Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/449,529

THERMAL AND ELECTRICAL MANAGEMENT OF BATTERY PACKS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 14, 2023
Examiner
ESSEX, STEPHAN J
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Quantumscape Battery Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
49%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
445 granted / 683 resolved
At TC average
Minimal -16% lift
Without
With
+-16.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
710
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
55.6%
+15.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 683 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) 25-34, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako et al. (hereinafter “Kako”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0202929A1, cited by Applicant) in view of Han et al. (hereinafter “Han”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0328908A1, cited by Applicant). Regarding claims 25-27 and 29, Kako teaches a battery module (battery pack) containing a plurality of unit batteries 1 arranged such that the positive and negative poles 21 and 22 (a first terminal and a second terminal) of adjacent unit batteries are alternately situated, whereby all of the unit batteries are connected in series to form the battery module (see paragraph 53). Bus bars 11 and 12 (two or more bus bars; substantially planar shape) electrically connecting the positive and negative poles 21 and 22 of the adjacent unit batteries 1 (electrically interconnect a plurality of electrochemical cells; does not electrically short any of the electrochemical cells), and a detection circuit 13 for detecting the voltage of the unit batteries 1, are integrally molded (monolithic structure) through insert resin molding to form a bus bar module 10 (interface module) (see paragraph 54; FIGS. 1 and 2). Thus, they are entirely embedded in resin except for the connection portions of the bus bars 11 and 12 connected to the unit batteries 1. Formed on the adjacent side portions of the adjacent bus bar modules 10 are connection portions 15 through 18 for connecting the bus bar modules 10 to each other. Due to the connection portions 15 through 18, it is possible to directly connect the bus bar modules to each other to integrate them with each other (see paragraph 55). Connection lines 142 and 143 (voltage sense leads) connecting the detection circuit 13 and the bus bars 11 and 12 are also insert-molded with the detection circuit 13 to be thereby integrated (see paragraph 60). When the bus bar module 10 is connected to positive and negative poles 11b and 12b of a unit battery 1, it is spaced away from the outer surface of the unit battery 1, wherein the positive and negative poles 11b and 12b protrude from portions of an upper surface of the unit battery 1 near both ends thereof (terminals positioned on their top cover, and wherein the interface module extends parallel to the top cover) (see paragraph 56; FIG. 3). Although it is believed that the ordinary artisan, in considering the arrangement of the unit batteries of Kako, would likely assume the presence of end plates between which the unit batteries are arranged, it is acknowledged that Kako does explicitly teach such end plates. Han teaches a battery pack including a case 110 including a plurality of battery units 120 and an insulation plate 130, wherein the insulation plate 130 provides support for a plurality of bus bars 160 which arranged above a top surface of each of the plurality of battery units 120 (see paragraphs 39 and 53). The case 110 of the battery pack includes a pair of end plates (end frames) provided at the front 110c and rear 110d of the case 110 (see paragraph 46; FIG. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the unit batteries of Kako between end plates as taught by Han to provided structural stability to the unit batteries. Regarding claim 28, although Kako does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the bus bars is substantially the same as a thickness of the connection lines, it is noted that the courts have held that differences in size and/or shape between a claimed device and a prior art device are obvious matters of engineering choice absent persuasive evidence that such differences are significant (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Regarding claim 30, Kako teaches that the resin (base) of the bus bar module 10 is selected so as to be of the same coefficient of thermal expansion (thermally conductive) as the integrated circuits constituting the detection circuits 13. As exemplary resin materials, Kako teaches nylon and polybutylene terephthalate (see paragraph 85). These materials are known to be electrically insulating. Regarding claims 31 and 32, Kako teaches that a connection line 141, 144 (connecting leads) connected to the bus bars of the adjacent, input-side bus bar module 10, a connection line 146 (connecting leads) connected to the detection circuit of the adjacent, output-side bits bar module 10, and, further, a connection line 145 (connecting leads) connected to the detection circuit of the adjacent, input-side bus bar module 10 are also insert-molded with the detection circuit 13 (connecting portion) to be thereby integrated. Regarding claim 33, FIG. 3 of Kako illustrates the coplanar arrangement of the bus bars 11, 12 and the connection lines 142, 143. Regarding claim 34, as discussed above, Kako teaches that the bus bar module 10 is integrally molded (see paragraph 54). Regarding claim 37, it is understood by the ordinary artisan that the resin materials of Kako would be flexible when provided at a sheet-like thickness which is less than the height of the terminals of a battery. Regarding claim 38, it has been held by the courts that differences in size and/or shape between a claimed device and a prior art device are obvious matters of engineering choice absent persuasive evidence that such differences are significant (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako as applied to claims 25-34, 37 and 38 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (hereinafter “Shimizu”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0076521A1, cited by Applicant). Regarding claims 35 and 36, Kako is silent as to a thermistor module. Shimizu teaches thermistors 102a and 102b that are formed on an upper case 18 (see paragraph 105; FIG. 18). Each of the thermistors 102a and 102b is formed of two wires which overlay bus bars 78 (each of the thermistors is positioned on a different one of two or more bus bars) (see FIG. 2) and are connected to a connector 106 on the FPC 98 (separate electrical connection to one of the connecting leads) (see paragraph 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the thermistors of Shimizu in the battery module of Kako in order to monitor the temperature of the unit batteries of Kako. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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. /STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603296
CLAD CURRENT COLLECTORS INCLUDING THERMAL INTERFACE LAYER FOR BIPOLAR SOLID-STATE BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603304
FUEL CELL AND MOBILE UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603299
CELLULOSE-BASED SELF-STANDING FILMS FOR USE IN LI-ION BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592379
IMPROVED ANODE MATERIAL AND ANODE FOR A RECHARGEABLE BATTERY, A METHOD OF PRODUCTION THEREOF AND AN ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL MADE THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573715
LOW RESISTANCE SEPARATOR DESIGN IN BATTERY CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

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
65%
Grant Probability
49%
With Interview (-16.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 683 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