Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/620,862

BATTERY CELL, BATTERY, ELECTRICITY-CONSUMING APPARATUS, DETECTING METHOD, AND DETECTING MODULE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Examiner
MCDONNOUGH, COURTNEY G
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
CONTEMPORARY AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
467 granted / 570 resolved
+13.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
598
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
57.8%
+17.8% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 570 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, see pages 7-10, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4 under U.S.C. 102 and 5-12 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by the amendment. The deficiencies of Hinterberger are now met by Hinterberger, Fulop and Wang. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and the deficiencies of Hinterberger and Al-Anbuky, are now met by Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger et al. DE 102019125236 A1 in view of Fulop et al. US 2014/0023888 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Fulop) in view of Wang CN 108169681 A. Regarding claim 1, Hinterberger discloses a battery cell (fig. 3, battery cell 14, par. [41]), comprising: a casing (fig.1, 3, battery cell housing 16, 18, electrically conductive housing section is preferred 18th as a housing cover, par. [28], [41]), comprising a wall part and an accommodating cavity (fig. 3, interior 22, par. [42]), enclosed and formed by the wall part; an electrode assembly (fig. 3, galvanic cell 20, par. [42]), located in the accommodating cavity and connected with a first electrode terminal (fig. 3, second voltage tap 30, par. [42]), and a second electrode terminal (fig. 3, first voltage tap 28, par. [42]); a third electrode (see fig. 3, at least temporarily the housing section 18 as a reference electrode, par. [41], [50]), arranged on the wall part (see fig. 3); a signal line (see fig. 3, connecting lines), comprising a first signal line connected with the third electrode and the first electrode terminal, and a second signal line connected with the third electrode and the second electrode terminal (see fig. 3, connecting lines); and a processing unit (fig. 3, diagnostic unit 32, par. [42]); configured to determine, based on a voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode (fig. 3, anode potential difference 50 between housing section 18th , par. [43]). Hinterberger does not disclose the casing being electrically conductive, the third electrode being electrically connected to the casing; configured to determine, based on a voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode at least one of a state of corrosion of the casing or a state of lithium precipitation of the first electrode terminal. Fulop discloses the battery cell (fig. 1, par. [0053]) further comprises a casing that is electrically conductive (par. [0090]), the third electrode is electrically connected to the casing (fig. 1, reference electrode 134, par. [0056], [0089]), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide reference electrode to monitor a range of capabilities of electrochemical cell, as taught in Fulop in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger. The motivation would be to provide accurate measurement of the electrode potential permits accurate determination of the cell's state of charge, since state of charge is directly correlated to the potential difference between either working electrode and the reference electrode. (see par. [0091]). Wang discloses configured to determine, based on a voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode (fig. 2, voltage difference between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (positive electrode-case), the voltage difference between the negative electrode and the negative electrode (negative electrode-case), and the positive and negative electrodes of the battery. Voltage difference (positive-negative), table 1, pg. 6) at least one of a state of corrosion of the casing (fig. 1, the corrosion test of the aluminum casing of the battery is converted into the test of the voltage difference between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and the voltage difference between the negative electrode and the casing, step S4, pg. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a method for detecting corrosion of an aluminum housing of a lithium ion battery, as taught in Wang in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger and Fulop. The motivation would be to improve the qualification rate of the product and effectively reduce the production cost, which is crucial to the battery manufacturer. (see Wang: Background). Regarding claim 2, Hinterberger, Fulop and Wang discloses the battery cell according to claim 1, Hinterberger discloses wherein the casing (fig. 3, battery cell housing 16, 18, par. [41]) comprises a conductive material (electrically conductive housing section, par. [41]) and is multiplexed as the third electrode (see fig. 3), the first signal line is connected with the casing and the first electrode terminal (see fig. 3, second voltage tap 30, par. [42]), and the second signal line is connected with the casing (see fig. 3) and the second electrode terminal (fig. 3, first voltage tap 28, par. [42]). Regarding claim 3, Hinterberger, Fulop and Wang discloses the battery cell according to claim 2, Hinterberger discloses wherein the wall part comprises a casing body (fig. 3, battery cell housing 16, par. [41]) with an opening and an end cover covering the opening (see fig. 3) the end cover is multiplexed as the third electrode (fig. 3, housing section 18, par. [41]) the first signal line is connected with the end cover (see fig. 3) and the first electrode terminal (see fig. 3, second voltage tap 30, par. [42]), and the second signal line is connected with the end cover (see fig. 3) and the second electrode terminal (fig. 3, first voltage tap 28, par. [42]). Regarding claim 4, Hinterberger, Fulop and Wang discloses the battery cell according to claim 1, Hinterberger discloses wherein the wall part comprises a casing body (fig. 3, battery cell housing 16, par. [41]) with an opening and an end cover covering the opening, and the third electrode (see fig. 3, housing section 18, par. [41]) is located on a side of the end cover away from the accommodating cavity (see fig. 3). Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger in view of Al-Anbuky US 2007/0080668 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Al-Anbuky) in view of Fulop in view of Wang. Regarding claim 5, Hinterberger discloses a detecting method for a battery cell, comprising: providing a battery cell (fig. 3, battery cell 14, par. [41]), comprising an electrode assembly (fig. 3, galvanic cell 20, par. [42]), and a third electrode (see fig. 3, housing section 18, par. [41]), the electrode assembly comprising a first electrode terminal (see fig. 3, second voltage tap 30, par. [42]), and a second electrode terminal (fig. 3, first voltage tap 28, par. [42]) and the first electrode terminal (see fig. 3, second voltage tap 30 connected to anode 26, par. [43]) being a negative electrode terminal,; obtaining a voltage difference (anode potential difference 50, par. [43]) between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode (fig. 4, housing section 18 and anode 26 of the fig.1 for a voltage measurement of the anode potential difference 50, par. [43]) Hinterberger does not disclose determining a setting parameter of the battery cell according to the voltage difference, the battery cell further comprising a casing that is electrically conductive, the third electrode being electrically connected to the casing and determining, based on the voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode, at least one of a state of corrosion of the casing or a state of lithium precipitation of the first electrode terminal. Al-Anbuky discloses determining a setting parameter of the battery cell according to the voltage difference (par.0014], [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provides a method for determining polarization of an electrode of a battery, allowing the battery to discharge for a selected period of time, as taught in Al-Anbuky in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger. The motivation would be changes of the electric potential with abnormality is detected with sufficient precision. (see Al-Anbuky: par. [0013]). Fulop discloses the battery cell (fig. 1, par. [0053]) further comprises a casing that is electrically conductive (par. [0090]), the third electrode is electrically connected to the casing (fig. 1, reference electrode 134, par. [0056], [0089]), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide reference electrode to monitor a range of capabilities of electrochemical cell, as taught in Fulop in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger and Al-Anbuky . The motivation would be to provide accurate measurement of the electrode potential permits accurate determination of the cell's state of charge, since state of charge is directly correlated to the potential difference between either working electrode and the reference electrode. (see par. [0091]). Wang discloses configured to determine, based on a voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode (fig. 2, voltage difference between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (positive electrode-case), the voltage difference between the negative electrode and the negative electrode (negative electrode-case), and the positive and negative electrodes of the battery. Voltage difference (positive-negative), table 1, pg. 6) at least one of a state of corrosion of the casing (fig. 1, the corrosion test of the aluminum casing of the battery is converted into the test of the voltage difference between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and the voltage difference between the negative electrode and the casing, step S4, pg. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a method for detecting corrosion of an aluminum housing of a lithium ion battery, as taught in Wang in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky and Fulop. The motivation would be to improve the qualification rate of the product and effectively reduce the production cost, which is crucial to the battery manufacturer. (see Wang: Background). Regarding claim 6, Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang discloses the method according to claim 5, Hinterberger discloses wherein: the battery cell further comprises a casing (fig. 3, battery cell housing 16, 18, par. [41]), the electrode assembly (fig. 3, galvanic cell 20, par. [42]), is located in the casing, and the casing serves as the third electrode (see fig. 3, housing section 18, par. [41]); obtaining the voltage difference (cathode potential difference 48, par. [44]) between the first electrode terminal (see fig. 3, second voltage tap 30, par. [42]) and the third electrode comprises obtaining a first voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the casing (fig. 4, housing section 18 and anode 26 of the fig.1 for a voltage measurement of the anode potential difference 50, par. [43]) . Hinterberger does not disclose not in a charging-and-discharging state within a predetermined time period; and the method further determining the setting parameter of the battery cell according to the voltage difference comprises determining that corrosion of the casing occurs when the first voltage difference decreases within the predetermined time period. Al-Anbuky discloses not in a charging-and-discharging state within a predetermined time period; and the method further determining the setting parameter of the battery cell (par. [0024], clm. 1) according to the voltage difference comprises determining that corrosion of the casing occurs when the first voltage difference decreases within the predetermined time period (fig. 5-7, par. [0007], [0076]). The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 5. Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger in view of Al-Anbuky in view of Fulop in view of Wang as applied to claim 5 and 9 above, and further in view of Nagakura US 2013/0069584 A1. Regarding claim 8, Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang discloses the method according to claim 5, Hinterberger discloses wherein: obtaining the voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode difference (anode potential difference 50, par. [43]). Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang do not disclose comprises obtaining a second voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode in a charging state; and the method further comprises determining the setting parameter of the battery cell according to the voltage difference comprises determining that lithium precipitation of the first electrode terminal occurs when the second voltage difference is less than or equal to a second voltage threshold. Nagakura discloses comprises obtaining a second voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode in a charging state (fig. 1, total terminal voltage, par. [0014]); and determining the setting parameter of the battery cell (fig. 1, cell 2, par. [0013]); according to the voltage difference (fig. 3, terminal voltage, par. [0025]) comprises determining that lithium precipitation (par. [0025]) of the first electrode terminal (fig. 1, negative electrode plate, par. [0025]); occurs when the second voltage difference is less than or equal to a second voltage threshold (fig. 3, threshold voltage, par. [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a battery charging apparatus to calculate a lithium deposition threshold voltage value battery charging apparatus and compares the terminal voltage with the calculated lithium deposition threshold voltage value, as taught in Nagakura in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang. The motivation would be to prevent the deposition of lithium in a cell of a battery. (see Nagakura: par. [0003]-[006]). Regarding claim 12, Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang discloses the detecting module according to claim 9, Hinterberger discloses wherein the obtaining unit is further configured to obtain (voltmeter, par. [48]) Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang do not disclose a second voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode of the battery cell in a charging state, and the processing unit is further configured to determine that lithium precipitation of the first electrode terminal occurs when the second voltage difference is less than or equal to a second voltage threshold. Nagakura discloses a second voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode (fig. 1, total terminal voltage, par. [0014]) of the battery cell (fig. 1, cell 2, par. [0013]) in a charging state, and the processing unit is further configured to determine that lithium precipitation (par. [0025]) of the first electrode terminal (fig. 1, negative electrode plate, par. [0025]) occurs when the second voltage difference (fig. 3, terminal voltage, par. [0025]) is less than or equal to a second voltage threshold (fig. 3, threshold voltage, par. [0025]).. The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 8. Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger in view of Al-Anbuky in view of Fulop in view of Wang as applied to claim 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Smyrl US 2015/0198519 A1. Regarding claim 7, Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang the method according to claim 6, Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky and Fulop do not disclose wherein determining the setting parameter of the battery cell according to the voltage difference comprises: determining that the corrosion of the casing is severe and sending an alarm signal when the first voltage difference is less than or equal to a first voltage threshold within the predetermined time period. Wang disclose wherein determining the setting parameter of the battery cell according to the voltage difference comprises: determining that the corrosion of the casing the first voltage difference is less than or equal to a first voltage threshold within the predetermined time period (fig. 1, steps S1-S4, pg. 2). The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 5. Smyrl discloses determining that the corrosion is severe and sending an alarm signal (par. [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a warning that the critical conditions for corrosion have been detected at the location of the battery-sensor, as taught in Smyrl in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky and Wang. The motivation would be to provide user the severity of corrosion. (see Smyrl: par. [0007]). Regarding claim 11, Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang discloses the detecting module according to claim 10, Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky and Fulop does not disclose wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine that the corrosion of the casing is severe when the first voltage difference is less than or equal to a first voltage threshold. Wang discloses wherein the processing unit (real-time monitoring unit, pg. 2) is further configured to determine that the corrosion of the casing is severe when the first voltage difference is less than or equal to a first voltage threshold (fig. 1, steps S1-S4, pg. 2). The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 5. Smyrl discloses send an alarm signal (par. [0050]). The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 7. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger in view of Al-Anbuky in view of Fulop in view of Wang. Regarding claim 9, Hinterberger discloses a detecting module (fig. 3, diagnostic unit 32) for a battery cell, wherein the battery cell (fig. 3, battery cell 14, par. [41]) comprises an electrode assembly (fig. 3, galvanic cell 20, par. [42]) and a third electrode (see fig. 3, housing section 18, par. [41]) the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode terminal (fig. 3, second voltage tap 30, par. [42]) and a second electrode terminal (fig. 3, first voltage tap 28, par. [42]) the first electrode terminal is a negative electrode terminal (see fig. 3, second voltage tap 30 connected to anode 26, par. [43]), and the detecting module comprises: an obtaining unit (voltmeter, par. [48]), configured to obtain a voltage difference (anode potential difference 50, par. [43]) between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode (fig. 4, housing section 18 and anode 26 of the fig.1 for a voltage measurement of the anode potential difference 50, par. [43]); and a processing unit (fig. 3, diagnostic unit 32, par. [41]). Hinterberger does not disclose determine a setting parameter of the battery cell according to the voltage difference; the battery cell further comprises a casing that is electrically conductive, the third electrode is electrically connected to the casing; configured to determine, based on the voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode, at least one of a state of corrosion of the casing or a state of lithium precipitation of the first electrode terminal. Al-Anbuky discloses determining a setting parameter of the battery cell according to the voltage difference (determination to polarization of electrode, par.0014], [0057]). The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 5. Fulop discloses the battery cell (fig. 1, par. [0053]) further comprises a casing that is electrically conductive (par. [0090]), the third electrode is electrically connected to the casing (fig. 1, reference electrode 134, par. [0056], [0089]), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide reference electrode to monitor a range of capabilities of electrochemical cell, as taught in Fulop in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger and Al-Anbuky . The motivation would be to provide accurate measurement of the electrode potential permits accurate determination of the cell's state of charge, since state of charge is directly correlated to the potential difference between either working electrode and the reference electrode. (see par. [0091]). Wang discloses configured to determine, based on a voltage difference between the first electrode terminal and the third electrode (fig. 2, voltage difference between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (positive electrode-case), the voltage difference between the negative electrode and the negative electrode (negative electrode-case), and the positive and negative electrodes of the battery. Voltage difference (positive-negative), table 1, pg. 6) at least one of a state of corrosion of the casing (fig. 1, the corrosion test of the aluminum casing of the battery is converted into the test of the voltage difference between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and the voltage difference between the negative electrode and the casing, step S4, pg. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a method for detecting corrosion of an aluminum housing of a lithium ion battery, as taught in Wang in modifying the apparatus of Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky and Fulop. The motivation would be to improve the qualification rate of the product and effectively reduce the production cost, which is crucial to the battery manufacturer. (see Wang: Background). Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger in view of Al-Anbuky as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang. Regarding claim 10, Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky, Fulop and Wang discloses the method according to claim 9, Hinterberger discloses wherein: the battery cell (fig. 3, battery cell 14, par. [41]) further comprises a casing (fig. 3, battery cell housing 16, par. [41]), the electrode assembly (fig. 3, galvanic cell 20, par. [42]), is located in the casing (see fig. 3), and the casing is multiplexed as the third electrode (see fig. 3, housing section 18, par. [41]); the obtaining unit (voltmeter, par. [48]) is configured to obtain a first voltage difference (anode potential difference 50, par. [43]) between the first electrode terminal (see fig. 3, second voltage tap 30 connected to anode 26, par. [43]). Hinterberger, Al-Anbuky and Fulop do not disclose the casing of the battery cell that are not in a charging-and-discharging state within a predetermined time period; and the processing unit is configured to determine that corrosion of the casing occurs when the first voltage difference decreases within the predetermined time period. Wang discloses the casing of the battery cell that are not in a charging-and-discharging state within a predetermined time period; and the processing unit is configured to determine that corrosion of the casing occurs when the first voltage difference decreases within the predetermined time period (fig. 1, steps S1-S4, pg. 2). The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 9. 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 COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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. /COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 4/8/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596161
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ADJUSTING SUBJECT TABLE BEHAVIORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584953
SEMICONDUCTOR TESTING DEVICE AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566155
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING DEFECTS OR DETERIORATION IN THE SIDEWALLS OF CAN BODIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553924
LOW POWER AND HIGH ACCURACY VOLTAGE MONITOR WITH BUILT-IN REFERENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12540969
Diagnostic Systems and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 570 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