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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed March 12, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; support for the amendments can be found in cancelled claim 11. Claim 11 has been cancelled. Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office Action is persuasive, and, therefore, examination has been reopened to this Final Rejection as the amendment after the Non-final necessitated further search. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-10 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. New grounds of rejection are presented below.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan et al. (KR 20210077416 A) and in view of Lee et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20120107664 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee, and further in view of Tyler et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20160301045 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tyler, and Ota et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2017/0025646 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ota.
Regarding claim 1, Hwan teaches a battery module (“a battery module”) (see e.g., paragraph [0001]). Hwan teaches the battery module comprises a battery cell stack having a plurality of battery cells (“a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked”) (see e.g., paragraph [0014]), wherein each battery cell is a pouch-type secondary battery (“wherein each of the battery cells is a pouch-type battery cell”) (see e.g., paragraph [0057]). Hwan teaches the battery module comprises a module housing having a first plate 160 (“a lower frame housing the battery cell stack”) and a second plate 170 (“an upper plate covering an open upper side of the lower frame”) (see e.g., paragraph [0014] and Annotated Figure 8). Hwan teaches a partition member 155 (“a partition wall”) integrally formed with the second plate 170 (“each of the partition walls and one of the upper plate or the lower frame being a single integrally formed unitary structure” and “each of the partition walls that is part of the single integrally formed unitary structure extending completely from a lower surface of the upper plate to a bottom surface of the lower frame”) and extends from the lower surface of the second plate to a bottom surface of the first plate having a U-shaped cross-section (“each of the partition walls and one of the upper plate or the lower frame being a single integrally formed unitary structure”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 6 and paragraph [0077]).
Hwan does not explicitly teach a plurality of partition walls arranged at regular intervals within the battery cell stack and disposed between adjacent groups of the plurality of battery cells of the battery cell stack.
However, Hwan teaches the partition member 155 increases the overall rigidity of the module housing and reduce the damage to the battery module caused by mechanical external factors such as crush, crash, vibration, and shock (see e.g., paragraph [0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have a plurality of the partition walls arranged at regular intervals to not only increase the stability of the module housing of Hwan, but also because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, Hwan teaches meets the claim limitation of “a plurality of partition walls arranged at regular intervals within the battery cell stack and disposed between adjacent groups of the plurality of battery cells of the battery cell stack” and “wherein the battery cells each define major planar surfaces that are parallel to the partition walls, the battery cells in each group are disposed adjacent to one another in a stacking direction, and the partition walls are spaced apart from one another in the stacking direction.”
Hwan teaches the partition member 155 may be interposed between groups of at least one battery cells among the plurality of stacked battery cells, and for example, as illustrated in Figure 4, the partition member may be interposed between groups of twelve battery cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have the plurality of stacked battery cells include at least 32 battery cells (“the plurality of battery cells including at least 32 battery cells”) because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Hwan does not explicitly teach an insulating member attached to at least one surface of each of the partition walls and a lower surface of the upper plate.
However, Lee teaches a battery module configured to have a structure in which a plurality of plate type battery cells is mounted in a module case so that the battery cells are arranged adjacent to one another (see e.g., Abstract). Lee teaches a plurality of insulative members disposed between the respective battery cells (“an insulating member attached to at least one surface of each of the partition walls and a lower surface of the upper plate”) (see e.g., paragraph [0016]) to maximize cooling efficiency (see e.g., paragraph [0014]) and to protect the battery cells from external impact (see e.g., paragraph [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify partition walls of Hwan to include an insulative member disposed between the stack of battery cells, as taught by Lee, in order to maximize cooling efficiency (see e.g., paragraph [0014]) and to protect the battery cells from external impact (see e.g., paragraph [0015]).
However, Tyler teaches a battery module that includes a housing having a stack of battery cells (see e.g., Abstract), wherein the battery cells are pouch battery cells (see e.g., paragraph [0041]). Tyler teaches a plurality of thermal epoxy layer 68 deposited on the bottom of the housing 70 of the battery module 20 only between the stack of battery cells (“a thermally conductive resin layer located between the battery cell stack and a bottom surface of the lower frame, the thermally conductive resin layer being located only between adjacent ones of the partition walls”) (see e.g., paragraph [0039]). Tyler teaches the plurality of thermal epoxy layers are configured to fill any gaps between the housing and the battery cells, accounting for the differences in higher of the battery cells and to prevent substantial movement of the battery cells resulting from vibration and/or other disturbances (see e.g., paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the surface of the second plate of Hwan, as modified by Lee, to include a plurality of thermal epoxy layers spaced only between the stack of battery cells, as taught by Tyler, in order to fill any gaps between the housing and the battery cells, accounting for the differences in higher of the battery cells and to prevent substantial movement of the battery cells resulting from vibration and/or other disturbances (see e.g., paragraph [0048]).
However, Hwan, as modified by Lee and Tyler, does not explicitly teach each of the battery cells having a heat-sealed pouch case of a laminate sheet containing a resin layer and a metal layer.
However, Ota teaches a pouch battery cell that includes a first current collector coupled to a first portion of a pouch, the first current collector having a first electrode material disposed thereon, a second current collector coupled to a second portion of the pouch, the second current collector having a second electrode material disposed thereon, and a separator disposed between the first electrode material and the second electrode material (see e.g., Abstract). Ota teaches the inner layer of the pouch includes a resin (see e.g., paragraph [0106]) and the intermediate layer includes metal layers (“wherein each of the battery cells is a pouch-type battery cell having a heat-sealed pouch case of a laminate sheet containing a resin layer and a metal layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0105]). Ota teaches the resin and metal layers help reduce or eliminate chances of exposure to sparking and perform moisture control (see e.g., paragraph [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the pouch type batteries of Hwan, as modified by Lee and Tyler, to have a resin and metal layer, as taught by Ota, in order to help reduce or eliminate chances of exposure to sparking and perform moisture control (see e.g., paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 3, Hwan, as modified by Lee, Tyler, and Ota, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 1, Hwan teaches the partition member 155 increases the overall rigidity of the module housing and reduce the damage to the battery module caused by mechanical external factors such as crush, crash, vibration, and shock (see e.g., paragraph [0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have a plurality of the partition walls formed between the adjacent ones of battery cells and at two opposite side surface of the battery cell stack to not only increase the stability of the module housing of Hwan, but also because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, Hwan teaches meets the claim limitation of “wherein respective ones of the at least one partition wall are formed between the adjacent ones of the plurality of battery cells and at two opposite side surfaces of the battery cell stack.”
Regarding claim 6, Hwan, as modified by Lee, Tyler, and Ota, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Lee teaches the insulative members disposed between the battery cells are formed of a material exhibiting elastic pressing force when each of the insulative members is pressurized (“wherein the insulating member is in the form of an insulating film”) (see e.g., paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 9, Hwan, as modified by Lee, Tyler, and Ota, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Hwan teaches the housing comprises cover plates 180 on both sides of the battery cells (“further comprising end plates covering opposite front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack”) (see e.g., paragraph [0112] and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Hwan, as modified by Lee, Tyler, and Ota, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Hwan, as modified by Lee, Tyler, and Ota, teaches a battery pack including a plurality of battery modules (see e.g., Lee paragraph [0037]).
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 Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights