Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/620,542

BATTERY MODULE INCLUDING HEAT INSULATION MEMBER AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Dec 17, 2021
Examiner
KENLAW, GRACE A
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
63 granted / 121 resolved
-12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
148
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.7%
+10.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 121 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Claim Status Claims 2-4 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 3 and 5. Claim 17 is newly added; Fig. 3 provides partial support for this claim. Claims 1 and 5-17 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the plurality of battery cells are stacked in a first direction, and wherein a width of the bus bar in the first direction is greater than a width of the heat insulation member in the first direction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 recites the limitations “wherein the plurality of battery cells are stacked in a first direction, and wherein a width of the bus bar in the first direction is greater than a width of the heat insulation member in the first direction”. The examiner notes that a width of the bus bar 211 is greater than a width of the heat insulation member 220 in Fig. 3 of the instant specification. However, it is not clear from any of the figures or the specification what direction the first direction refers to. Therefore, the specification supports the limitation “wherein a width of the bus bar is greater than a width of the heat insulation member” but does not support “wherein the plurality of battery cells are stacked in a first direction, and wherein a width of the bus bar in the first direction is greater than a width of the heat insulation member in the first direction” as presently claimed in claim 17. Thus, the limitations of claim 17 constitute new matter. 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 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US20210376405A1) in view of Wang (2021/0408642 A1), Shi (US-20220021046-A1) and Ono (JP-2013251127-A, machine translation used for rejection below). Regarding claim 1, Browning discloses a battery module (Fig. 2; element 100) comprising: a battery cell stack (Fig. 2; stack of elements 102) constituted by a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 2; elements 102) stacked adjacent (Fig. 2) to each other; a module case (“housing 105”; [0052]; Fig. 2; element 105) disposed at an outer surface (annotated Fig. 2; OS) of the battery cell stack (102) so as to fix (Fig. 2 shows that 105 surrounds 102 preventing movement beyond 105) the battery cell stack (102); PNG media_image1.png 623 838 media_image1.png Greyscale a heat insulation member (Fig. 2; element 112, Fig. 4; element 225) disposed inside (Fig. 2; element 112) the module case (105), the heat insulation member (112, 225) having a thermal expansion property (“a thermally expandable layer”; [0022]), wherein the heat insulation member (112, 225) has an initial state ([0033] prior to expansion; and Fig. 2-4) and an expanded state ([0033]), wherein the heat insulation member (112, 225) is configured to expand ([0033]) when a fire (“exposed to high heat”; [0033]) breaks out in the battery module (100). Browning fails to disclose a bus bar configured to electrically connect electrode leads protruding from the battery cells to each other; wherein the heat insulation member contacts the bus bar in the expanded state, wherein the slits are configured to allow the electrode leads to extend therethrough, 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, and wherein, in the initial state, the bus bar is between the heat insulation member and the battery cell stack. Wang discloses a battery cell stack (Fig. 1; element 1) constituted by a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1; element 1) stacked adjacent to each other (Fig. 1); a bus bar (Fig. 1; element 21 and 22; “electrical connectors 212”; [0061]) configured to electrically connect ([0061]) electrode leads (Fig. 1; element 11) protruding from the battery cells (1) to each other ([0061]) and having slits (Fig. 4; 211) formed therein, wherein the slits (211) are configured to allow the electrode leads (11) to extend therethrough ([0061]), 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 stack, leads and bus bar of Wang in place of the plurality of battery cells taught by Browning, such that Browning’s heat insulation member 112 is wrapped around the circumference (see [0052] of Browning) of Wang’s battery stack and bus bars. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to secure a battery module with an easy assembly process as taught by Wang ([0006]). Browning in view of Wang still fails to disclose wherein the heat insulation member contacts the bus bar in the expanded state, 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, and wherein, in the initial state, the bus bar is between the heat insulation member and the battery cell stack. Shi discloses a bus bar (Fig. 1; 26); and an insulation member (“insulation member 38”; [0078]; Fig. 1; 38), wherein the insulation member (38) contacts the bus bar (26), and the bus bar (26) is between (Fig. 1) the heat insulation member (38) and a battery cell stack (Fig. 1; 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Browning in view of Wang by arranging the heat insulation member so that it contacts the bus bar, and the bus bar is between the heat insulation member and the battery cell stack as taught by Shi in order to insulate the bus bar and module case as taught by Shi ([0078]). The examiner notes that Browning’s disclosure of the expansion ([0033]) of the heat insulating member does not indicate that the expansion would cause the member to detach from whatever it initially contacted. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the heat insulation member contacts the bus bar in the initial and expanded state. Thus, Browning in view of Wang and Shi teaches wherein the heat insulation member (Browning 112, 225) contacts the bus bar (Wang 21, 22) in the expanded state (Fig. 2; 112 expanded per [0033]), and wherein, in the initial state (Fig. 2; 112 prior to expansion of [0033]), the bus bar (Wang 21, 22) is between (per Shi’s teaching) the heat insulation member (112, 225) and the battery cell stack (102). Browning in view of Wang and Shi still fails to disclose 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. Ono discloses wherein a heat insulation member (Fig. 8; 8) swells to a size (Fig. 8; size of 8 when it “ expands with heat, and closes the gap of the extraction opening 7”; [0037]) to block (“closes”; [0037]) slits (Fig. 8; 7) so as to block the introduction of oxygen into the battery module through the slits ([0037]). 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 Wang and Shi by arranging the heat insulation member so that it swells to a size to block the slits so as to block the introduction of oxygen into the battery module through the slits in order to prevent flames from entering or escaping the battery cell stack through the bus bar as taught by Ono ([0037]). Regarding claim 6, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the heat insulation member (112, 225) is a thermal expansion sheet (“a thermally expandable layer”; [0032]). Regarding claim 7, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the heat insulation member (112, 225) comprises a graphite-based material ([0034]). Regarding claim 8, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses a battery pack (Fig. 3 and 4; element 200) comprising two or more battery modules (Fig. 2; elements 100 modified by Wang) according to claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the battery pack (200) comprises: a battery module assembly (Fig. 3; elements 100) comprising the two or more battery modules (100); 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. 1 of Wang teaches that the bus bars 21, 22 face the short surfaces (i.e. not elongate surfaces) of the battery cell stack) the bus bars (Wang 21, 22) of the two or more battery modules (100), PNG media_image2.png 523 589 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein the heat insulation member (112, 225) is located inside a first side plate (annotated Fig. 3; one of elements SP) of the side plates (SP). Regarding claim 10, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein a heat insulation member unit (Fig. 3; element 212) is disposed between each of the unit battery modules (Fig. 3; element 100 modified by Wang) and the first side plate (one of SP) of the side plates (SP). Regarding claim 11, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the heat insulation member (112, 225) is configured to have an integrated structure (Fig. 4; element 225) disposed between the battery module assembly (100) and the first side plate (one of SP) of the side plates (SP). Regarding claim 12, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses a device (“electric vehicles”; [0046]) comprising the battery pack (200) according to claim 8. Regarding claim 13, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the device is any one of an electric vehicle, a hybrid electric vehicle, and a power storage apparatus ([0046]). Regarding claim 14, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the heat insulation member (112) contacts the bus bar (Wang). Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono fails to explicitly disclose “expands in a direction away from the bus bar”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Browning’s disclosure 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 Wang, Shi and Ono renders the instant claim obvious because the heat insulation member would reasonably be expected to expand in a direction away from Wang’s bus bar as the heat insulation member is an expanding member and is not immediately constrained in that direction. Regarding claim 15, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the heat insulation member (112) contacts the bus bar (Wang 21, 22). Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono fails to explicitly disclose that the member expands toward the first side plate of the side plates. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Browning’s disclosure 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 Wang, Shi and Ono 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 in a direction towards the first side plate. Regarding claim 16, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the heat insulation member (112, 225) directly contacts (Fig. 4; 225) the first side plate (one of SP) in the initial state (Fig. 4; 225 prior to expansion) of the side plates (SP). Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono fails to explicitly disclose that the member expands toward the bus bar. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Browning’s disclosure 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 Wang, Shi and Ono renders the instant claim obvious because the heat insulation member would reasonably be expected to expand toward the bus bar as the heat insulation member is an expanding layer and is not immediately constrained in a direction towards the bus bar. Regarding claim 17, Browning in view of Wang, Shi and Ono discloses wherein the plurality of battery cells (Wang Fig. 1; 1) are stacked (Wang Fig. 1) in a first direction (Wang Fig. 1; Y), and wherein a width (Wang annotated Fig. 1; W1) of the bus bar (Wang 21, 22) in the first direction (Wang Y) is greater than (per Fig. 2 of Browning, the width of 112 is less than the width of one battery cell; per Fig. 1 of Wang, the width of the bus bar is greater than the width of all the battery cells combined) a width (Browning annotated Fig. 2; W2) of the heat insulation member (112, 225) in the first direction (Y). PNG media_image3.png 438 594 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 454 522 media_image4.png Greyscale 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 17, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 22, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 22, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 26, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 28, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 28, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 10, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555875
CONNECTION POLE FOR A RECHARGEABLE BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE-BATTERY HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548773
POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL, POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, LITHIUM-ION BATTERY, AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12525604
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12519162
BATTERY CELL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506206
BATTERY PACK AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+36.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 121 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