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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 16, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 and 13-21 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.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190097192 A1) in view of Kim-701 (KR-20190069131-A, with US 20200303701 A1 used for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Kim-701).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a battery pack comprising a first battery module 10 and a second battery module 10 (Paragraph 0079, “Referring to FIG. 6, a battery pack 1 may include at least one battery module 10”), depicted in their figure 6. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein each of the first battery module and the second battery module comprises a battery cell stack having a plurality of stacked cells 100 (Paragraph 0034, “The battery cell 100 may be provided in plural. The plurality of battery cells 100 may be stacked on one another so as to be electrically connected to each other.”), shown in their figure 5, as well as a module frame 200 into which the battery cells tack is inserted (Paragraph 0035, “The case frame 200 may accommodate the plurality of battery cells 100.”). Additionally, Kim discloses end plates comprising a first end plate 310 and a second end plate 310 (Paragraph 0038, “The case cover 300 may include a cover frame 310”), shown in their figure 5, as well as shown in their figure 2 to be covering front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack and shown in figure 1 to be coupled with the module frame (Paragraph 0037, “The case cover 300 may be provided in a pair, and the pair of case covers 300 may be mounted at a front side and a rear side of the case frame 200. The case cover 300 may package the plurality of battery cells 100 together with the case frame 200.”).
Additionally, Kim discloses a cell terrace assembly constructed of a plurality of guide barriers and other members (Paragraph 0038, “[an] anti-exposure channel 360, a mesh member 370, a flame-retardant member 380 and a pre-filter 390.”) located between the battery cell stack and the end plates, shown in figure 5, wherein a vent 250 is formed in a side surface of the module frame (Paragraph 0036, “The case frame 200 may have a case outlet 250 for discharging gas generated when the battery cells 100 are ignited.”, where a portion in which the vent is formed is formed to be closer to the cell terrace assembly than to the battery cell stack, again shown in figure 5.
Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the first end plate of the first battery module and the second end plate of the second battery module each have an opening where the end plates 310 have openings which extend through their interior, formed starting at a side, facing each direction, as a result of the placement of the guide members 320, 330, and 340 within (Paragraph 0038, “guide barriers 320, 330, 340,”), as shown in Kim’s figure 4.
Additionally, Kim shows structure where the side walls of the end plate 310 of the first battery module, and the side walls of the end plate 310 of the second battery module face each other, based on the placement of the battery modules shown in figure 6.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure wherein the outlet of the vent of the first battery module discharges gas in a direction away from the second battery module, and an outlet of the vent of the second battery module discharges gas in a direction away from the first battery module, Kim fails to disclose said structure. As depicted in Kim’s figure 6, though Kim’s vent positioning vents gas against the walls of the cell frame 50 and results in a venting and discharging of the gas and flame upwards, through the slits surrounding the battery modules 10, the initial gas discharge is directed towards adjacent battery modules.
Therefore, we look to Kim-701, who discloses a battery pack comprising batteries with cell vents (Abstract, “Provided is a battery pack. The battery pack includes: a battery cell including a cell vent; frames arranged together with the battery cell in a direction and coupled together to face each other with the battery cell therebetween, the frames including guide ribs surrounding the cell vent;”). Here, Kim-701 teaches that when the discharge path of gas discharged from a battery cell flows across other battery cells, this can result in thermal runaway at the other battery cells (Paragraph 0091, “ In a comparative example for comparison with the present disclosure, gas discharged from one of the battery cells B is discharged to the outside of the battery pack along a discharge path extending in the direction (direction Z1) in which the battery cells B are arranged. In the discharge path, the gas discharged from one of the battery cells B flows across other battery cells B arranged in the direction (direction Z1), and thus thermal runaway may occur at the other battery cells B.”). Kim-701 further teaches that the use of vertical paths which do not flow across other batteries (Paragraph 0091, “That is, in the present disclosure, the discharge paths are not formed in the direction (hereinafter, also referred as the direction Z1) in which the battery cells B are arranged, but are formed as short paths in a vertical direction perpendicular to the direction (direction Z1).”). Accordingly, where avoiding thermal runaway between adjacent battery cells is a desirable outcome, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify the invention of Kim based on the teachings of Kim-701 so that the flow paths of vented gas do not flow across or in the direction of adjacent battery cells, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein an outlet of the vent of the first battery module discharges gas in a direction away from the second battery module and an outlet of the vent of the second battery module discharges gas in a direction away from the first battery module.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the vent is in an area in which the cell terrace assembly is formed, as shown in their figure 6.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the vent includes a plurality of holes, shown in their figure 2, where the vent comprising multiple units 300 has each unit 300 comprise a hole. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein each of the plurality of holes are located at opposite ends of the side surface part of the module frame, as shown in their figure 2, with each of the plurality of holes being on an opposite ends of the side surface part of the module frame.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein a terminal busbar opening 335 (Paragraph 0047, “The second guide barrier 330 may have a guide opening 335.”) and a vent opening 345 (Paragraph 0052, “The third guide barrier 340 may have a guide opening 345,”) are formed in the end plates as shown in their figure 5, where the vent disperses and discharges gas and heat emitted from the terminal busbar opening and the connector opening (Paragraph 0053, “The guide opening 345 is for allowing gas to pass when the gas is generated from the battery cells 100, similar to the guide openings 325, 335 of the first and second guide barriers 320, 330, and may be formed along the front and rear direction of the third guide barrier 340.”; Paragraph 0060, “The anti-exposure channel 360 communicates with the case outlet 250 of the case frame 200 to prevent the flame generated during the ignition of the battery cells 100 from being exposed and also to smoothly guide the gas generated during the ignition of the battery cells 100 toward the cover outlet 350.”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the vent is a hole in a side surface of the module frame, as shown in their figure 1.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Kim discloses structure where an inflow port is formed in the side surface of the module frame to correspond to a stack surface of the battery cell stack, here the guide opening 325, which is formed within the side surfaces of the module frame, to correspond to a side stack surface of the battery cell 100 stack, as shown in Kim’s figure 5, as well as a discharge port 250, which forms the outlet for discharging gas flown in the inflow port (Paragraph 0044, “The guide opening 325 is for allowing gas to pass when the gas is generated from the battery cells 100, and may be formed along the front and rear direction of the first guide barrier 320.”), where the discharge port 250 is perpendicular to the inflow port 350, as shown in figure 5.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 19. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the vent further comprises a connector formed between the inflow port and the discharge port to guide the gas flown toward the discharge port, as shown in figure 5 (Paragraph 0028, “FIG. 5 is a diagram for illustrating a flame anti-exposure and gas discharge path of the battery module of FIG. 1.”). Additionally, where the connector extends along a pathway which extends along the direction of the side surface, and then turns to move upward away from the side surface, it is therefore inclined with respect to the side surface.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 20. Additionally, the formation of the of the discharge port 350 , extending along a side face of the battery case, means that it is formed towards both side plates, both as a result of the side plates being formed on either side of it, and as a where both end plates are above the discharge port along the axis of the pass-through direction of the discharge port, as shown in Kim’s figure 5, thereby resulting in structure wherein the discharge port is formed toward an end plate located farther away from the vent, among the first end plate and the second end plate.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20170097192 A1) in view of Kim-701 (KR-20190069131-A, with US 20200303701 A1 used for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Kim-701), as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Here, Kim fails to disclose structure wherein the hole obliquely passes through the side surface of the frame, instead disclosing structure wherein the hole passes straight through the side surface of the module frame. However, as Kim discloses that the purpose of the hole 350 is to allow the discharge of gas generated through ignition of battery cells (Paragraph 0057, “The cover outlet 350 is formed at one surface of the cover frame 310, and may allow the gas generated during the ignition of the battery cells 100 to be discharged out of the battery module 10.”) with the intention of discharging the flame and gas away from the case to prevent further damage (Paragraph 0007, “Thus, when the battery cell is ignited due to overcharging, it is demanded to find a way to prevent the flame from being exposed to the outside of the case and also to easily discharge the gas out of the case.”). Accordingly, where Kim discloses and informs the use of pathways which direct the passage of gas and flame (Paragraph 0060, “The anti-exposure channel 360 communicates with the case outlet 250 of the case frame 200 to prevent the flame generated during the ignition of the battery cells 100 from being exposed and also to smoothly guide the gas generated during the ignition of the battery cells 100 toward the cover outlet 350.”), it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply this teaching to the orientation of the hole, resulting in structure where the hole is further angled away from the battery cells of the battery module. When the battery module is placed in the battery case 50 as shown in figure 6, this would result in structure where the hole is angled both upwards away from the case 50, and outwards from the battery cells within the battery module 10, thereby making obvious structure wherein the hole obliquely passes through the side surface of the module frame, where the oblique direction, as a result of its angling, faces extending through the hole, is a direction which is directed to the plane of both the first and second end plate, where one of the two is an end plate located further away from the vent among the first and second end plates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725