DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 2-4 and 16 have been canceled.
Claim 1, 14, 15 and 17 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 3 and 4.
Claims 1, 5-15 and 17 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Lee in view of Lustig is now relied on.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “wherein the heat insulation member swells to a size to block the slits so as to block the introduction of oxygen into the battery module through the slits” is interpreted as wherein the heat insulation member is configured to swell to a size to block the slits so as to block the introduction of oxygen into the battery module through the slits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-15 and 17 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 recites the limitation "the introduction of oxygen" in line 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5-15 and 17 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20200259155-A1) in view of Lustig (US-20210091353-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery module (Fig. 1; 1) comprising:
a battery cell stack (Fig. 2; 110) constituted by a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 2; 110) stacked adjacent (Fig. 2) to each other;
a module case (Fig. 2; 20) disposed at an outer surface (Fig. 2; outer surface of 110) of the battery cell stack (110) so as to fix (Fig. 1) the battery cell stack (110);
a bus bar (Fig. 2; 320) configured to electrically connect ([0054]) electrode leads (Fig. 2; 120) protruding from the battery cells (110) to each other and having slits (Fig. 3; 3221) formed therein; and
wherein the slits (3221) are configured to allow the electrode leads (120) to extend therethrough ([0054]).
Lee fails to disclose a heat insulation member disposed inside the module case, the heat insulation member having a thermal expansion property,
wherein the heat insulation member has an initial state and an expanded state,
wherein the heat insulation member contacts the bus bar in the expanded state,
wherein the heat insulation member is configured to expand when a fire breaks out in the battery module, wherein the heat insulation member swells to a size to block the slits so as to block the introduction of oxygen into the battery module through the slits,
wherein, in the initial state, the bus bar is between the heat insulation member and the battery cell stack, and wherein the heat insulation member contacts the bus bar in the initial state.
Lustig discloses a heat insulation member (Fig. 1; 7) disposed inside ([0027]) a module case (“housing” [0024] including 4 of Fig. 1), the heat insulation member (7) having a thermal expansion property (“intumescent”; [0013]),
wherein the heat insulation member (7) has an initial state (material before exposure to flame per [0013]) and an expanded state (“the material expands significantly”; [0013]),
wherein the heat insulation member (7) contacts a bus bar (Fig. 1; 6; “cell contact system 6”; [0028]) in the expanded state (the specification does not teach that the swelling of 7 results in detachment),
wherein the heat insulation member (7) is configured to expand ([0013]) when a fire ([0013]) breaks out in a battery module (Fig. 1),
wherein the heat insulation member (7) swells to a size ([0013]; size of 7 after swelling in response to exposure to fire)
wherein, in the initial state ([0013]), the bus bar (6) is between (Fig. 1) the heat insulation member (7) and a battery cell stack (Fig. 1; 1; “cell module”; [0028]), and wherein the heat insulation member (7) contacts (Fig. 1; [0028]) the bus bar (6) in the initial state ([0013]; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee by adding the heat insulation member of Lustig to the bus bar of Lee such that the heat insulation member is disposed inside the module case, the heat insulation member having a thermal expansion property,
wherein the heat insulation member has an initial state and an expanded state,
wherein the heat insulation member contacts the bus bar in the expanded state,
wherein the heat insulation member is configured to expand when a fire breaks out in the battery module, wherein the heat insulation member swells to a size,
wherein, in the initial state, the bus bar is between the heat insulation member and the battery cell stack, and wherein the heat insulation member contacts the bus bar in the initial state. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to prevent hot or burning gas from impinging on the portion of the module case opposing the bus bar as taught by Lustig (0030]).
The examiner notes that the limitation “to block the slits so as to block the introduction of oxygen into the battery module through the slits” would naturally be met by this combination as Lustig teaches that the heat insulation member expands significantly ([0013]) in response to fire and a significant expansion of the member would result in the blocking of openings (i.e. slits) in the areas adjacent to the heat insulation member.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Lustig discloses wherein the heat insulation member (Lustig 7) is a thermal expansion (Lustig [0013]) sheet (Lustig Fig. 1; 7)..
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20200259155-A1) in view of Lustig (US-20210091353-A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thoben (EP 3047877 A1, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Lustig fails to disclose wherein the heat insulation member is received in a pouch made of an elastic material.
Thoben discloses a heat insulation member (Fig. 3; 10; “intumescent material”; [0025]) received in a pouch (Fig. 3; 9) made of an elastic material (“rubber”; [0024]).
Thoben and Lustig are analogous art because they both relate to materials with thermal expansion properties for fire protection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Lustig by adding the pouch of Thoben to the member of Lee in view of Lustig such that the heat insulation member is received in a pouch made of an elastic material. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to prevent the intumescent material of Lee in view of Lustig from releasing over time and no longer being sufficiently present in the event of a fire ([0009]) by securely and permanently holding the intumescent material as taught by Thoben ([0010]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20200259155-A1) in view of Lustig (US-20210091353-A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Browning (US20210376405A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Lustig fails to disclose wherein the heat insulation member comprises a graphite-based material.
Browning discloses wherein a heat insulation member (“thermal barrier composites) comprises a graphite-based material (“expandable graphite”; [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Lustig by substituting the undisclosed material of the heat insulation member of Lee in view of Lustig for the graphite based material of Browning in order to predictably obtain an intumescent material capable of acting as a thermal barrier as taught by Browning ([0034]).
Claims 8-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US20210376405A1) in view of Lee (US-20200259155-A1) in view of Lustig (US-20210091353-A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Browning discloses a battery pack (Fig. 3; 200) comprising two or more battery modules (Fig. 3; 100) but fails to disclose the battery modules according to claim 1.
Lee in view of Lustig discloses a battery module according to claim 1 as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Browning by substituting the battery modules of Browning for a plurality of the battery module of Lee in view of Lustig in order to achieve weight lighting and a reduction of manufacturing costs as taught by Lee ([0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig discloses wherein the battery pack (200) comprises:
a battery module assembly (Fig. 3; elements 100 modified by Lee in view of Lustig) comprising the two or more battery modules (100 modified by Lee and Lustig);
an upper plate (annotated Fig. 3; element UP) and a lower plate (annotated Fig. 3; element LP) located above and under the battery module assembly (100), respectively; and
side plates (annotated Fig. 3; elements SP) disposed at opposite sides (annotated Fig. 3; sides of 100 directly facing SP) of the battery module assembly (100), the side plates (SP) being opposite (Fig. 2 of Lee teaches that the bus bars 320 face the short, not elongate, surfaces of the battery cell stack) the bus bars (Lee 320) of the two or more battery modules (100),
PNG
media_image1.png
523
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the heat insulation member (Lustig 7) is located inside (Fig. 3) a first side plate (annotated Fig. 3; one of elements SP) of the side plates (SP).
Regarding claim 10, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig discloses wherein a heat insulation member unit (Fig. 3; element 212) is disposed between each of the two or more battery modules (Fig. 3; element 100 modified by Lee and Lustig) and the first side plate (one of SP) of the side plates (SP).
Regarding claim 11, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig fails to disclose wherein the heat insulation member is configured to have an integrated structure disposed between the battery module assembly and the first side plate of the side plates.
Lee discloses that front and back covers (Fig. 2; 231, 232) of the module case are optional (“may further include”; [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Browning in view of Lee and Lustig by employing only elements 210 and 220 (see Fig. 2 of Lee) as the module case of Browning in view of Lee and Lustig in order to achieve weight lighting and reduce manufacturing costs as taught by Lee ([0030]).
Browning teaches a heat insulation member (Fig. 4; 225; “thermally expandable”; [0032]) configured to have an integrated structure (Fig. 4; 225) disposed between a battery module assembly (“all the modules in the module pack”; [0054]) and a first side plate (annotated Fig. 4; SP).
PNG
media_image2.png
467
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Browning in view of Lee and Lustig by substituting the heat insulating member of Browning for the heat insulating member of Browning in view of Lee and Lustig such that the heat insulation member is configured to have an integrated structure disposed between the battery module assembly and the first side plate of the side plates in order to predictably provide a thermal/flame barrier ([0046]) as taught by Browning.
Regarding claim 12, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig discloses a device (“electric vehicles”; [0046]) comprising the battery pack (200) according to claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig discloses wherein the device ([0046]) is any one of an electric vehicle, a hybrid electric vehicle, and a power storage apparatus ([0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the heat insulation member expands in a direction away from the bus bar”.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disclosure of Browning in view of Lee and Lustig reasonably conveys that the heat insulation member, by virtue of it being an expanding layer, would expand in all directions in which the member is not immediately constrained. Therefore, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig renders the instant claim obvious because the heat insulation member would reasonably be expected to expand in a direction away from the bus bar as the heat insulation member is an expanding member and is not immediately constrained (i.e. there is no teaching that anything is directly on the busbar) in that direction.
Regarding claim 15, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig fails to disclose wherein the heat insulation member expands toward the first side plate of the side plates. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disclosure of Browning in view of Lee and Lustig reasonably conveys that the heat insulation member, by virtue of it being an expanding layer, would expand in all directions in which the member is not immediately constrained. Therefore, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig renders the instant claim obvious because the heat insulation member would reasonably be expected to expand toward the first side plate of the side plates as the heat insulation member is an expanding layer and is not immediately constrained (i.e. there is no teaching that anything is directly on the busbar) in a direction towards the first side plate.
Regarding claim 17, Browning in view of Lee and Lustig discloses a first direction (Lee annotated Fig. 3; X), a length (Lee annotated Fig. 3; L1) of the bus bar (Lee 320) in a second direction (Lee annotated Fig. 3; Y) perpendicular (Lee Fig. 3) to the first direction (X), a bus bar cover (Lee Fig. 3; 323) and a length (annotated Fig. 3; L2) of the busbar cover (323) in the second direction (Y), but fails to explicitly disclose “is greater than a length of the heat insulation member in the second direction” and the heat insulation member expands in a first direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
820
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the heat insulation member expands in the first direction because Browning in view of Lee and Lustig does not teach that the heat insulation member is immediately constrained in the first direction (i.e. there is no teaching that anything is directly on the busbar in the X direction) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disclosure of Browning in view of Lee and Lustig reasonably conveys that the heat insulation member, by virtue of it being an expanding layer, would expand in all directions in which the member is not immediately constrained.
Lustig discloses that a heat protective member may be on a busbar cover (“cover of the cell contact system [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Browning in view of Lee and Lustig by substituting the heat protective member for the heat protective of Lustig employed on the busbar cover, such that a length (annotated Fig. 3; L1) of the bus bar in a second direction (Y) perpendicular to the first direction (X) is greater than a length (annotated Fig. 3; L2) of the heat insulation member in the second direction. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to prevent hot or burning gas from impinging on the portion of the module case opposing the bus bar as taught by Lustig (0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights