Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/432,128

BATTERY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 05, 2024
Priority
Feb 08, 2023 — JP 2023-017353
Examiner
MCNULTY, SEAMUS PATRICK
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allowance Rate
18 granted / 37 resolved
-11.4% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
97
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
91.9%
+51.9% vs TC avg
§102
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 37 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 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. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO-2017203911-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sakai,’ in view of (US-20170125783-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mune’ Regarding Claim 1, Sakai teaches a battery device comprising: a plurality of battery cells stacked in a first direction (Sakai, D1, Fig. 1); a first tab connection portion connecting a first electrode and a second electrode with each other (Sakai, portion, 23, Fig. 2), the first electrode being provided for a first battery cell among the plurality of battery cells (Sakai, positive electrode terminal, 15, Fig. 2) and the second electrode tab being provided for a second battery cell adjacent to the first battery cell among the plurality of battery cells (Sakai, negative electrode terminal, 17, Fig. 2) ; and a second tab connection portion connecting a third electrode tab and a fourth electrode tab with each other (Sakai, portion, 23, Fig. 2), the third electrode being provided for a third battery cell adjacent to the second battery cell among the plurality of battery cells (Sakai, positive electrode terminal, 15, Fig. 2) and the fourth electrode being provided for a fourth battery cell adjacent to the third battery cell among the plurality of battery cells (Sakai, negative electrode terminal, 17, Fig. 2), wherein the first tab connection portion and the second tab connection portion are adjacent to each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction (Sakai, see Fig. 2) (see annotated figure below) . PNG media_image1.png 579 701 media_image1.png Greyscale Sakai does not teach electrode tabs. Mune teaches bent electrode tabs (Mune, “Particularly, the tabs 31, 32 are bent in the direction along the stacking direction Y of the electrodes 21, 22. In this case, vibrations along the stacking direction Y of the electrodes 21, 22 and vibrations along the facing direction Z are easily absorbed by the tabs 31, 32.”, see [0076]). Mune teaches that the bending of the tabs in one direction allows for the absorption of vibrations (Mune, “Particularly, the tabs 31, 32 are bent in the direction along the stacking direction Y of the electrodes 21, 22. In this case, vibrations along the stacking direction Y of the electrodes 21, 22 and vibrations along the facing direction Z are easily absorbed by the tabs 31, 32.”, see [0076]). Sakai and Mune are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the cell assembly as taught in Sakai to have bent tabs as taught in Mune to prevent vibrational damage. Regarding Claim 2, Modified Sakai teaches the battery device according to claim 1, further comprising a third tab connection portion connecting a fifth electrode tab and a sixth electrode tab, the fifth electrode tab being provided for a fifth battery cell adjacent to the fourth battery cell and the sixth electrode tab being provided for a sixth battery cell adjacent to the fifth battery cell, wherein the second tab connection portion and the third tab connection portion are adjacent to each other in the second direction, and the first tab connection portion and the third tab connection portion are arranged in the first direction (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 579 701 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 3, Modified Sakai teaches herein the first electrode tab, the second electrode tab are bent toward one side in the first direction (Mune, “Particularly, the tabs 31, 32 are bent in the direction along the stacking direction Y of the electrodes 21, 22. In this case, vibrations along the stacking direction Y of the electrodes 21, 22 and vibrations along the facing direction Z are easily absorbed by the tabs 31, 32.”, see [0076]) Regarding Claim 4, Modified Sakai does not teach wherein the first electrode tab, the second electrode tab, the third electrode tab, the fourth electrode tab, the fifth electrode tab, and the sixth electrode tab are bent toward one side in the first direction (Mune, “Particularly, the tabs 31, 32 are bent in the direction along the stacking direction Y of the electrodes 21, 22. In this case, vibrations along the stacking direction Y of the electrodes 21, 22 and vibrations along the facing direction Z are easily absorbed by the tabs 31, 32.”, see [0076]). Regarding Claim 5, Modified Sakai teaches the battery device according to claim 1, wherein at the first tab connection portion, the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab are fastened to each other by using a plurality of fastening members (Sakai, bolt body, 14b, Fig. 2). Regarding Claim 6, Modified Sakai teaches The battery device according to claim 5, wherein one of the plurality of fastening members used to fasten the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab to each other is connected to a battery management device (Sakai, external connector, 660, Fig. 11B). Regarding Claim 7, Modified Sakai teaches the battery device according to claim 5, further comprising a terminal block(Sakai, fastening portion, 14c, Fig. 2) wherein the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab are fixed to the terminal block by the fastening members (Sakai, bolt body, 14b, Fig. 2) . Regarding Claim 8, Modified Sakai teaches the battery device according to claim 7, further comprising a terminal plate, wherein the terminal block includes an engagement portion that engages with the terminal plate (Sakai, flat portion, 21, Fig. 2) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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. /S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12671108
Sheet for Battery Cases Having Gas Pocket Portion Formed In Movement Direction, Battery Cell Manufactured Using the Same, and Method of Manufacturing the Battery Cell
3y 7m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12658539
BATTERY CELL
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12651748
CLASS OF CATHODE MATERIALS AND SECONDARY ION BATTERIES CONTAINING THESE CATHODE MATERIALS
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12646720
COVALENT ORGANIC FRAMEWORK AND ITS ELECTOCHEMICAL USE
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12633587
BATTERY MODULE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SUCH A BATTERY MODULE
3y 10m to grant Granted May 19, 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
49%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+31.7%)
3y 4m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 37 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