Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/612,970

METHOD FOR CHECKING A BATTERY ELEMENT STACK WITH REGARD TO THE POSITION OF BATTERY ELEMENT LAYERS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Examiner
FOX, DANIELLE A
Art Unit
2884
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
590 granted / 711 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
740
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
39.6%
-0.4% vs TC avg
§102
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 711 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 § 112 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is unclear due to what appears to be missing steps, inconsistent terminology, and lack of antecedent basis. Claims 2-14 contain similar errors and should be rewritten with clarity. To advance prosecution, claim 1 has been interpreted in the following way: A method for checking a stack of multiple battery element layers, each battery element layer comprising an anodebattery layer as a first type of electrode, a cathodebattery layer as a second type of electrode, and a separatoranode and cathode battery element layers each having a polygonal surfacearea, and are stacked along a stacking direction that is oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to the polygonal surface area to make the stack of multiple battery element layers, the method comprising: determininga geometry polygonal surface areas of at least one of the anode battery element layer andbattery element layer in a first determination step; stacking the battery element layers in a stacking step to form the stack of multiple battery element layers and subsequently for a position check of at least one of a pair of anode battery layers andbattery layers stacked in the stack of multiple battery element layers; irradiating, in a second determination step, the stack of multiple battery element layers by X-ray radiation that is emitted by an X-ray emitter and detected by an X-ray detector, the X-ray radiation being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to thepolygonal surfaceareas of the multiple battery element layers; determining, via the detected X-ray radiation, with regard to at least one pair of opposite sides of the stack of multiple battery element layers, the greatest edge spacing that is present between edges of at least one of the pair of anode battery layers and the pair of cathode battery layers; checking, in a first check step, whether this greatest edge spacing is less than a first tolerance value, wherein when the greatest edge is not less than the first tolerance value, the stack if multiple battery element layers is assessed as unallowable and when the greatest edge is less than the first tolerance value, a second check step is carried out, wherein in the second check step one-half the value by which the greatest edge spacing is less than the first tolerance value is defined as the overhang; and checking whether the greatest edge spacing is less than a value that results from the sum of the shortest dimension with regard to the determination direction of all electrodes of at least one of the anode battery layers and the cathode battery layers and the difference between a second tolerance value and one-half the overhang, wherein when the greatest edge spacing is not less than the value, the stack of multiple battery element layers is assessed as unallowable and when the greatest edge spacing is less than the value, the stack of multiple battery element layers is assessed as allowable. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 have been rejected above, but would be allowable if rewritten to correct issues rejected under U.S.C. 112 above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the best prior art, US 2025/0189465 (KIM) disclose a method for checking a stack of multiple battery element layers (Fig. 1 and 2A), each battery element comprising an anodebattery layer as a first type of electrode (220), a cathodebattery layer as a second type of electrode (230), and a separatoranode and cathode battery element layers each having a polygonal surfacearea (Fig. 2A and 2B), and are stacked along a stacking direction that is oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to the polygonal surface area to make the stack of multiple battery element layers (Fig. 2A and 2B), the method comprising: determininga geometry polygonal surface areas of at least one of the anode battery element layer andbattery element layer in a first determination step (Fig. 2A and 2B, required); stacking the battery element layers in a stacking step to form the stack of multiple battery element layers and subsequently for a position check of at least one of a pair of anode battery layers andbattery layers stacked in the stack of multiple battery element layers (Fig. 2A); irradiating, in a second determination step, the stack of multiple battery element layers by X-ray radiation that is emitted by an X-ray emitter and detected by an X-ray detector, the X-ray radiation being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to thepolygonal surfaceareas of the multiple battery element layers (Fig. 1); determining, via the detected X-ray radiation, with regard to at least one pair of opposite sides of the stack of multiple battery element layers, the greatest edge spacing that is present between edges of at least one of the pair of anode battery layers and the pair of cathode battery layers (Fig. 2A). However, the prior art of record fails to teach the details ofchecking, in a first check step, whether this greatest edge spacing is less than a first tolerance value, wherein when the greatest edge is not less than the first tolerance value, the stack if multiple battery element layers is assessed as unallowable and when the greatest edge is less than the first tolerance value, a second check step is carried out, wherein in the second check step one-half the value by which the greatest edge spacing is less than the first tolerance value is defined as the overhang; and checking whether the greatest edge spacing is less than a value that results from the sum of the shortest dimension with regard to the determination direction of all electrodes of at least one of the anode battery layers and the cathode battery layers and the difference between a second tolerance value and one-half the overhang, wherein when the greatest edge spacing is not less than the value, the stack of multiple battery element layers is assessed as unallowable and when the greatest edge spacing is less than the value, the stack of multiple battery element layers is assessed as allowable. Since the prior art of record fail to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 2-14 are indicated as allowable by virtue of their dependence. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANI FOX whose telephone number is (571)272-3513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5. 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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. /DANI FOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603243
X-RAY EMITTER AND MOBILE X-RAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588880
PORTABLE RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGING APPARATUS AND RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590909
X-RAY INSPECTION APPARATUS AND SENSITIVITY CORRECTION METHOD FOR X-RAY INSPECTION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585033
X-RAY DETECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578257
Device and Method for Detecting Reactive Luminescent Particles in Carbon-Based Nanomaterials
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 711 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