Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/262,402

SEPARATOR, BATTERY CELL, BATTERY AND ELECTRICAL APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 08, 2025
Examiner
WEINER, LAURA S
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
CONTEMPORARY AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
972 granted / 1139 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1182
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1139 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of a separator comprising a substrate and a polymer layer claimed in claim 14, comprising a liquid-retaining polymer comprising: an ester polymer claimed in claims 9-10, comprising a building block represented by formula (CI) PNG media_image1.png 158 154 media_image1.png Greyscale where R31-R33 = H and R34 =unsubstituted C1 alkyl group, specifically poly(vinyl acetate) PNG media_image2.png 281 246 media_image2.png Greyscale n and further comprising:a bonding polymer as claimed in claim 3, comprising a polyacrylate PNG media_image3.png 221 262 media_image3.png Greyscale and an ether polymer as claimed in claims 7-8, comprising a building block represented by formula (BII) PNG media_image4.png 96 109 media_image4.png Greyscale R24-R26 = H and R27 = an unsubstituted C2 ether group, specifically poly(ethyl vinyl ether) PNG media_image5.png 200 273 media_image5.png Greyscale in the reply filed on 9-29-2025 and 12-1-2025 are acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a burden to search all the different possibilities for the polymer layer. This is not found persuasive because the polymer layer comprises:a) a liquid retaining polymer that comprises: i) a fluoropolymer as claimed in claim 4-6 or ii) an ester polymer as claimed in 9-10 or iii) an aldehyde-ketone polymer as claimed in claims 11-12; and iv) further comprises an ether polymer as claimed in claim 7-8;ANDb) further comprises a bonding polymer as claimed in claim 3. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 4-6, 11-12 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9-29-2025 and 12-1-2025. Claim Objections Claims 3, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein the polymer layer further comprises a bonding polymer”. Claim 14 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein the separator body further comprises a substrate, and” Claim 16 is objected to because the claim should cite mm2 instead of mm2.Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-3, 7-10, 13-14 and 16-19 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 rejected because the method steps cited in the product by process claim needs to be stated as method steps. It is unclear if the method step includes the polymer system is left standing at 70 degrees C for 8 h; then left standing for more than or equal to 24 hours at 25 degrees C and then the polymer system is filtered by means of a 200-mesh filter screen to leave a first substance. Claims 1-2 are rejected because it is unclear what the bonding force of the separator is referring to. Claim 3 is rejected because the phrase “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation claimed after the phrase “optionally” is a choice between i) the bonding polymer materials versus ii) the ratio of the mass percentage of the liquid retaining polymer to the mass percent of age of the bonding polymer. In Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d 1949. Claim 7 is rejected because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation of 1< K2< ∞ and the claim also recites “optionally” 1< K2 < 100; and “further optionally 1< K2 < 10, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 9 is rejected because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation of 1< K1< ∞ and the claim also recites “optionally” 1< K1 < 100; and “further optionally 1< K1 < 10, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (CN 110993859, machine translation) teaches an improved structure of a polymer coating membrane comprising a base film and the coating layer comprising modifying a gel polymer by grafting with a carboxyl group which improves the polymer coating membrane adhesive property and stability. Zhang et al. teaches that the gel polymer is composed of one or at least two kinds of copolymers or mixtures of polyvinylidene fluorine, polyurethane, polyethylene oxide, polypropylene oxide, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylamide, polymethyl acrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl pyrrolidone or poly-acrylic acid tetraethylene glycol ester. Zhang et al. teaches that the coating slurry comprises the surface crafted polymer gel, a bonding agent comprising polyethylene oxide, polymethyl methacrylate, acrylic and acrylic ester [teaching claim 3] and de-ionized water. Zhang et al. teaches that the base film is a polyolefin membrane [teaching a separator body]. Zhang et al. teaches that the drying temperature is 40-80° C. Zhang et al. teaches in [Table 1, 0071], that in project 1, the peel strength 26 N/m and in project 2, the peel strength was 87 N/m [teaches claim 2]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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. /LAURA S. WEINER/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1723 /Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 08, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 25, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603275
ELECTROCHEMICAL CELLS COMPRISING COATED CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND SILYL ESTER PHOSPHONATE AS ELECTROLYTE ADDITIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603272
ALKALINE DRY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597640
ORGANIC ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION AND LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597602
LITHIUM AND MANGANESE RICH POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597609
POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, SECONDARY BATTERY AND POWER CONSUMING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1139 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