Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/462,063

SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 06, 2023
Examiner
ESSEX, STEPHAN J
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA
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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”) (JP 2019-036537 A, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation) in view of Kondo et al. (hereinafter “Kondo”) (U.S. 2019/0315628A1). Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Li teaches a lithium solid state battery 10 comprising an anode current collector 1 (negative electrode current collector), a solid electrolyte layer 3 (electrolyte layer), a cathode active material layer 4 (positive electrode), and a cathode current collector 5, stacked in this order. An Li occlusion layer 2 (intermediate layer) is further provided between the anode current collector 1 and the solid electrolyte layer 3. A negative electrode active material layer 6 made of precipitated lithium (metallic lithium) is formed between the solid electrolyte layer 3 and the Li occlusion layer 2 upon charging. (see paragraph 22; FIG. 1). The Li occlusion layer may comprise a mixture of a carbon material and a solid electrolyte (see paragraph 28). As a carbon material, graphene may be used (see paragraph 30). Li is silent as to hydrogen boride. Kondo teaches that sheets of hydrogen boride may be utilized in the electrode of a lithium secondary battery and is expected to have properties that are similar to that of graphene (see paragraphs 3, 52 and 56). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized hydrogen boride as taught by Kondo in combination with graphene in the Li occlusion layer of Li because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.06). Regarding claim 3, Li teaches that the solid electrolyte of the Li occlusion layer may comprise inorganic solid electrolytes such as sulfide solid electrolytes (see paragraph 33). Regarding claim 5, Li teaches that the solid electrolyte material used in the solid electrolyte layer 3 may be the same as that in the Li occlusion layer (see paragraph 45). Thus, the solid electrolyte layer 3 may also comprise a sulfide solid electrolyte (see paragraph 33). Regarding claim 6, Li teaches that the material of the negative electrode current collector may include SUS (stainless steel) (see paragraph 27). 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

Sep 06, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 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