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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 11/19/2025 have been acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are 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. Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 19 recites, “wherein the plurality of foams is directly interposed between the plurality of battery cells to support the plurality of battery cells, and no separate support member other than the plurality of foams is provided between the battery cells” respectively. However, the specification does not describe that the foams have a supporting function. In fact, the specification does not discuss any support member or the lack thereof. Thus, there is no basis for the negative limitation. The claim limitations constitute new matter and dependent claims are rejected for depending on claims with the 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 1-3, 7, 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/112125 to Lee et al. (English equivalent US 2021/0143498 used for citation), hereinafter Lee ‘498, in view of US 2017/0237112 to Holman et al.
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘498 teaches a battery module 100 comprising:
two side panels or side plates 150;
a plurality of battery cells 111 stacked between the two side panels;
an upper cover plate 130 coupled to the two side panels to restrain a compressed-stacked state of the battery cells at an upper side of the battery cells in combination with the two side panels; and
a lower cover plate 140 coupled to the two side panels to restrain the compressed-stacked state of the battery cells at a lower side of the battery cells in combination with the two side panels (Figs. 1 and 2; [0044-47]).
Lee ‘498 does not expressly teach a plurality of foams arranged between the battery cells; wherein the plurality of foams is directly interposed between the plurality of battery cells to support the plurality of battery cells, and no separate support member other than the plurality of foams is provided between the battery cells, and wherein foams arranged between two neighboring battery cells comprise a plurality of separate foams defining cooling channels between two battery cells.
Holman et al. also relates to a battery pack comprising a plurality of cells 300a, 300b and teaches a plurality of porous pacers 370, 372 made of, for example, foam, directly interposed between the cells to support the plurality of cells, and no separate support member other than the plurality of foams is provided between the cells, and wherein foams arranged between two neighboring cells comprise a plurality of separate foams defining cooling channels between two cells (Figs. 4 and 5; [0036]; [0039-41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of foams in the battery module of Lee ‘498, motivated by the fact that Holman et al. teaches that the porous spacers or foams can provide a compressive load on the surfaces of the neighboring cells while still allowing the cell surfaces to be exposed to air flow or coolant flow ([0041]). The skilled artisan would have appreciated heat transfer between battery cells inside the stack of Lee ‘498 while maintaining a compressed-stacked state of the battery cells by incorporating the plurality of foam spacers.
Regarding claim 2, Lee ‘498 and Holman et al. do not expressly teach that the foams and the battery cells are repeatedly stacked in order of “foams - a battery cell – a battery cell”.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed configuration because the skilled artisan would have arranged the foams and battery cells in order to maximize cooling efficiency without excessively increasing the size of the battery module.
Regarding claim 3, an initial compression force is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference compression force, the initial compression force and the predetermined reference compression force arbitrarily defined. The foams would have been arranged between the battery cells of Lee ‘498 such that the battery cells in the compressed-stacked state are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined minimum cooling interval or more, as Holman et al. teaches that the porous spacers are spaced apart such that air or coolant flows over the surfaces of the neighboring cells ([0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee ‘498 teaches sensing boards or sensing assemblies 160 respectively provided at tap portions at opposite sides of the stacked battery cells, the sensing boards being connected to electrodes of the battery cells; and sensing board covers or sensing housing 162 located outside the sensing boards while surrounding the sensing boards (Figs. 1 and 2; [0044]; [0053]; [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee ‘498 teaches a battery module 100 comprising:
two side panels or side plates 150;
a plurality of battery cells 111 stacked between the two side panels;
an upper cover plate 130 coupled to the two side panels to restrain a compressed-stacked state of the battery cells at an upper side of the battery cells in combination with the two side panels; and
a lower cover plate 140 coupled to the two side panels to restrain the compressed-stacked state of the battery cells at a lower side of the battery cells in combination with the two side panels (Figs. 1 and 2; [0044-47]).
Lee ‘498 does not expressly teach a plurality of foams arranged between the battery cells, wherein the plurality of foams is arranged to be overlapped with 30% or more of an effective sectional area comprising a cup portion of each of the plurality of battery cells; wherein the plurality of foams is directly interposed between the plurality of battery cells to support the plurality of battery cells, and no separate support member other than the plurality of foams is provided between the battery cells, and wherein foams arranged between two neighboring battery cells comprise a plurality of separate foams defining cooling channels between two battery cells.
Holman et al. also relates to a battery pack comprising a plurality of cells 300a, 300b and teaches a plurality of porous pacers 370, 372 made of, for example, foam, directly interposed between the cells to support the plurality of cells, and no separate support member other than the plurality of foams is provided between the cells, and wherein the plurality of foams contacts, for example, about 50% to about 100% of an external surface area of the neighboring cells and comprises a plurality of separate foams defining cooling channels between two cells (Figs. 4 and 5; [0025]; [0028]; [0034]; [0036]; [0039-41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of foams in the battery module of Lee ‘498, motivated by the fact that Holman et al. teaches that the porous spacers or foams can provide a compressive load on the surfaces of the neighboring cells while still allowing the cell surfaces to be exposed to air flow or coolant flow ([0041]). The skilled artisan would have appreciated heat transfer between battery cells inside the stack of Lee ‘498 while maintaining a compressed-stacked state of the battery cells by incorporating the plurality of foam spacers. Regarding the claimed numerical range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05[R-5].
Regarding claim 10, since the porous spacers contact up to about 100% of the external surface of the neighboring cells and can be disposed in any suitable array ([0025]; [0028]; [0034]; [0036]; [0039-41]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have surrounded an outer edge of the cup portion of the respective battery cell, in order to distribute the preload over the surfaces of the cells.
Regarding claim 19, Lee ‘498 teaches a battery system comprising:
a plurality of battery modules stacked adjacent to one another to define a stack of the battery modules (Figs. 9-12; [0019]; [0070]; [0075]), each of the battery modules comprising:
two side panels or side plates 150;
a plurality of battery cells 111 stacked between the two side panels;
an upper cover plate 130 coupled to the two side panels to restrain a compressed stacked state of the battery cells at an upper side of the battery cells in combination with the two side panels; and
a lower cover plate 140 coupled to the two side panels to restrain the compressed-stacked state of the battery cells at a lower side of the battery cells in combination with the two side panels (Figs. 1 and 2; [0044-47]); and
end plates respectively located at opposite ends of the stack of the battery modules, seen as walls of pack case 200 in Figs. 9-12 ([0069]).
Lee ‘498 does not expressly teach a plurality of foams arranged between the battery cells; wherein the plurality of foams is directly interposed between the plurality of battery cells to support the plurality of battery cells, and no separate support member other than the plurality of foams is provided between the battery cells, and wherein foams arranged between two neighboring battery cells comprise a plurality of separate foams defining cooling channels between two battery cells.
Holman et al. also relates to a battery pack comprising a plurality of cells 300a, 300b and teaches a plurality of porous pacers 370, 372 made of, for example, foam, directly interposed between the cells to support the plurality of cells, and no separate support member other than the plurality of foams is provided between the cells, and wherein foams arranged between two neighboring cells comprise a plurality of separate foams defining cooling channels between two cells (Figs. 4 and 5; [0036]; [0039-41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of foams in the battery module of Lee ‘498, motivated by the fact that Holman et al. teaches that the porous spacers or foams can provide a compressive load on the surfaces of the neighboring cells while still allowing the cell surfaces to be exposed to air flow or coolant flow ([0041]). The skilled artisan would have appreciated heat transfer between battery cells inside the stack of Lee ‘498 while maintaining a compressed-stacked state of the battery cells by incorporating the plurality of foam spacers.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘498 and Holman et al. as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in view of US 2020/0136203 to Kalmbach et al.
Regarding claims 4-6, Holman et al. does not expressly teach the claimed foam materials.
Kalmbach et al. also relates to a cooling element disposed between battery cells and teaches that the cooling element 4 has a heat-conducting metallic profile which encloses a compressible porous intermediate insert 7 made of a foam-type material, preferably a polyurethane foam (abstract; Fig. 1; [0013-15]; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed materials for the porous spacers of Holman et al. and applied to the battery module of Lee ‘498, motivated by the fact that Kalmbach et al. teaches that the foam has a plurality of pores that allow a flow of cooling fluid ([0030]) and the metallic profile can be produced in a time-saving and cost-saving manner and improve heat conduction ([0015]; [0037]). Since the claimed foams are rendered obvious, the property in claim 4 is expected to follow.
Claims 4, 5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘498 and Holman et al. as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in view of US 2019/0165408 to Andryukov et al.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 21, Holman et al. does not expressly teach the claimed foam materials.
Andryukov et al. also relates to a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells stacked to define a cell-stack ([0008-10]) and teaches a plurality of distributed cell spacers interleaved with the plurality of battery cells, wherein each of the plurality of cell spacers comprises silicone foam rubber, polyolefin foam, or polyurethane foam ([0014-17]; [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used urethane or silicone for the porous spacers of Holman et al. and applied to the battery module of Lee ‘498, motivated by the fact that Andryukov et al. demonstrates known materials for the spacers that can provide a preload to the battery cells to increase performance and cycle-life when a pressure is applied normal to the battery cell's thickness ([0070]). Since the claimed foams are rendered obvious, the property in claim 4 is expected to follow.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘498 and Holman et al. as applied to claim 8 above, in view of US 2011/0070474 to Lee et al., hereinafter Lee ’474.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Lee ‘498 does not expressly teach that each of the upper cover plate or the lower cover plate comprises cooling holes that are open to communicate with the cooling channels defined by the foams per claim 11 or that each of the upper cover plate or the lower cover plate comprises additional cooling holes that are open to communicate with empty spaces defined by tap portions of the plurality of battery cells per claim 13.
Lee ’474 also relates to a battery module 200 (Figs. 3 and 4; [0090]) and teaches that the battery module comprises an upper cover plate of upper case 210 and a lower cover plate of lower case 220 that have cooling holes or through holes 212 through which a coolant flows ([0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included cooling holes in the cover plates, motivated by the fact that Lee ’474 demonstrates that the holes in the hole case provide effective cooling ([0098]) and , once incorporated, the cooling holes of the upper cover plate and/or those of the lower cover plate would have been open to communicate with the cooling channels defined by the foams as well as empty spaces defined by tap portions of the plurality of battery cells in the prior art battery module, because air or coolant has access to all these module components.
Regarding claim 12, although Lee ‘474 does not expressly teach that each of the cooling holes of the lower cover plate is larger in size than a size of each of the cooling holes of the upper cover plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention through routine experimentation and optimization of cooling efficiency by enlarging through holes 212 in the lower case, where access to open air is more limited than the upper portion of the battery module, so that more coolant can flow through.
Regarding claims 14-16, Lee ‘498 teaches that the battery module 100 includes top and bottom plates 130, 140 and a pair of side plates 150 that are assembled by clinching to configure a module housing that surrounds cell assembly 110 (Figs. 1-3; [0043-49]). In at least Figs. 1-3, it is visible that the side plates 150 (side panels) comprise upper and lower protrusions integrally formed on upper and lower ends thereof, the upper and lower protrusions (locking protrusions) configured to be inserted into the holes (locking holes) in portions (wings) of the upper cover plate and the lower cover plate that extend toward each other. When cooling holes of the upper cover plate and the lower cover plate are incorporated, the upper and lower protrusions or ends of the side panels would have been inserted into the cooling holes of the upper and lower cover plates as the two cover plates are coupled with the side panels.
Regarding claim 17, in Lee ’474, portions of the upper cover plate and the lower cover plate between the through holes 212 read on the claimed bridges (Figs. 3 and 4; [0098]). Although Lee ’474 does not expressly teach that each of the bridges has a width equal to or greater than a width of each of the foams, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention through routine experimentation and optimization because the width of the bridges is proportional to the size of the through holes in the upper cover plate and the lower cover plate and so the skilled artisan would have optimized the width of the bridges in order to maximize cooling efficiency of the coolant going through the through holes and the foams.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘498, Holman et al., and Lee ’474 as applied to claim 17 above, in view of US 2019/0198952 to Choi et al.
Regarding claim 18, the prior arts do not expressly teach a filling material provided in spaces between the foams and the bridges of each of the upper cover plate and the lower cover plate.
Choi et al. also relates to a battery module and teaches that a gap filler may be applied between the battery group 10 and a plate of module housing as a heat transfer member (Fig. 1; [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a filling material in spaces between the cell assembly and foams and the bridges of each of the upper cover plate and the lower cover plate, motivated by the fact that Choi et al. demonstrates that a gap filler maximizes contact surface between the battery group and a cooling element ([0102]) and so the skilled artisan would have obtained expected results of improved heat conduction by applying a known filling material to increase thermal contact between the battery cells and the cover plates.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘498 and Holman et al. as applied to claim 19 above, in view of US 2008/0118819 to Gamboa et al.
Regarding claim 20, Lee ‘498 does not expressly teach straps configured to connect the end plates to each other at the opposite ends of the stack of the battery modules, wherein the straps are configured to integrally hold the end plates and the battery module.
Gamboa et al. also relates to a battery system and teaches that the battery system having at least one subsystem comprising a plurality of battery modules connected in series or parallel, wherein each subsystem preferably having a first endplate and a second endplate and a plurality of band members couple the first and second endplates to each other and bind the battery module between the endplates (abstract; Figs. 3 and 5-7; [0020-24]; [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used straps in the battery system of Lee ’498, motivated by the fact that Gamboa et al. demonstrates that the band members or straps bind battery modules together (abstract; Figs. 3 and 5-7; [0020-24]; [0041]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results applying known elements to a known system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-21 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. Applicant amended independent claims 1, 8, and 19 to require, in particular, a plurality of foams directly interposed between the plurality of battery cells with no separate support member, the plurality of foams defining cooling channels between two battery cells. In response, the Examiner has applied a new ground of rejection over Lee ’498 and Holman, which renders obvious a plurality of foams directly disposed between a plurality of battery cells with no additional support, in order to exert a preload to the cells while allowing heat exchange (see rejection above).
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 HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725