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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 30, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claim 1 is amended submitted on 10/30/2025. Claims 1-6 and 10 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 20040095093 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baba discloses a battery block 10 includes a battery package 11 that can house one or more of the batteries ([0024] and FIGs. 1 and 7), which reads on the claimed “a battery module comprising: a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked”. Since Baba discloses the connection terminals 16 are arranged adjacent to one another along a stacking direction (from left to right, FIGs. 1 and 7) and the number of connection terminals 16 corresponds to the number of batteries 14 ([0036] and FIGs. 1 and 7), which inherently anticipates the claimed “the battery cells being arranged adjacent to one another along a stacking direction”. Baba further shows in FIG. 7 the plurality of battery cells having a large-area surface (side surface of 14, FIG. 7) of each of the battery cells being in surface contact with the large-area surface (side surface of 14, FIG. 7) of an adjacent one of the battery cells.
Baba further discloses the outer case 30 is constructed by combining an open top lower case 31 and an upper case 32 which is shrouded by the lower case 31 in such a way that each side face overlaps each other ([0027] and FIG. 1). Therefore, the lower case 31 in FIG. 1 of Baba anticipates “a first frame which is formed of lower, left, right surfaces that cover respective lower, left, and right surfaces of the battery cell stack, the left and right surfaces of the first frame being spaced apart from one another in the stacking direction”; and the upper case 32 in FIG. 1 of Baba anticipates “a second frame of which upper, front, rear, left, and right surfaces are integrally formed and cover respective upper, front, and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack, the left and right surfaces of the second frame being spaced apart from one another in the stacking direction”.
Baba further discloses the lower case 31 and the upper case 32 can be used interchangeably in that the lower case 31 is shrouded by the upper case 32 ([0031]), which means the claimed limitation “the second frame covers the left and right surfaces of the first frame” is met.
Since Baba discloses the upper case 32 and the lower case 31 are arranged in such a way that each side face overlaps each other ([0027] and FIG. 1) , which anticipates the claimed “wherein the left and right surfaces of the first and second frames together comprise a double frame structure”.
Baba does not explicitly disclose the double frame structure with the left and right surfaces of the first and second frames being arranged parallel to the large-area surface of each of the battery cells because the large-area side surface of each of the battery cells are shown in FIG. 7 as round shape of a cylindrical cell possessing only some portions of the large-area side surface parallel to the left and right surfaces first and second frames, not an entirety of the large-area side surface being parallel to the left and right surfaces first and second frames; nor the double frame structure with the left and right surfaces of the first and second frames being configured to resist swelling of the battery cells in the stacking direction.
However, Baba does not limit the shape of the batteries to be cylindrical shape, but a flat shape or a coin shape may be used ([0060]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to choose a flat shape battery cells, and thus it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed “the left and right surfaces of the first and second frames are arranged parallel to a large-area surface of the battery cell” without undue experimentation because Baba includes a four sides double frame.
Baba further mentions the heat generated by the batteries in the battery block 10 during high load discharge, and deterioration or unbalance of the battery performance influenced by the heat can be prevented ([0026]). Baba further discloses the battery block 10 are tightly fit inside of the outer case 30 so that there is no shaky movement with minimal or effectively no vibration ([0028]), and the outer case 30 made of aluminum (Al) ([0057]), which inherently anticipates the double frame structure resists swelling of the battery cells including the swelling in the stacking direction, because in such a tight fit double frame made of aluminum (Al), the double frame structure would necessarily and inherently possess to some extent, the feature of resisting swelling of the battery cells in the stacking direction, due to the heat generated by the battery cells.
Regarding claim 5, Baba discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Baba further discloses the left and right surfaces of the first frame and the left and right surfaces of the second frame are each oriented perpendicular to a stacking direction of the plurality of battery cells in the battery cell stack (FIGs. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 6, Baba discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since Baba discloses the lower case 31 and the upper case 32 can be used interchangeably in that the lower case 31 is shrouded by the upper case 32 ([0032]), the claim limitation “the upper surface of the second frame is wider than the lower surface of the first frame” is inherently met.
5. Claims 2, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 20040095093 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Tyler (US 20150072209 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Baba discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Baba further discloses the lower case 31 and the upper case 32 with side surfaces overlapped each other as shown in FIG. 1 ([0031]) and can be contacted with an adhesive in order to prevent the outer case 30 from separation due to unconsidered decomposition during transportation, mischief by children and the like ([0030]), Baba does not explicitly disclose the overlapping surfaces of the first frame and the second frame are coupled by welding at their lower ends as claimed “lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the first frame are coupled by welding to respective lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the second frame, and front and rear ends of the lower surface of the first frame are coupled by welding to respective lower ends of the front and rear surfaces of the second frame”.
Tyler teaches the battery module 22 includes a lower housing 50 and a cover 52 that are coupled together to form an enclosure of the battery module 22 ([0081] and FIG. 6), the cover 52 may be attached to the lower housing 50 via adhesive, ultrasonic welding, or any other desirable method for hermetically sealing the battery module 22, which may prevent moisture, particulate matter, and other foreign agents from entering the more sensitive interior components of the battery module 22 ([0096]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinary skilled artisan to couple the first frame and the second frame of Baba via ultrasonic welding as taught by Tyler in order to prevent the outer case 30 from separation due to unconsidered decomposition during transportation, mischief by children and the like; and it would be further obvious to weld at the respective lower ends of the frames in light of accessible positions of a welding gun during a welding process of joining two overlapped frames, thus arriving at the claimed “lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the first frame are coupled by welding to respective lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the second frame, and front and rear ends of the lower surface of the first frame are coupled by welding to respective lower ends of the front and rear surfaces of the second frame”.
Regarding claim 4, Baba discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Baba does not explicitly disclose lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the first frame each have a guide protruding therefrom, and lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the second frame each have a recessed guide insertion part into which a corresponding one of the guides is inserted.
Tyler teaches the battery module 22 includes a lower housing 50 and a cover 52 that are coupled together to form an enclosure of the battery module 22 ([0081] and FIG. 6), and the groove 116 of the lower housing 50 configured to mate with an extension 117 protruding from the cover 52 so that it may be possible to hermetically seal the battery module 22 ([0096] FIG. 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinary skilled artisan to prepare lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the first frame each have a guide protruding therefrom, and lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the second frame each have a recessed guide insertion part into which a corresponding one of the guides is inserted, as taught by Tyler, in order to be possible to hermetically seal the battery module.
Regarding claim 10, Baba discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Baba further discloses the invention can be applied to a battery pack for notebook computer or other portable electronic devices ([0054]), Baba does not explicitly disclose a battery pack comprising the battery module.
Tyler teaches a battery pack (20, FIG. 2) comprising the battery module (22, FIGs. 2 and 5). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinary skilled artisan to have a battery pack comprising the battery module, at taught by Tyler.
6. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 20040095093 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Takeshita (US 20040070366 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Baba discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Baba further discloses the lower case 31 and the upper case 32 with side surfaces overlapped each other as shown in FIG. 1 ([0031]) and can be contacted with an adhesive in order to prevent the outer case 30 from separation due to unconsidered decomposition during transportation, mischief by children and the like ([0030]), Baba does not explicitly disclose the overlapping surfaces of the first frame and the second frame are coupled by welding at their lower ends as claimed “lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the first frame are coupled by welding to respective lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the second frame, and front and rear ends of the lower surface of the first frame are coupled by welding to respective lower ends of the front and rear surfaces of the second frame”.
Takeshita teaches a battery case for housing battery cells ([0013]) particularly to maintaining the stable state of housing the battery cells in the battery case ([0001]), and it is possible to prevent the whole of the battery case from swelling and deforming ([0015]). Takeshita further teaches the battery case 2 has an upper side case 10 and a lower side case 20, both of which are shaped like a box ([0044] FIG. 2), ultrasonic welding is applied to the upper side case 10 and the lower side case 20 and the both are combined with each other ([0098]), which teaches using welding to couple the upper side case and the lower side case.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinary skilled artisan to couple the first frame and the second frame of Baba via welding as taught by Takeshita, in order to prevent the whole of the battery case from swelling and deforming; and it would be further obvious to weld at the respective lower ends of the frames in light of accessible positions of a welding gun during a welding process of joining two overlapped frames, thus arriving at the claimed “lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the first frame are coupled by welding to respective lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the second frame, and front and rear ends of the lower surface of the first frame are coupled by welding to respective lower ends of the front and rear surfaces of the second frame”.
Regarding claim 3, Baba discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Baba further discloses the inside dimension of the upper case 32 can be set to the same size as the outer size of the lower case 31, the upper case 32 and the lower case 31 are closed by pushing the lower case 31 into the upper case32 ([0030]), Baba does not explicitly disclose thicknesses of each of the surfaces of the first frame are identical to thicknesses of each of the surfaces of the second frame.
Takeshita teaches a battery case for housing battery cells ([0013]) particularly to maintaining the stable state of housing the battery cells in the battery case ([0001]), and it is possible to prevent the whole of the battery case from swelling and deforming ([0015]). Takeshita further teaches the battery case 2 has an upper side case 10 and a lower side case 20, both of which are shaped like a box ([0044] FIG. 2), ultrasonic welding is applied to the upper side case 10 and the lower side case 20 and the both are combined with each other ([0098]) with both thickness of 1.0 mm ([0101-0102]) and FIG. 2), which reads on the claimed “thicknesses of each of the surfaces of the first frame are identical to thicknesses of each of the surfaces of the second frame”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinary skilled artisan to prepare the first frame and the second frame of Baba with thicknesses of each of the surfaces of the first frame are identical to thicknesses of each of the surfaces of the second frame, as taught by Takeshi, in order to prevent the whole of the battery case from swelling and deforming.
Regarding claim 4, Baba discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Baba does not explicitly disclose lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the first frame each have a guide protruding therefrom, and lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the second frame each have a recessed guide insertion part into which a corresponding one of the guides is inserted.
Takeshita teaches a battery case for housing battery cells ([0013]) particularly to maintaining the stable state of housing the battery cells in the battery case ([0001]), and it is possible to prevent the whole of the battery case from swelling and deforming ([0015]). Takeshita further teaches the upper end edge of the lower side case 20 is engaged with the inside of the v groove 16 formed of the upper side case 10 ([0094] FIG. 21). The upper end edge of the lower side case 20 of Takeshita corresponds to a guide protruding of the first frame and the v groove 16 of the upper side case 10 corresponds to a recessed guide insertion part of the second frame, of the instant claim.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinary skilled artisan to prepare lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the first frame each have a guide protruding therefrom, and lower ends of the left and right surfaces of the second frame each have a recessed guide insertion part into which a corresponding one of the guides is inserted, as taught by Takeshi, in order to prevent the whole of the battery case from swelling and deforming.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 1 filed on 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant argues the limitation “the left and right surfaces of the first and second frames are arranged parallel to a large-area surface of the battery cell and together comprise a double frame structure configured to resist swelling of the battery cells in the stacking direction” is not disclosed or suggested in the primary reference, Baba, because Baba merely shows a cylindrical battery cell in FIG. 7, and further Baba merely discloses that all the side surfaces of the outer case (30) have a double frame structure (P5 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Baba further discloses the battery block 10 are tightly fit inside of the outer case 30 so that there is no shaky movement with minimal or effectively no vibration ([0028]), and the outer case 30 made of aluminum (Al) ([0057]), which means Baba’s double frame structure ([0027] and FIG. 1) anticipates inherently the left and right surfaces of the first and second frames together comprise a double frame structure configured to resist swelling of the battery cells in the stacking direction, because in such a tight fit double frame made of aluminum (Al), the double frame structure would necessarily and inherently possess to some extent, the feature of resisting swelling of the battery cells in the stacking direction, due to the heat generated by the battery cells.
While Baba’s battery cell as shown in FIG. 7 appears to be a cylindrical shape with the side surface being the large-area surface of the battery cell, Baba’s cells in FIG. 7 possess some portions of the large-area surface parallel to the first and second frames, not the entirety of large-area side surface. However, Baba does not limit the shape of the batteries to be cylindrical shape, but a flat shape or a coin shape may be used ([0060]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to choose a flat shape battery cells, and thus it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed “the left and right surfaces of the first and second frames are arranged parallel to a large-area surface of the battery cell” without undue experimentation because Baba includes a four sides double frame. Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Second, the Applicant argues the recited feature of “a large-area surface of each of the battery cells being in surface contact with the large-area surface of an adjacent one of the battery cells” is distinguished from the battery cell stack taught in Baba which appears to be batteries encased in a resin and/or not shown to be in surface contact with each other, citing FIGs 1-2 and 7 of Baba (P5 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Baba’s FIG. 7 appears to have the recited feature in that the side surface of the cylindrical battery cells corresponds to the large-area surface of the battery cell in the claim, thus the large-area surface of the adjacent two cylindrical battery cells shown in FIG. 7 are in surface contact with each other. Thus this argument is not found persuasive either.
Examiner further notes: since Baba has included a flat shape batteries ([0060]), it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited feature as argued by simply modifying Baba with a flat shape battery cells.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00AM -5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/12/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/17/2026