Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/423,907

BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 26, 2024
Priority
Aug 10, 2021 — JP 2021-130971 +1 more
Examiner
BAIRD, CAMERON MICHAEL
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allowance Rate
1 granted / 1 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
18
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
88.1%
+48.1% vs TC avg
§102
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
CTNF 18/423,907 CTNF 101786 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-8, 10, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kondo et al. (JP 2009054484 A) . Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches a battery (Par. 0001) comprising: a first electrode (negative electrode 4); a second electrode (positive electrode 3); and a solid electrolyte layer (electrolyte layer 5; Par. 0001, electrolyte is solid) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Par. 0021), wherein the solid electrolyte layer contains a first solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte layer 51; Par. 0023), the first electrode includes: a substrate (negative electrode current collector 41) including a porous body (Par. 0020; “a negative electrode current collector made of a network material having a space portion”; Par. 0047, current collector 41 may be a mesh, which fits the claimed porous body, as described in Par. 0050 of the present application); and an active material layer disposed on a surface of the substrate (Par. 0016; the active material layer is deposited on the current collector), the active material layer contains Bi (Par. 0029; the negative active material layer can be made of Bi, Sn, or Sb; the current teaching is Bi), and the first solid electrolyte contains a halide solid electrolyte (Par. 0042; examples of solid electrolytes contain LiI, LiCl, and LiBr, which are halides. To be consistent with the present specification, any electrolyte containing a halogen will be considered a halide. However, on the contrary, another interpretation may be that the halide does not include sulfides). Regarding claim 2, Kondo teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer contains elemental Bi (Par. 0091; bismuth metal is used in the negative active material layer). Regarding claim 3, Kondo teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer contains the Bi as a main component of an active material (Par. 0040; the negative active material, which may be Bi, is present in 50 weight% or more, thus being the main component). Regarding claim 6, Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the active material layer is free of an electrolyte (Par. 0009, active material and electrolyte are both solid; reactions between the two take place on the surface of the active material layer, rather than inside the active material layer). Regarding claim 7, Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the substrate contains at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu and Ni (Par. 0025; the negative electrode current collector may be composed of Cu or Ni). Regarding claim 8, Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the active material layer is a plating layer (Par. 0016; the negative electrode active material layer is deposited on the negative electrode current collector by a plating method). Regarding claim 10, Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the first solid electrolyte contains a sulfide solid electrolyte (Par. 0019, “sulfide-based lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte”; Par. 0042 provides examples of sulfide solid electrolytes, such as Li 2 S-SiS 2 ). Regarding claim 12, Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is a negative electrode (negative electrode 4) and the second electrode is a positive electrode (positive electrode 3) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo . Regarding claim 4, Kondo fails to teach the active material layer containing substantially only the Bi as the active material. However, Kondo teaches that Bi, selected from the group of Bi, Sn, or Sb, may be present in 70 weight% or more (Par. 0040). While the specification of the present application states that Bi is present in 99 mass% or more, Kondo teaches that the weight% of Bi is a variable which can be experimentally manipulated to achieve desired battery characteristics of improved conductivity and decreased resistance (Par. 0040). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (JP 2009054484 A), in view of Fujimoto et al. (WO 2019/230279 A1) . Regarding claim 5, Kondo fails to teach the active material layer containing at least one of LiBi and Li 3 Bi. However, Fujimoto teaches an active material layer (negative electrode active material 32) containing at least one of LiBi and Li 3 Bi (Page 6, Par. 11; LiBi and/or Li 3 Bi are generated during charging, and Par. 0064 of the present application states that these alloys are generated during charging). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active material layer taught by Kondo by incorporating LiBi or Li 3 Bi, as taught by Fujimoto. One of ordinary skill would have determined that one of the two alloys is generated during charging of the lithium battery, as stated in Fujimoto (Page 6, Par. 11) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, in view of Li et al. ("Progress and perspectives on halide lithium conductors for all-solid-state lithium batteries") . Regarding claim 9, Kondo fails to teach a halide solid electrolyte which is substantially free of sulfur. However, Li teaches a halide solid electrolyte which is free of sulfur (Section 2, Par. 1; Li a MX b halide SSE examples don’t contain sulfur). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte taught by Kondo by providing a halide that does not contain sulfur, as taught by Li. This would be done in order to prevent the risks of forming toxic H 2 S and significantly decreased ionic conductivity in humid environments due to sulfur’s absence of tolerance to humidity, as stated in Li (Section 4.2, Par. 2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0043936 A1) . Regarding claim 11, Kondo fails to teach a second solid electrolyte in the first electrode which is in contact with the active material layer. However, Yang teaches a first electrode (“electrode layer structure”; Par. 0008-0010), which includes a first solid electrolyte (Par. 0009-0010; a second mixed solid electrolyte is included outside of the electrode) and a second solid electrolyte (Par. 0009-0010; the electrode layer structure contains a first mixed electrolyte) in contact with an active material layer (Par. 0009-0010, 0025; the electrolyte inside the electrode is in contact with an active material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first electrode taught by Kondo by incorporating a second solid electrolyte which is in contact with the active material, as taught by Yang. This would be done in order to obtain a high charge transfer due to a larger contact surface with the active material, as stated in Yang (Par. 0034). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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. /CAMERON M BAIRD/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/423,907 Page 2 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/423,907 Page 3 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/423,907 Page 4 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/423,907 Page 5 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/423,907 Page 6 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/423,907 Page 7 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/423,907 Page 8 Art Unit: 1728
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

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
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 1m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1 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