Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/805,341

BATTERY MODULE TRANSFER JIG

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 14, 2024
Examiner
JOERGER, KAITLIN S
Art Unit
3655
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1008 granted / 1162 resolved
+34.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1196
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§112
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1162 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 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 1-5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114803503 in view of JP 2004214160. Regarding claim 1, CN ‘503 teaches a battery module transfer jig comprising: a mounting unit, 2, extending in a first direction; a base plate, 5, supported by the mounting unit and extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction, see figure 2; a plurality of transfer rollers, 11 and 16, on the base plate and arranged in a series in the second direction, each transfer roller having a rotation axis that extends in the first direction, see figure 2. The CN ‘503 reference does not teach a winch, as claimed. The CN ‘303 reference teaches a magnetic suction disc used for grabbing the battery. JP ‘160 teaches a battery module transfer jig comprising a winch, 14, disposed on the base plate and including a wire, 15, configured to be coupled to a battery module, 1, loaded in a battery module rack, the winch further being configured to separate the battery module from the battery module rack when the winch winds the wire. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the magnetic suction disc of the CN ‘503 reference with the winch of the JP ‘160 reference in order to achieve the predictable result of pulling a battery onto the transfer jig. Regarding claim 2, the CN ‘503 reference teaches a plurality of guide rollers, 12, disposed at outer peripheries of opposite sides of the base plate, each guide roller having a rotation axis that is perpendicular to the rotation axis of one transfer roller, see figure 1 and 2. Regarding claim 3, the JP ‘160 reference teaches the winch includes a motor, 12. Regarding claim 4, JP ‘160 teaches the winch is an electric motorized winch, 12, see figure 4. Regarding claim 5, JP ‘160 teaches, the motor is configured to be operated by a controller that is connected to the winch, where an on/off switch of the motor reads on the claimed controller. Regarding claim 8, the combination of the CN ‘503 and the JP ’160 teaches the winch includes a rotating axle, 13, and wherein the rotating axle of the winch is parallel to the first direction, if the winch is placed in the same configuration on the CN ‘503 device as it is taught in the JP ‘160, the rotating axle would be parallel to the first direction. Regarding claim 9, the combination of CN ‘503 and the JP ‘160 reference discloses the claimed reference except for the winch includes a rotating axle, and wherein the rotating axle of the winch is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the winch rotate about an axle perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, since the applicant has not disclosed that the direction of the rotating axles solves any states problem or if for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either orientation of the rotating axles. Regarding claim 10, the combination of the CN ‘503 and the JP ‘160 reference teaches that the winch is provided at a front end of the base plate, if the winch is placed in the same configuration on the CN ‘503 device as it is taught in the JP ‘160. Claim(s) 1, 6, 13-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird et al. (US 4,265,583) in view of Madsen (US ). Regarding claim 1, Baird et al. teaches a module transfer jig comprising: a mounting unit, 42, extending in a first direction; a base plate, 50, supported by the mounting unit and extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction, see figure 2; a plurality of transfer rollers, 60, on the base plate and arranged in a series in the second direction, each transfer roller having a rotation axis that extends in the first direction, see figure 1; and Baird teaches a winch, 72, but for raising and lowering the transfer jig, 40. Baird et al. teaches that the transfer jig is used to load and unload a unit, 24, from a rack, 12. Winches are well known prior art used for moving heavy items. Madsen teaches a rotary winch comprising a winch, 10, including a wire, 50, for pulling heavy loads, see abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the rotary winch of Madsen with the jig of Baird et al. in order to achieve the predictable result of pulling a battery onto the transfer jig. Regarding claim 6, Madsen teaches the winch includes a rotating axle, and wherein the rotating axle of the winch is configured to be rotated manually by a worker via the handle, 35. Regarding claim 13, Baird et al. teaches the base plate, 50, comprises a horizontal adjustment, see column 3, lines 43-47, which teach the rail, 50, is suitably positioned along the cross-beam and locked in the selected position. Regarding claim 14, Baird et al. teaches the mounting unit comprises a screw, 49, configured to fix an arm of a lift. Regarding claim 15, Baird et al. teaches the mounting unit further comprises a first coupling, 48, portion and a second coupling, 48, portion configured to be positionally movable in a state of being coupled to the base plate, see column 3, lines 34+. Regarding claim 16, Baird et al. teaches the winch is a manual winch, and wherein the winch includes a handle, 78. Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the claim method of transferring the battery module using the transfer jig according to claim 1 as an efficient way to transfer the module, taught by the combination of Baird et al. and Madsen, the method comprising: mounting the battery module transfer jig to a lift, see figure 1; disposing the battery module transfer jig so as to be adjacent to the battery module to be separated from the battery module rack, 12 of Baird et al; coupling the winch, 10 of Madsen, of the battery module transfer jig to the battery module; and separating the battery module from the battery module rack using the winch. Regarding 18, the combination of Baird et al. and Madsen further teaches the mounting comprises: a process of adjusting a position of the mounting unit of the battery module transfer jig so as to be aligned with a fastening portion of the lift; and a process of adjusting a screw of a coupling portion of the mounting unit in order to fix the fastening portion to the coupling portion, see column 3, lines19 through 48 of Baird et al. Regarding claim 19, the combination of Baird et al. and Madsen teach the separating is performed as a process of a worker winding a wire of the winch to pull the battery module, where the winch of Madsen is operated by a worker with handle, 35, and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method steps of claim 19 using the apparatus taught by the combination of Baird et al. and Madsen in its usually and expected fashion. Regarding claim 20, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the method step of pushing the battery module so as to be loaded into the battery module rack, using the transfer jig in its usual and expected fashion. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird et al. (US 4,265,583) in view of Madsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eckels et al. Regarding claim 7, Baird nor Madsen teach that the rotating axle of the winch is configured to be rotated by a drill. Eckels et al. teaches a winch, 11, wherein the winch includes a rotating axle, and wherein the rotating axle of the winch is configured to be rotated by a drill controlled by a worker, see figures 6 and 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the winch using a drill, as taught by Madsen in order to achieve the predictable result of efficiently winding the winch with a powered device rather than relying on a worker’s arm. Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 11 after an extensive search of the prior art the examiner was unable to find a teaching of a front stopper is mounted at a front end of the base plate corresponding to a rear of the winch. CN 114803503 is considered to be the best prior art and teaches a battery module transfer jig as claimed. The CN ‘503 reference does not teach the claimed winch, as such the JP 2004214160 and the Baird reference were used to teach the claimed winch feature of the battery module transfer jig. Baird et al. is considered to be the best prior art and teaches a battery module transfer jig as claimed. Baird et al. reference does not teach the claimed winch, as such Madsen was used to teach the claimed winch feature of the battery module transfer jig. Neither of the secondary references teach a stop, as claimed, and the examiner could find no motivation to modify the prior art to combine a stop with the cited references, to teach the claimed stopper at the front end of the base plate, as claimed. Regarding claim 12, after an extensive search of the prior art the examiner was unable to find a teaching of a rear stopper mounting portion is provided at a rear end of the base plate, and wherein a rear stopper is separably mounted to the rear stopper mounting portion. CN 114803503 is considered to be the best prior and does not teach a rear stopper, as claimed. This feature was not found to be taught by the prior art and it would not be obvious to modify the CN ‘503 reference to teach this feature. Baird et al. is considered to be the next best prior art and does not teach a rear stopper, as claimed. This feature was not found to be taught by the prior art and it would not be obvious to modify Baird et al. to teach this feature. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are included in the file to show additional examples of transfer jigs. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST). 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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. /KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652 29 December 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600323
CARRIAGE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583672
MULTI-LEVEL CONTAINER STORAGE SYSTEM AND HIGH-BAY CONTAINER STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577043
APPARATUS FOR MOVING TRANSPORT CONTAINERS BETWEEN A CONTAINER STACK AND A CONTAINER RACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581901
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESS EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570466
STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, HIGH-BAY WAREHOUSE, STORAGE METHOD AND RETRIEVAL METHOD
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
87%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+10.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1162 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