DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 10/01/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 4 have been amended; Claims 8-19 are cancelled; and new Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-7 and 20-22 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 20-22 are examined in this office action. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 10/1/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 2019-0047499 A (“KR’499”).
As to Claim 1:
KR’499 discloses a battery pack (see title; [0029]–[0030]; Figs. 1–3) including multiple battery cells 100 arranged within a fixing frame structure ([0029]: “a plurality of cylindrical battery cells 100 … arranged in the first fixing frame 200 and second fixing frame 210”), thereby meeting the limitation of “multiple battery cells”;
a battery chassis configured to hold the multiple battery cells in a vertical orientation proximate to one another ([0031]–[0033]; Figs. 3–6), where each cell 100 is inserted upright into insertion holes 211 of the fixing frames 200, 210 such that the cells stand in a vertical direction and are closely spaced. Accordingly, the fixing frames 200/210 correspond to the claimed battery chassis holding vertically oriented, proximate cells;
the battery chassis includes multiple spacers disposed between the multiple battery cells and that have a tri-spoke shape ([0033]–[0036]; Figs. 3–6). Specifically, lower-end support members 213 are discretely raised along the circumferential direction and are shared by three lower-end insertion holes 211, with each support having three curved surfaces spaced 120 degrees apart that contact three adjacent cylindrical cells. These support members 213 thus constitute spacers of a tri-spoke shape disposed between the cells; and
a potting compound disposed within openings of the chassis that are formed between the multiple battery cells by the multiple spacers ([0040]–[0045]; Figs. 5–6). A thermally conductive adhesive 300 is injected through through-holes 220 from a lower portion of the frame to an upper portion, flowing into the gaps G between adjacent cells 100 and the frame 200, 210 to fill those openings and surround the outer surfaces of the cells. The adhesive 300 therefore corresponds to the claimed potting compound filling the openings formed between the battery cells by the tri-spoke spacers.
As to Claim 2:
KR’499 further discloses that the openings of the chassis that are formed between the multiple battery cells by the multiple spacers extend from a top surface of the chassis to a bottom surface of the chassis ([0033]–[0040]; Figs. 3–6). Specifically, through-holes 220 are formed vertically through the fixing frame 200 and the cooling tray 500, extending from the lower portion to the upper portion of the frame. These through-holes 220 and the gaps G between the cells define continuous vertical openings extending through the entire height of the chassis from top to bottom; and
the potting compound is disposed within the openings to contact an entire surface of each cell of the multiple battery cells ([0040]–[0045]; Figs. 5–6). In particular, a thermally conductive adhesive 300 is injected into the through-holes 220 and flows upward between adjacent cells 100, filling the gaps G and surrounding the outer surfaces of the battery cells 100. As described in [0044], the adhesive 300 “flows in the gap G between the battery cells 100 and the cooling tray 500 and surrounds the outer circumference of the battery cells,” thereby contacting substantially the entire outer surface of each cell.
As to Claim 4:
KR’499 discloses a battery pack comprising multiple cylindrical battery cells 100 vertically arranged within a fixing frame structure ([0029]–[0033]; Figs. 1–3). The fixing frames 200 and 210 serve as a battery chassis configured to hold the multiple battery cells in a vertical and proximate arrangement. KR’499 further discloses that the fixing frame 200 includes insertion holes 211 through which the battery cells 100 are inserted such that the upper terminal ends of the cells are exposed through the upper surface of the frame ([0032]; Figs. 3–4). The upper portion of the frame therefore defines a top surface having holes that provide access to the negative terminals of the multiple battery cells, as claimed;
the battery pack includes a bus bar (connection member 400) disposed on the top surface of the fixing frame ([0046]; Figs. 5–6). The connection member 400 electrically connects the upper terminals of the battery cells 100, thereby corresponding to the claimed bus bar that connects the negative terminals of the multiple battery cells. The connection member 400 is formed to conform to the cell layout and is mounted or fixed directly on the top surface of the chassis, meeting the limitation “stamped onto the top surface of the chassis,” since the claim is a product claim and the term “stamped” merely describes a possible method of forming a structurally identical component. The final product structure disclosed in KR’499 is therefore equivalent to the claimed stamped bus bar; and
the connection member 400 includes portions that contact the upper terminals of the battery cells ([0046]; Fig. 6) and portions that bridge over the spaces between adjacent cells ([0046]–[0048]; Figs. 5–6). Specifically, the cell contact portions of the bus bar are positioned at a first height, directly contacting the upper surfaces of the cells, while the bridge portions that span between adjacent cells are disposed at a second height higher than the first height to clear the spaces between the cells.
As to Claim 5:
KR’499 further discloses that the chassis includes multiple spacers (also referred to as lower-end support members 213) disposed between the battery cells ([0033]–[0036]; Figs. 3–6). Specifically, KR’499 states that “the lower-end support members 213 are discretely formed between the insertion holes 211 … and vertically extend between the first fixing frame 200 and second fixing frame 210.” These support members 213 therefore correspond to ribs that extend in the vertical orientation as recited in the claim; and
the lower-end support member 213 is shared by three lower-end insertion holes 211, such that each support member 213 contacts and separates three adjacent cylindrical battery cells 100 arranged at approximately 120° intervals ([0035]; Figs. 3–4). Thus, at least one vertically extending rib (support member 213) is positioned to contact and separate three battery cells of the multiple battery cells from one another.
As to Claim 20:
KR’499 discloses a battery pack comprising multiple cylindrical battery cells 100 vertically arranged within a fixing frame structure ([0029]–[0033]; Figs. 1–3). The fixing frames 200 and 210 act as a battery chassis configured to hold the multiple battery cells in a vertical and proximate orientation. KR’499 further discloses that the battery chassis includes insertion holes 211 through which the battery cells 100 are inserted and fixed in position ([0032]; Figs. 3–4). These insertion holes 211 are circular in shape to match the outer cylindrical contour of the battery cells, defining multiple radii positioned proximate to the upper and lower terminal regions of the battery cells, including the negative terminals;
the battery pack includes a thermally conductive adhesive liquid 300, which serves as a potting compound ([0040]–[0045]; Figs. 5–6). The adhesive 300 is introduced through through-holes 220 formed in the fixing frame and flows between the battery cells 100 and the frame 200, 210, filling the gap G defined by the curved interior walls of the insertion holes ([0041]). KR’499 explains that the adhesive 300 “flows into the through-holes 220 from a lower portion … fills the gap G between the battery cells 100 and the frame 200, 210, and surrounds the outer surfaces of the battery cells,” thereby flowing between the cell terminals and the chassis ([0045]; Figs. 5–6); and
a battery chassis having multiple radii positioned proximate to the terminals of the battery cells, where those curved radial surfaces are configured to guide the potting compound (thermally conductive adhesive 300) to flow between the negative terminals of the battery cells and the chassis.
As to Claim 21:
KR’499 discloses a battery pack comprising multiple cylindrical battery cells 100 vertically arranged within a fixing frame structure ([0029]–[0033]; Figs. 1–3). The fixing frames 200 and 210 function as a battery chassis that holds and supports the multiple battery cells in a vertical orientation;
the chassis includes multiple discrete spacers disposed between the battery cells. Specifically, the reference teaches lower-end support members 213 that are “discretely formed between insertion holes 211 and shared by three adjacent battery cells 100” ([0033]–[0036]; Figs. 3–4). These support members 213 maintain uniform spacing between neighboring cells and therefore constitute discrete spacers positioned between the multiple battery cells, as recited; and
a potting compound that fills the openings formed between the cells and the spacers. Paragraphs [0040]–[0045] describe a thermally conductive adhesive liquid 300 that “flows through through-holes 220 … fills the gap G between the battery cells 100 and the frames 200, 210, and surrounds the outer surfaces of the battery cells” (Figs. 5–6). The gaps G into which the adhesive 300 flows are the interstitial openings defined by the multiple discrete spacers 213 and the surrounding frame.
As to Claim 22:
KR’499 further discloses that “the lower-end support member 213 is shared by three lower-end insertion holes 211 and arranged at approximately 120° intervals around each cylindrical battery cell 100” ([0035]; Figs. 3–4). Each support member 213 thus includes three radially extending portions that contact and separate three neighboring cylindrical battery cells arranged at 120° spacing. This geometry inherently forms a tri-spoke shape, as each support member has three arms (spokes) extending outward between three adjacent cells.
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, 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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019-0047499 A (hereinafter “KR’499”) in view of EP 2290731 A1 (hereinafter “EP’731”).
As to Claim 3:
KR’499 further discloses that the chassis includes multiple spacers or support members 213 disposed between adjacent battery cells ([0033]–[0036]; Figs. 3–6). Each support 213 contacts and separates three neighboring cylindrical cells at approximately 120° intervals, forming a tri-spoke configuration between the cells ([0035]; Fig. 4). KR’499 further teaches a potting compound in the form of a thermally conductive adhesive liquid 300 that is injected through through-holes 220 and flows into the gap G between the battery cells 100 and the frame 200, thereby filling the voids and contacting the outer surfaces of the cells ([0040]–[0045]; Figs. 5–6). The adhesive 300 acts as a thermally conductive material that fixes and cools the cells within the chassis.
However, KR’499 does not expressly disclose that the potting compound (thermally conductive adhesive 300) is a urethane-based potting compound. Instead, paragraph [0045] of KR’499 specifies that the adhesive may be “an epoxy resin or a silicon resin … or other adhesive having thermal conductivity and adhesiveness.”
In the same field of endeavor, EP’731 relates to battery modules and battery packs having cylindrical battery cells embedded within a holder using a potting resin (Figs. 6–11; [0007]–[0010]). EP’731 teaches that the “space between the battery holder (2) and the batteries (1) is filled with potting resin (7) … introduced in an unhardened viscous state to embed the batteries and the holders” ([0008]). Importantly, paragraph [0029] of EP’731 discloses that “the potting resin (7) is a resin such as urethane resin, epoxy resin, or silicone resin.” Thus, EP’731 explicitly teaches that urethane resin is a known and equivalent material to epoxy or silicone resin for potting and embedding battery cells in a holder.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the potting compound (adhesive 300) of KR’499 to employ a urethane-based resin as taught by EP’731. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that substituting urethane resin for epoxy or silicone resin in KR’499 would be an obvious and routine materials substitution, since EP’731 identifies urethane resin as an interchangeable alternative having the same encapsulation, adhesion, and thermal-conductivity properties. The substitution would have predictably yielded the same result — a battery pack with a thermally conductive potting compound embedding the cells and enhancing thermal stability — representing a mere optimization of known materials.
As to Claim 6:
KR’499 further discloses that the battery chassis includes multiple spacers (also referred to as lower-end support members 213) disposed between the multiple battery cells ([0033]–[0036]; Figs. 3–6). Each lower-end support member 213 is shared by three insertion holes 211 and supports three adjacent cylindrical cells 100 at 120° intervals, thus forming a tri-spoke configuration that separates and stabilizes the cells. These spacers maintain a uniform gap between adjacent cells and define vertical openings through which a potting compound (thermally conductive adhesive 300) flows ([0040]–[0045]; Figs. 5–6).
However, KR’499 does not disclose that the multiple spacers include spacers of different widths (e.g., a first spacer of a first width and a second spacer of a greater width) disposed in different regions of the battery pack. The spacers 213 described in KR’499 have a consistent, uniform shape and thickness across the entire battery array ([0033]–[0036]).
EP’731 discloses that the dividing walls 22 of the holder separating adjacent battery cells have varying thickness (width) depending on the position within the module ([0028]–[0029]). Specifically, EP’731 states that “the thickness of the dividing walls 22 increases from the periphery toward the center region” ([0029]), and provides exemplary thicknesses of t₁ = 1.5 mm near the edges and t₄ = 3.0 mm in the center. This structural variation improves rigidity and balances thermal stress across the module.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the spacer structure of KR’499 in view of EP’731 by including spacers of different widths—a first spacer having a smaller width in one area (e.g., peripheral region) and a second spacer having a greater width in another area (e.g., center region). A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to apply EP’731’s concept of region-dependent wall thickness to KR’499’s tri-spoke spacer arrangement to improve structural balance, rigidity, and uniform heat transfer across the pack. This represents a predictable use of a known technique (varying spacer width by location) to achieve known benefits (improved mechanical strength and thermal uniformity) in an analogous system (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019-0047499 A (hereinafter “KR’499”) in view of US 2021/005856 A1 (hereinafter “US’856”).
As to Claim 7:
KR’499 further discloses that the battery chassis includes multiple spacers disposed between the multiple battery cells ([0033]–[0036]; Figs. 3–6). In particular, KR’499 describes lower-end support members 213 formed between insertion holes 211, shared by three adjacent holes, to support three battery cells 100 in a tri-spoke configuration. These spacers maintain a fixed gap between the battery cells and define openings through which a thermally conductive adhesive 300 is injected ([0040]–[0045]; Figs. 5–6). Accordingly, KR’499 teaches multiple spacers disposed between multiple cells that maintain separation and stability throughout the module.
However, KR’499 does not disclose that the spacers differ in width based on their position in the battery pack (i.e., having a first spacer of a first width at a center area and a second spacer of a larger width near an end region). KR’499’s spacers 213 appear to be uniform in dimension throughout the array.
In the same field of endeavor, US’856 relates to a battery module comprising a battery stack and restraining members that maintain spacing and structural rigidity (Figs. 1–6; [0036]–[0040]). US’856 discloses spacers (gap adjusting members 30) disposed between the battery stack 8 and restraining members 12, where the widths of structural regions differ between the central portion and the end portion of the module ([0038]–[0039]). In particular, paragraph [0039] explains that the width W2 of each outer region R2 (adjacent to end portions) is larger than the width W1 of each inner region R1 (central portion). This variation increases mechanical rigidity and allows space for connection components near the ends of the module.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the spacer configuration of KR’499 in view of US’856 by providing spacers having different widths in different regions of the battery pack—specifically, narrower spacers in the center region and wider spacers near the end regions. US’856 teaches that varying spacer width depending on position improves the module’s mechanical rigidity and enables better accommodation of peripheral structural elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the region-based width variation from US’856 to KR’499’s spacer structure to enhance mechanical stability, prevent deformation, and improve thermal management, resulting in a predictable improvement without changing the basic function of the spacers (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm 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, Milton Cano can be reached at (313)446-4937. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723