Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/405,277

LITHIUM METAL NEGATIVE ELECTRODE SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Priority
Feb 15, 2023 — JP 2023-021504
Examiner
D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Toyota Motor Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
597 granted / 875 resolved
+8.2% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
917
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
82.2%
+42.2% vs TC avg
§102
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 875 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
CTNF 18/405,277 CTNF 84179 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. Relevant MPEP Sections MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The following is a section from the MPEP 2144.05 concerning the obviousness of ranges: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-15 AIA Claims 1-6 are reject ed under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as bei ng antici pated, or in the alternative, under by 35 U.S .C. 1 03 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Kim et al. (US Pub 2019/0074515 cited in IDS). In rega rd to claim 1, Kim et al. teach a lithium metal negative electrode secondary battery (figure 4) comprising: a positive electrode 20; a separator 30; a negative electrode 10; and an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution includes lithium ions (lithium salt), the separator is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraphs [0050-0055]), the negative electrode includes a negative electrode base material (current collector – paragraph [0062]) and a lithium metal layer, the lithium metal layer includes a continuous phase and a dispersed phase, the continuous phase includes lithium metal (metal film 100), the dispersed phase includes a lithium-ion conductor (lithium ion conductors 220) such as Li 2 O—SiO 2 —TiO 2 —P 2 O 5 (LSTP), Li 4 -xGe1-xPxS 4 (LGPS), Li 3x La 2/3-x TiO 3 (LLTO), Li 1+x Ti 2-x M x (PO 4 ) 3 , Li 3 PS 4- glass-ceramic, Li 7 P 3 S 11 (paragraph [0047]) which are materials disclosed in the instant specification as having the claimed lithium-ion conductivity in a manner which anticipates the claimed lithium ion conductivity range (MPEP 2112.01 above – see Table 3 Nos. 16-21 in the instant specification for example), in the alternative, such particles are reasonably expected to have properties which obviate the claimed lithium-ion conductivity range (see MPEP 2144.05) absent evidence to the contrary. PNG media_image1.png 214 724 media_image1.png Greyscale In regard to claim 2 and 5, as noted above the lithium ion conductors 210 may be Li 2 O—SiO 2 —TiO 2 —P 2 O 5 (LSTP – i.e. a lithium phosphate), Li4-xGe1-xPxS 4 (LGPS), Li 3x La 2/3-x TiO 3 (LLTO), Li 1+x Ti 2-x M x (PO 4 ) 3 (another lithium phosphate), Li 3 PS 4- glass-ceramic and/or Li 7 P 3 S 11 (paragraph [0047]). In regard to claim 3, lithium metal negative electrode dispersed phase further includes a binder (such as 1 weight percent PVDF – paragraph [0049]) which necessarily results in a volume fraction of the binder relative to a sum of the lithium-ion conductor and the binder less than 0.2, in a manner which anticipates or obviates the claimed range. In regard to claim 4, as the prior art teaches a mass content of the lithium-ion conductors 220 may be 20 to 80 weight percent of the composite anode, the prior art is reasonably expected to overlap the claimed ranges for an area of a cross section of the lithium metal layer occupied by the lithium metal and an area of the cross section of the lithium metal layer occupied by the lithium-ion conductor absent evidence to the contrary. As seen in annotated figure 2 above, the lithium-ion conductors are schematically shown to occupy an area ratio within the claimed range. In regard to claim 6, lithium metal negative electrode secondary battery of the prior art is reasonably considered to be an anode-free battery as no additional anode material except for lithium metal is included, and when fully discharged will be essentially anode free . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – C hang et al. (US Pub 2019/0214672 newly cited) teaches an anodeless battery (title) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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. /NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/405,277 Page 2 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/405,277 Page 3 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/405,277 Page 4 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/405,277 Page 5 Art Unit: 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12665223
NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION, NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION BATTERY, AND COMPOUND
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12665232
BATTERY CELL GROUP CONDUCTIVE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12658434
Positive Electrode Active Material for Lithium Secondary Battery and Method of Preparing the Positive Electrode Active Material
4y 0m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12651751
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRODE FOR ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERIES BY SEMI-DRY PROCESS
3y 6m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12646762
BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
3y 6m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.6%)
3y 2m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 875 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