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

BATTERY PACK AND METHOD OF PROTECTING BATTERY PACK

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 05, 2023
Examiner
THOMAS, BRENT C
Art Unit
1724
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Makita Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
215 granted / 434 resolved
-15.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
459
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
66.0%
+26.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 434 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 7-9 that the prior art of Noda would not teach the subject matter of amended claims 1 and 13. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that while Noda would no longer anticipate the claims, Noda teaches a controller programmed to carry out substantially similar functions and would therefore still render the claims obvious. Noda teaches a controller programmed to calculate an addition (counter add-subtract) value during discharge of the battery so that the addition value changes based on an increase in a first number of operations and an increase in discharge current value (measured values I) [0120, 0145-0147, 0188] [0120, 0188]. The amended claims 1 and 13 only differ from Noda in that Noda teaches a broader range in that the addition value (add-subtract) value may be negative in certain conditions. However, Noda would still overlap and render obvious the claimed addition value range since Noda teaches that during overcurrent conditions (as seen in fig. 8) the addition value would increase with current and the number of operations would be non-decreasing in these conditions [0191-0192, fig. 8] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1, 3 6-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2013/0033233 A1, hereafter Noda). With regard to claim 1, Noda teaches a battery pack comprising: a battery (battery 50) [0098]; a controller (main control unit 70) provided with a counter value (counter value k) [0100, 0185], the controller being programmed to: calculate an addition (counter add-subtract) value during discharge of the battery so that the addition value changes based on an increase in a first number of operations and an increase in discharge current value (measured values I), the first number of operations corresponding to a total number of operations of the battery pack in which the battery has a temperature exceeding a specified temperature threshold (operations causing overheated state that causes discharge control signal to stop discharge from battery 50) [0120, 0145-0147, 0188] [0120, 0188]; update during discharge of the battery, the counter value by adding the addition value during the discharge of the battery [0187-0188]; and prohibit, during discharge of the battery, the discharge of the battery during the discharge of the battery based on the counter value reaching a protection threshold (set value X3 indicating abnormality) [0187-0188, 0199], The instant claim only differs from Noda in that Noda teaches a broader range in that the addition value (add-subtract) value may be negative in certain conditions. However, Noda would still overlap and render obvious the claimed addition value range since Noda teaches that during overcurrent conditions (as seen in fig. 8) the addition value would increase with current and the number of operations would be non-decreasing in these conditions [0191-0192, fig. 8]. PNG media_image1.png 370 614 media_image1.png Greyscale With regard to claim 3, Noda teaches the controller is programmed to carry out described operational steps [0120] and teaches the controller updates the counter value with an addition value that is zero or more in accordance with the discharge current value being equal or more than a specified value (overcurrent threshold) and the addition value is zero or less when the discharge current value is less than a specified value (overcurrent threshold) based on a discharge current value [0191-0192, fig. 8]. With regard to claim 6, Noda teaches a controller (MCU 70), a charger detection circuit (72) and a load information generation unit and would increase the number of operations based on a loaded state of the battery satisfying a specified condition (overcurrent) between a previous charge and a current charge [0035, 120, 0153, 189-192]. With regard to claim 7, Noda teaches setting a protection threshold (overcurrent) during discharge in accordance with the total number of uses (via add-subtract value c) [0035, 0120, 0169, 0188-190]. With regard to claim 8, Noda teaches setting a protection threshold (overcurrent) that may decrease based on the total number of uses (changing protection conditions due to overcurrent in step S260) [0035, 0120, 0169, 0188-190, 0195-0197]. With regard to claims 9-10, Noda teaches setting a protection threshold (overcurrent) that may change based on the total number of uses (changing protection conditions due to overcurrent in step S260) and can detect the total number of uses (via add-subtract value c) [0035, 0120, 0169, 0188-190, 0195-0197] and would therefore perform the claimed functions. With regard to claim 12, Noda teaches calculating the addition value (add-subtract value c) during discharge based on a programmed map and detecting the total number of uses (via add-subtract value c) and would therefore perform the claimed functions. [0035, 0120, 0169, 0188-191]. With regard to claim 13, Noda teaches a method for protecting a battery included in battery pack [0098], the method comprising: calculating an addition (counter add-subtract) value in accordance with a total number of uses of the battery during discharge of the battery, the total number of uses including a first number of operations, the first number of operations corresponding to a total number of operations of the battery pack in which the battery has a temperature exceeding a specified temperature threshold (operations causing overheated state that causes discharge control signal to stop discharge from battery 50) [0145-0147, 0188]; updating, during discharge, a counter value by adding the addition value during the discharge of the battery [0188]; and prohibiting, during discharge, the discharge of the battery during the discharge of the battery based on the counter value reaching a protection threshold (set value X3 indicating abnormality) [0199]. The instant claim only differs from Noda in that Noda teaches a broader range in that the addition value (add-subtract) value may be negative in certain conditions. However, Noda would still overlap and render obvious the claimed addition value range since Noda teaches that during overcurrent conditions (as seen in fig. 8) the addition value would increase with current and the number of operations would be non-decreasing in these conditions [0191-0192, fig. 8]. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda as applied to claims 1, 3 6-10, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Kobayakawa et al. (US 2013/0033790 A1, hereafter Kobayakawa). With regard to claims 4-5 Noda discloses all the limitations of the battery pack detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the controller is programmed to calculate a subtraction value (add-subtract value C) [0120, 0191] in accordance with the total number of uses during discharge of the battery (which would increase based on the total number of uses claim 5) [0187-0188], wherein the subtraction value is less than zero [0182, 0191], and wherein the controller is programmed to update the counter value by adding the subtraction value during the discharge of the battery [0120, 0187-0188]. Noda does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to calculate a subtraction value in accordance with the total number of uses during charge of the battery, wherein the subtraction value is less than zero, and wherein the controller is configured to update the counter value by adding the subtraction value during the charge of the battery. Kobayakawa teaches a battery pack (40) comprising a battery (50); and a controller (main control unit 70) [0088, 0094]; wherein the controller is configured to perform its operations during the charge of the battery [0182-0184]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the battery pack of Noda such that wherein the controller is programmed to calculate a subtraction value in accordance with the total number of uses during charge of the battery and wherein the controller is configured to update the counter value by adding the subtraction value during the charge of the battery as taught by Kobayakawa to allow for heat generation estimation during charging [Kobayakawa 0182]. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F. 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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. /BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603305
REDOX FLOW BATTERY WITH IMPROVED EFFICIENCY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603339
ENERGY STORAGE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592433
BATTERY CELL, BATTERY, AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12567589
POSITIVE ELECTRODE, LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING POSITIVE ELECTRODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12555816
Apparatus and Method for Folding Battery Cell
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+26.4%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 434 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