Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/363,552

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

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 01, 2023
Examiner
ORDUNA, TAMARA
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Iucf-Hyu (Industry-University Cooperation Foundation Hanyang University)
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-65.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
5 currently pending
Career history
5
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.0%
+10.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . 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 1, 4, 5, and 6 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. The term “about” in claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of the term. 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Cho, C. et al. (WO 2021225321 A1), hereinafter Cho. Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery ([0071], rechargeable lithium battery 100) comprising: lithium titanium oxide having an aspect ratio of about 10:1 to about 2:1 (Claim 4); a needle-type carbon-based material (Claim 2-3); a negative active material ([0022]). Regarding claim 2, Cho teaches Lithium titanium oxide is represented by Li4+x Tiy Mz Ot in where 0≤x≤3, 1≤y≤5, 0≤z≤3, 3≤t≤12, and M is selected from Mg, La, Tb, Gd, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Ba, Sr, Ca, or combinations thereof ([0014-0015], Formula 1) Regarding claim 3, Cho teaches a needle-type carbon-based material comprises carbon nanotube, carbon nano fiber, or combinations thereof ([0009]). Regarding claim 4, Cho teaches a needle-type carbon-based material has an average length of about 0.5 μm to about 20 μm ([0010]). Specifically, Cho teaches a range of length of 5 μm to 200 μm. It is well established that the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Regarding claim 5, Cho teaches the mixing ratio of lithium titanium oxide and the needle-type carbon-based material is about 2:1 to about 199:1 by weight ratio ([0028], [0039], [0059]). Specifically, Cho teaches a range of 0.002:1 to 45:1 by weight ratio. It is well established that the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Regarding claim 6, Cho teaches the mixing ratio of lithium titanium oxide and the needle-type carbon-based material is about 2:1 to about 100:1 by weight ratio ([0028], [0039], [0059]). Specifically, Cho teaches a range of 0.002:1 to 45:1 by weight ratio. It is well established that the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Regarding claim 7, Cho teaches a negative active material that comprises a silicon-based active material, a carbon-based active material or combinations thereof (Claim 10). Regarding claim 8, Cho teaches a rechargeable lithium battery ([0071], rechargeable lithium battery 100), comprising: a negative electrode (Claim 1, Claim 11); a positive electrode (Claim 11); an electrolyte (Claim 11). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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. /TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 01, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

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
Grant Probability
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 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