a thickness ratio of an entire functional layer comprising the first functional layer and the second functional layer; and the active material layer is about 1:1 to about 1:1,000 (Paragraph 0116 discloses the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer may range from 5 μm to 175 μm .). Regarding claim 20 , Tang et al. teach a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, wherein at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode is the electrode of claim 1 (Paragraph 0149) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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 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. 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang et al. (US 2023/0089391 A1). Regarding claim 5 , Tang et al. teach the electrode of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the positive temperature coefficient resin expands in a temperature range of about 60°C to about 200°C. However, the thermosensitive polymer microspheres can comprise and overlap with the claimed PTC materials ( Paragraph 0106 discloses the thermosensitive polymer microspheres may be selected from one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyvinyl chloride.) . MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. 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 8 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2023/0089391 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0161639 A1). Regarding claims 8 and 12 , Tang et al. teach the electrode of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein a D50 particle diameter of the first conductive material is about 1 nm to about 100 nm and wherein a D50 particle diameter of the lithium transition metal phosphate is less than or equal to about 2 μm and greater than 0 μm . Zhang et al. teach a positive electrode plate having a current collector (Fig. 1, element 10 ) , an upper positive active material layer (Fig. 1, element 14) , and an underlying positive active material layer (Fig. 1, element 12) . The underlying positive layer has a PTC effect (Paragraph 0019) and can comprise a first positive active material and a first conductive agent (Paragraph 0013) . Further, the first conductive agent can have a particle size of 5 to 500 nm (Paragraph 0075) . Further, the positive active material layer can comprise a particle size of 100 nm- 10 μm (Paragraph 0065) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang with Zhang in order to improve safety and electrical properties. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 14-17 is not disclosed in the prior art of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7958 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1481 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 1729 /DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 11 th , 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603380
BATTERY PACK INCLUDING HINGED FLAP FOR RELEASE OF VENT GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597650
PORTABLE POWER SOURCE WITH LOW POWER DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597608
CATION-DISORDERED ROCKSALT TYPE HIGH ENTROPY CATHODE WITH REDUCED SHORT-RANGE ORDER FOR LI-ION BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597610
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592390
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE CONTAINING SAME, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
78%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+19.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1096 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