Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 19/076,511

BATTERY CELL, BATTERY, AND ELECTRIC APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 11, 2025
Examiner
ZHANG, HAIXIA
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Contemporary Amperex Technology (Hong Kong) Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
188 granted / 301 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
317
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 301 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-14 and 16-19 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. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (“Su”, US 20230030940 A1) in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”, US 20210234148 A1). Regarding claim 1, Su teaches a battery cell (Su, Title), comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode plate, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode film layer disposed on at least one side of the negative electrode current collector and containing a negative electrode active material (Su, Figs. 3-4, [0072]-[0075], e.g., the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer coated on opposite sides of the negative electrode current collector); and a housing accommodating the electrode assembly, wherein the housing comprises a side wall, and the side wall surrounds the electrode assembly (Su, Figs. 3-4, [0077], [0080], e.g., the housing 22 is used for accommodating the electrode assembly 21; the housing 22 may comprise a housing body 223); wherein the negative electrode active material comprises element silicon, and the housing is a cylindrical structure (Su, Figs. 3-4, [0052], [0078], e.g., the negative electrode active material can be silicon; the housing 22 is of a hollow cylindrical structure). Su does not teach the negative electrode film layer meets one or more of the following conditions:(1) a surface density of the negative electrode film layer is less than or equal to 10.5 mg/cm2; and (2) a compacted density of the negative electrode film layer is less than or equal to 1.75 g/cm3. However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches a battery comprising a negative electrode film layer having a compacted density of the negative electrode film layer is less than or equal to 1.75 g/cm3 (Wang, Title, [0019], e.g., the compacted density PD of the negative electrode film is from 1.0 g/cm3 to 1.6 g/cm3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a compacted density of the negative electrode film layer is less than or equal to 1.75 g/cm3, for the purpose of improving the dynamic performance and cycle life of battery while maintaining the advantage of higher energy density (Wang, [0019]). Regarding claim 6, Su teaches wherein: the electrode assembly comprises a main body, the main body comprises a middle region and two end regions arranged along an axial direction of the housing, and the middle region is located between the two end regions (Su, Figs. 3-4, [0072], e.g., the electrode assembly 21 comprises a main body part 211; (as shown in Figs. 3-4, the electrode assembly comprises a main body, the main body comprises a middle region and two end regions arranged along an axial direction of the housing, and the middle region is located between the two end regions)); and in a radial direction of the housing, a distance between an outer surface of the middle region and an inner surface of the side wall is greater than a distance between an outer surface of the end region and the inner surface of the side wall (Su, Figs. 3-4, [0080], e.g., the housing 22 may comprise a housing body 223; (as shown in Fig. 4, in a radial direction of the housing, a distance between an outer surface of the middle region and an inner surface of the side wall is greater than a distance between an outer surface of the end region and the inner surface of the side wall)). Regarding claim 7, Su teaches wherein in a direction from the end region to the middle region, the distance between the outer surface of the middle region and the inner surface of the side wall first decreases and then increases (Su, Figs. 3-4, [0072], [0080], e.g., the electrode assembly 21 comprises a main body part 211; the housing 22 may comprise a housing body 223; (as shown in Fig. 4, in a direction from the end region to the middle region, the distance between the outer surface of the middle region and the inner surface of the side wall first decreases and then increases). Regarding claim 20, Su teaches the battery cell of claim 1 as disclosed above. Su teaches a battery comprising the battery cell (Su, Fig. 2, [0061], e.g., the battery 100 comprises a box 10 and a battery cell 20, and the box 10 is used to accommodate the battery cell 20). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (“Su”, US 20230030940 A1) in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”, US 20210234148 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Youm (US 20150194663 A1). Regarding claim 2, Su in view of Wang teaches the battery cell of claim 1 as disclosed above. Su in view of Wang does not teach wherein a mass percentage of the element silicon in the negative electrode film layer is 1% to 32%; and/or a capacity surface density of the negative electrode plate is greater than or equal to 3.2 mAh/cm2: and/or a matrix material of the side wall comprises steel, and a thickness of the side wall is 0.3 mm to 0.9 mm. However, in the same field of endeavor, Youm teaches a battery comprising a mass percentage of the element silicon in the negative electrode film layer falling in the claimed range of 1% to 32% (Youm, Title, [0057], e.g., the silicon (Si) particle may be included in the negative active material layer in an amount of about 1.0 wt % to about 7.5 wt %, for example, about 1.2 wt % to about 5.0 wt % based on the total amount of the negative active material layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a mass percentage of the element silicon in the negative electrode film layer falling in the claimed range of 1% to 32%, for the purpose of achieving good electrical conductivity (Youm, [0057]). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (“Su”, US 20230030940 A1) in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”, US 20210234148 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kogetsu et al. (“Kogetsu”, US 20080070112 A1). Regarding claim 5, Su in view of Wang teaches the battery cell of claim 1 as disclosed above. Su in view of Wang does not teach a porosity of the negative electrode film layer is greater than or equal to 10%, and less than 100%. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kogetsu teaches a battery comprising a porosity of a negative electrode film layer falling in the claimed range of greater than or equal to 10%, and less than 100% (Kogetsu, Title, [0067], e.g., the negative electrode active material layer preferably has a porosity of 10 to 70%, and more preferably 30 to 60%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a porosity of the negative electrode film layer is greater than or equal to 10%, and less than 100%, for the purpose of obtaining the effect of relieving expansion of the active material layer and/or providing optimum energy density of the negative electrode (Hong, [0067]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to a new ground(s) of rejection. 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 HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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. /HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 11, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 09, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597599
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL AND ELECTROCHEMICAL APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS CONTAINING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592460
ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY, SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY PACK AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12494510
FLUORINATED DIETHERS AND THE USE THEREOF IN ELECTROLYTES AND BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12494508
CHEMICALLY INERT ADDITIVES FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12482884
Battery Pack
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
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
62%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+18.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 301 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month