DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 7 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended, and claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, and 14 remain pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7 July 2026 has been entered.
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 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.
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) 1, 10, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. (US 6,531,847; hereinafter “Tsukamoto”), in view of Stude et al. (WO 2019/121641 A1; using US 2021/0074960 for the English translation and citations; hereinafter “Stude”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukamoto teaches a battery pack (see Fig. 3), comprising:
a pack case having an accommodation space (see Fig. 3 – battery array 200 would inherently have an accommodation space);
a plurality of battery modules accommodated in the pack case (see Fig. 3), each battery module of the plurality of battery modules having a plurality of battery cells stacked on each other in a stacking direction (though Fig. 3 of Tsukamoto is silent to each battery module having a plurality of battery cells stacked on each other in a stacking direction, it is the Examiner’s position that this is well known in the art where each battery module of the plurality of battery modules has battery cells stacked on each other in a stacking direction to increase energy density of the battery module and attaching these cells in either a parallel or series connection based on desired current and voltage requirements.);
a plurality of bus bar members configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery modules (though Tsukamoto is silent to a plurality of bus bar members configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery modules, the modules act as an array so it would have been obvious for them to be electrically connected via a plurality of bus bar members);
a plurality of relays connected to the plurality of bus bar members (see Fig. 3 – though Tsukamoto only shows a single relay 220 connected to battery 104 (see 4:60-5:22), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a relay connected to the bus bar members of each battery in the array in order to connect each individual battery, if/when it becomes faulty, to the energy discharge load);
an outer resistor connected to the plurality of relays and provided at one inner side of the pack case (energy discharge load 150 such as a resistance heater; see Fig. 3 and 4:60-5:22); and
a circuit having the outer resistor (see Fig. 3),
wherein, when a first battery module (faulty battery 104, see Fig. 3; 4:60-5:22) of the plurality of battery modules exceeds a predetermined temperature, the relays connected to battery modules other than the first battery module among the plurality of relays remain open (see 4:60-5:22 – it would be obvious for the remaining relays to remain open to allow for the rest of battery modules to operate), and only the relay connected to the first battery module is closed to connect the first battery module to the outer resistor (see Fig. 3; 4:60-5:22),
wherein the plurality of battery modules include:
a first battery module assembly (battery array 200, see Fig. 3; 4:60-5:22); and
a second battery module assembly (This is merely a duplication of the first battery module assembly, and the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result Is produced; See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B)) disposed to be spaced apart from the first battery module assembly in a width direction of the pack case (Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration and spacing of the first battery module assembly from the second battery module assembly is significant, the particular placement of the second battery module assembly in relation to the first battery module assembly, including in a width direction of the pack case, would have been an obvious matter of design choice at the time the invention was filed; see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C)).
Tsukamoto is silent to at least one partition isolation member disposed to compart the plurality of battery modules and wherein the at least one partition isolation member is disposed between the first battery module assembly and the second battery module assembly, and wherein the outer resistor is mounted to the pack case so as to be separable from the pack case, and wherein adjacent battery modules in the stacking direction are disposed without a partition isolation member therebetween.
Stude teaches at least one partition isolation member (heat insulation element 1A and 1B, see Fig. 2; see [0106]-[0107] and [0113]-[0127]) disposed to compart the plurality of battery modules (see Fig. 2 – heat insulation element 1B disposed to compart the plurality of battery modules), wherein the at least one partition isolation member is disposed between the first battery module assembly and the second battery module assembly (see Fig. 2 – the battery cells 12 in the compartment left of the heat insulation element 1B are equated to the first battery module assembly and the battery cells 12 to the right of the heat insulation element 1B are equated to the second battery module assembly, wherein the first and second battery modules are spaced apart in a width direction of the pack case, and every two battery cells 12 is grouped as a “module” so there are three battery modules in the first battery module assembly and four battery modules in the second battery module assembly) and wherein adjacent battery modules in the stacking direction (see Fig. 2 – stacking direction is parallel to the long axis of the heat insulation element 1A) are disposed without a partition isolation member therebetween (see Fig. 2). The heat insulation element is configured to reduce and/or delay the release of heat to the environment, in particular a vehicular interior, and/or to contain and/or reduce and/or delay the spread of heat in the battery in the event of uncontrolled and/or excessive heat development in the battery (see [0002]). Furthermore, the heat insulation provides shock and/or vibration dampening and/or absorption (see [0118]).
In view of Stude’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pack of Tsukamoto to include at least one partition isolation member disposed to compart the plurality of battery modules and wherein the at least one partition isolation member is disposed between the first battery module assembly and the second battery module assembly and wherein adjacent battery modules in the stacking direction are disposed without a partition isolation member therebetween, as taught by Stude, because it helps to reduce and/or delay the release of heat to the environment, in particular a vehicular interior, and/or to contain and/or reduce and/or delay the spread of heat in the battery in the event of uncontrolled and/or excessive heat development in the battery. Furthermore, the heat insulation provides shock and/or vibration dampening and/or absorption.
The combination of Tsukamoto and Stude is silent to wherein the outer resistor is mounted to the pack case so as to be separable from the pack case. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount the outer resistor unit to the pack case so as to be separable from the pack case in order to easily replace the outer resistor unit in the case of a malfunction or defect in the outer resistor unit. See MPEP §2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tsukamoto and Stude teaches a detector circuit 124 that monitors battery conditions including temperature (Tuskamoto: see 4:60-5:22) but is silent to specifically teaching a plurality of temperature sensors electrically connected to the plurality of battery modules. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of temperature sensors electrically connected to the plurality of battery modules to constantly monitor the temperature of each individual battery of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Tsukamoto and Stude teach
a control unit (Tsukamoto: safety control circuit 136, see Fig. 3; 4:60-5:22) electrically connected to the plurality of relays (see rejection for claim 1 above), the outer resistor (energy discharge load 150 such as a resistance heater; see Fig. 3 and 4:60-5:22) and the temperature sensors (see rejection for claim 10 above) (Tsukamoto: see 4:60-5:22 – it would have been obvious to electrically connect the plurality of relays, the outer resistor 150, and the temperature sensors to the safety control circuit 136 to automate detection of faulty batteries and automatically isolate faulty batteries to the energy discharge load).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., to control the operation of the plurality of relays based on temperature information detected by the temperature sensors), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tsukamoto and Stude teaches a vehicle (Tsukamoto: submarines and electric vehicles; 4:60-5:22; Stude: vehicle 14, see Fig. 2; [0108]), comprising at least one battery pack according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukamoto and Stude as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bertsch et al. (US 2013/0234670; hereinafter “Bertsch”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tsukamoto and Stude is silent to its battery pack further comprising:
a resistance isolation member provided in the pack case and disposed to compart the outer resistor and the plurality of battery modules from each other.
Bertsch teaches a resistance isolation member (thermal insulating body, see [0035]) provided to compart the outer resistor unit (resistor 200 within discharge device 140, see Fig. 1; [0029]-[0035]) to the battery module (energy store 150, see Fig. 1; see [0028]-[0035]) from each other (see [0035]). The resistance isolation member helps to prevent the energy store from being substantially heated by the resistor (see [0035]).
In view of Bertsch’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pack of the combination of Tsukamoto and Stude to include a resistance isolation member provided in the pack case and disposed to compart the outer resistor and the plurality of battery modules from each other, as taught by Bertsch, because it helps to prevent the battery modules from being substantially heated by the resistor.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tsukamoto and Stude is silent to wherein the circuit having the outer resistor extends along the at least one partition isolation member.
Bertsch teaches a resistance isolation member (thermal insulating body, see [0035]) provided to compart the outer resistor unit (resistor 200 within discharge device 140, see Fig. 1; [0029]-[0035]) to the battery module (energy store 150, see Fig. 1; see [0028]-[0035]) from each other (see [0035]). The resistance isolation member helps to prevent the energy store from being substantially heated by the resistor (see [0035]).
In view of Bertsch’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pack of the combination of Tsukamoto and Stude to include wherein the circuit having the outer resistor extends along the at least one partition isolation member, as taught by Bertsch, because it would help to prevent the energy store from being substantially heated by the resistor
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, and Bertsch as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Soki et al. (US 2018/0326863; hereinafter “Soki”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, and Bertsch is silent to wherein the plurality of battery modules include:
wherein the first battery module assembly having a first set of battery modules of the plurality of battery modules disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance along a longitudinal direction of the pack case, and
wherein the second battery module assembly disposed to be spaced apart from the first battery module assembly by a predetermined distance in a width direction of the pack case and having a second set of battery modules of the plurality of battery modules disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance along the longitudinal direction of the pack case.
Soki teaches a battery pack (see Fig. 2) wherein a plurality of battery modules include:
wherein a first battery module assembly (first battery stack 231, see Fig. 2; [0054]) having a first set of battery modules (battery cells 240 of first battery stack 231, see Fig. 2) of the plurality of battery modules (see Fig. 2) disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance along a longitudinal direction of the pack case (see Fig. 2), and
wherein the second battery module assembly (second battery stack 232, see Fig. 2; [0054]) disposed to be spaced apart from the first battery module assembly by a predetermined distance in a width direction of the pack case (lateral direction equated to the claimed width direction, see Fig. 2 and [0040]) and having a second set of battery modules (battery cels 240 of second battery stack 232, see Fig. 2) of the plurality of battery modules disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance along the longitudinal direction of the pack case (see Fig. 2). Soki teaches battery pack 300 is designed to be used in, for example, a hybrid vehicle (see [0039]).
In view of Soki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pack of the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, and Bertsch to include wherein the plurality of battery modules include: wherein the first battery module assembly having a first set of battery modules of the plurality of battery modules disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance along a longitudinal direction of the pack case, and wherein the second battery module assembly disposed to be spaced apart from the first battery module assembly by a predetermined distance in a width direction of the pack case and having a second set of battery modules of the plurality of battery modules disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance along the longitudinal direction of the pack case, as taught by Soki, because it is a known configuration for a battery pack to be used in a hybrid vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, Bertsch, and Soki is silent to wherein the battery cells of the battery modules of the first battery module assembly and the second battery module assembly are stacked on each other along the longitudinal direction of the pack case.
However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular stacking direction of the battery cells within the battery modules of the battery module assemblies is merely an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). The design choice could be based on the end use of the stacked batteries and the best orientation required to fit and how many cells are required to achieve the required energy density of the end use.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, Bertsch, and Soki is silent to wherein the battery cells of the battery modules of the first battery module assembly and the second battery module assembly are stacked on each other along the width direction of the pack case.
However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular stacking direction of the battery cells within the battery modules of the battery module assemblies is merely an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). The design choice could be based on the end use of the stacked batteries and the best orientation required to fit and how many cells are required to achieve the required energy density of the end use.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, Bertsch, and Soki teaches wherein the at least one partition isolation member is a plurality of partition isolation members (Stude: heat insulation element 1A and 1B, see Fig. 2; see [0106]-[0107] and [0113]-[0127]).
The combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, Bertsch, and Soki is silent to wherein the plurality of partition isolation members are respectively disposed between the battery modules of the first battery module assembly and between the battery modules of the second battery module assembly along the width direction of the pack case. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular stacking direction of the battery cells and the particular placement of the partition isolation members between the battery modules of the first battery module assembly within the battery modules of the battery module assemblies along the width direction of the pack case is merely an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). The design choice could be based on the end use of the stacked batteries and the best orientation required to fit and how many cells are required to achieve the required energy density of the end use, and to contain and/or reduce and/or delay the spread of heat in the battery in the event of uncontrolled and/or excessive heat development in the battery
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, and Bertsch as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2019/0260096; hereinafter “Nakajima”; listed in the IDS filed 31 October 2022).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, and Bertsch is silent to wherein among the plurality of bus bar members, bus bar members disposed at a first side end of the pack case.
Nakajima teaches wherein among the plurality of bus bar members, bus bar members are disposed at a first side end of the pack case (see Fig. 6 - negative electrode-connection bus bar 27 and positive electrode-connection bus bar 28; see [0028]).
In view of Nakajima’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pack of the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, and Bertsch to include wherein among the plurality of bus bar members, bus bar members disposed at a first side end of the pack case, as taught by Nakajima, because it is a known configuration for the bus bar locations.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., are electrically connected to an external power source), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tsukamoto, Stude, Bertsch, and Nakajima is silent to wherein the resistance isolation member is disposed at a second side end of the pack case. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dispose the resistance isolation member at a second side end of the pack case in order to keep the resistance isolation member isolated from the device that is connected to the bus bars at the first side end. Furthermore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular location of the resistance isolation member is merely an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or make obvious amended claim 1, which now requires that adjacent battery modules in the stacking direction are disposed without a partition isolation member therebetween.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive as the combination of Tsukamoto and Stude teaches amended claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above). Stude teaches at least one partition isolation member (heat insulation element 1A and 1B, see Fig. 2; see [0106]-[0107] and [0113]-[0127]) disposed to compart the plurality of battery modules (see Fig. 2 – heat insulation element 1B disposed to compart the plurality of battery modules), wherein the at least one partition isolation member is disposed between the first battery module assembly and the second battery module assembly (see Fig. 2 – the battery cells 12 in the compartment left of the heat insulation element 1B are equated to the first battery module assembly and the battery cells 12 to the right of the heat insulation element 1B are equated to the second battery module assembly, wherein the first and second battery modules are spaced apart in a width direction of the pack case, and every two battery cells 12 is grouped as a “module” so there are three battery modules in the first battery module assembly and four battery modules in the second battery module assembly) and wherein adjacent battery modules in the stacking direction (see Fig. 2 – stacking direction is parallel to the long axis of the heat insulation element 1A) are disposed without a partition isolation member therebetween (see Fig. 2). The heat insulation element is configured to reduce and/or delay the release of heat to the environment, in particular a vehicular interior, and/or to contain and/or reduce and/or delay the spread of heat in the battery in the event of uncontrolled and/or excessive heat development in the battery (see [0002]). Furthermore, the heat insulation provides shock and/or vibration dampening and/or absorption (see [0118]).
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Tsukamoto only discloses a single relay as compared to the claimed invention which includes a plurality of relays, and that a prior art teaching of using a plurality of relays to connect each individual battery to one energy discharge load is needed to support an allegation that this feature is obvious.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. Tsukamoto teaches that if predetermined parameters, or combinations thereof, stored in the memory of the safety control circuit 136, are exceeded, the faulty battery 104 is isolated from the battery array 200 by bypassing the faulty battery 104 in the array circuit. Simultaneously or immediately thereafter, the safety control circuit 136 signals a relay 220 to connect the terminals 144a and 144b of the faulty battery 104 across an energy discharge load 150 such as a resistance heater (see 4:60-5:22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have each battery module within the array have relays to connect to the respective terminals of each battery module to disconnect them from the array and directly connect the faulty battery to the energy discharge load. This idea is further supported by Tsukamoto’s Figure 7, which appears to show each battery within the module connected to individual isolation switches. Applicant repeatedly relies on Figure 3 for support of a specific interpretation of Tsukamoto while ignoring the embodiment of Tsukamoto as shown in Figure 7. In Figure 7, Tsukamoto teaches the operator may, upon receiving a signal from an alarm 452 or a display 453, manually isolate the faulty battery 440 using an isolation switch 456, then connect it to an emergency energy discharge load 150 (see 6:43-63). Tsukamoto further acknowledges that the invention is best implemented as an automated system (see 6:43-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have each battery module within the array have relays to connect to the respective terminals of each battery module to disconnect them from the array and directly connect them to the energy discharge load if and when an individual battery module becomes faulty.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 25 July 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights