Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 18/399,701

CCS ASSEMBLY AND BATTERY MODULE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Priority
Aug 25, 2023 — CN 202322313273.9
Examiner
RAYMOND, BRITTANY L
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
EVE Energy Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
799 granted / 1033 resolved
+17.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1071
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
55.0%
+15.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1033 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 . 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0315508). Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kurita discloses a battery module comprising multiple battery cells 11, wherein each cell comprises a holder 12 having a pair of thermistor holders 12i that create a groove for holding a thermistor 22 (temperature obtaining member) with segments a, b and c, wherein the thermistor comprises a sensor 23 and a sensor casing 27, and wherein the holder 12 comprises a movement regulating section 12m that helps to connect the sensor casing to the thermistor holder (Paragraphs 0021, 0027, 0029, 0040, Figs. 3A, 8). As to claims 2 and 11, Kurita teaches that the thermistor holders comprise plate-like cover segments c that protruding from the thermistor engagement segments b to cover the surfaces of the thermistor, and that the thermistor comprises sensor pressure springs 26 that protrude from the sensor and are covered by the plate-like cover segments c (Paragraphs 0029, 0040). Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kurita shows in Fig. 8 that the bottom walls of the sensor pressure springs 26 (protrusion) and the sensor casing 27 are co-planar. As to claims 8 and 17, Kurita shows in Fig. 10 that each of the side walls of the sensor casing elastic claws 27a are spaced apart from corresponding walls of the ends of the thermistor engagement segments b of the thermistor holders 12i. Kurita fails to specifically show that the contact system is formed at the top of the battery cells, and fails to specifically state that the thermistor holders are plastic. Kurita teaches that the thermistor may alternatively be provided at the top surface (Paragraph 0061). Kurita also teaches that the holders 12 are composed of synthetic resin (Paragraph 0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the thermistors of Kurita could be placed at the tops of the battery cells because Kurita teaches that while the bottom surface is desired, the thermistor can alternatively be placed at the top of the cells to perform the same temperature sensing process. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thermistor holders of Kurita are made of plastic because Kurita teaches that they are made of synthetic resin, which is known to be a component of plastic. Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0113196) in view of Kurita (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0315508). Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sakamoto discloses an installation structure of a temperature sensor on the sides of a stack of battery cells, the structure comprising: a battery cell support 7 holding each of the cells that comprises guide sections 11 for holding the temperature sensor 3, wherein the temperature sensors comprise a thermistor element 23 inside a temperature sensor housing 45, and wherein the battery cell supports comprise a locking section 25 (connection portion) for holding the temperature sensor in place in the guide sections of the cell supports (Paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0042, 0061, Figs. 3, 5, 8). Sakamoto also discloses that the battery cell support is made of a synthetic resin (Paragraph 0090), which is known to be a component of plastic. As to claims 2 and 11, Sakamoto teaches that the sensor guide section 11 has a convex portion 41 protruding from the flat portion and that the temperature sensor housing has a concave section 43 that includes a bottom protruding portion that slides under the convex portion of the guide section (Paragraphs 0054-0056, Fig. 5). Regarding claims 3 and 12, Sakamoto teaches sensor guides on both sidewalls of the sensor holding section (Paragraph 0042, Fig. 5). As discussed above, the guides have a convex part 41 that is equivalent to the pressing block while the sensor housing has a slide groove that comprises a protruding portion on the top and bottom. Thus, the guide on one side can be considered the pressing block and protrusion while the other side is a guide and slide groove. As to claims 7 and 16, Sakamoto shows in Fig. 5 that the protruding bottom part of the concave portion of the temperature sensor housing is co-planar with the bottom of the temperature sensor housing. Regarding claims 8 and 17, Sakamoto teaches that the sides of the temperature sensor can be spaced from the sides of the guide sections (Paragraph 0039 and Fig. 4B). Sakamoto fails to disclose that the temperature sensors are placed at the tops of the battery cells. The teachings of Kurita have been discussed in paragraph 3 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the temperature sensors of Sakamoto could have been placed at the tops of the battery cells because Kurita teaches that the battery holders can be adjusted so that temperature sensors can be placed at different positions on the battery cell, including the top surface, as long as it does not interfere with other components of the battery cell. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-6, 9, 13-15 and 18 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm. 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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. BRITTANY L. RAYMOND Primary Examiner Art Unit 1722 /BRITTANY L RAYMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12770929
BATTERY CELL ASSEMBLY INCLUDING BUS BAR WITH FLAME BLOCKING MEMBER AND BATTERY CELL ASSEMBLY STRUCTURE
3y 4m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12755970
RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY WITH AN IMPROVED EPSILON-VOPO4 CATHODE, AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12749693
FUEL CELL SYSTEM
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12744248
LITHIUM BATTERY ELECTROLYTE
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12744276
BATTERY CASE, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE BATTERY CASE, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE BATTERY CASE
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+10.6%)
2y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1033 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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