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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 2/24/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 3, 5 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claim 18 is newly added.
Claims 11-13 have been previously indicated as allowable. However, the claims are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-16, and 18 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment the rejections to claims 1-4, and 6-16 under both §112(a&b) are withdrawn.
Despite the amendment the rejection to the claims under §102 and 103 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant's argument about the newly added limitation concerning the temperature, this is addressed in detail in the rejection below. As for as the spacer not being "between the stack" the wording of the claim is "between sides" and it is the examiner's position that the area at the side of the cell meets the limitation of the claim. As for the argument against HARADA,, it is the stance of the office that it will still function.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 15, the term “column shape” is not clearly defined in the specification but understood as a term in the art. For examination purposes the term “column shape” will be interpreted as the “cross-sectional geometry of a vertical structural support, which can be rectangular, square, circular, hexagonal, or polygonal.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018151415, SHIN et al. (US 20190280263 is used as an English translation).
Regarding claim 1, SHIN [0018] discloses a battery pack, comprising:
at least one cell assembly including a plurality of secondary batteries stacked in a stack direction that SHIN [0018 and 0041] refers to as stacking multiple pouch-type battery cells;
a module housing that SHIN refers to as a module casing, having an internal space in which the at least one cell assembly is received [0041];
a spacer interposed between sides of two adjacent secondary batteries of the plurality of secondary batteries, (fixing unit (126) that is disposed between the cells) and configured to expand in the stack direction to press the two adjacent secondary batteries apart in the stack direction when a temperature of a body of a spacer is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature that SHIN discloses in table 1 to be between 150-200 °C depending on the material used. In particular example 3 in table 1 which discloses the expansion temperature to be exactly 200 °C, which is anticipates the newly claimed range of 200 °C with sufficient specificity. When this temperature range is reached the tape will expand thereby pushing the adjacent cells away from each other.
And a support provided between the sides of the two adjacent secondary batteries and configured to press the two secondary batteries and configured to irreversibly increase in length
SHIN figure 5 envisions an embodiment of the invention where the supports run through the entirety of the spacer thereby being “between” the batteries that expand between 150 -200 °C.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
499
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and configured to be spaced from the spacer.
annotated figure 6 below shows the support is spaced from the spacer.
PNG
media_image3.png
405
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, SHIN [0018] and in annotated figure 6 below discloses that each secondary battery of the plurality of secondary batteries includes a pouch case, wherein the pouch case includes a receiving portion having an internal space in which an electrode assembly is received, and a sealing portion formed along an outer periphery of the pouch case, and wherein the spacer is disposed in contact with the receiving portion of two of the plurality of secondary batteries as shown in SHIN annotated figure 6 below and [0041] where a “step of stacking multiple pouch-type battery cells”.
PNG
media_image2.png
499
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3. SHIN in annotated figure 6 depicted below discloses battery pack taught by SHIN uses a spacer (referred to as a fixing unit) composed of thermal expansion polymer and expansion graphite that is configured to expand in volume when a temperature of a body equals or rises above the predetermined temperature shown in table 1. These spacers would expand thereby pushing the cells apart.
PNG
media_image2.png
499
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14. In annotated figure 6 SHIN teaches the reverse side of the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the support comprises a holder portion retaining the support in a retracted position.
PNG
media_image4.png
395
686
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the annotated figure below shows three embodiments of SHIN wherein the support has a first end and a second end spaced from the first end in a first direction, and wherein the support is configured to irreversibly increase in length in the first direction.
PNG
media_image5.png
507
740
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN et al. in view of US 20090087727 A1, HARADA.
Regarding claim 4, SHIN teaches all the limitations of claim 3, but
SHIN does not disclose a guide member configured to surround sides of the spacer to guide the spacer to expand in the stack direction.
HARADA [0030] discloses a spacer that is referred to as a hollow body that is depicted as object 41 in the annotated figure 1 below. HARADA also discloses a guide member which is referred to as a spacer (42) which is formed into a frame-like configuration so as to enable it to be in contact with all of the outer circumferential sidewalls of the hollow body (41).
HARADA [0032] goes on to teach that since the spacer (guide member) 42 is disposed on the opposite sidewalls of the hollow body (spacer) 41, the expansion of the hollow body (spacer) 41 in the horizontal direction can be regulated during the in-flow of the cooling medium into the hollow body (spacer) 41 in a manner to produce a differential pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a frame around a deformable spacer in order to direct the expansion of the spacer in a desired direction in order to make closer contact with the battery cells.
PNG
media_image6.png
374
712
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18. SHIN discloses the battery pack according to claim 1,
SHIN does not disclose the spacer has a first surface and a second surface spaced from each other in the stack direction, and wherein the first surface directly contacts a first secondary battery of the two adjacent secondary batteries and the second surface directly contacts a second secondary battery of the two adjacent secondary batteries.
HARADA [0030] in figure 1 discloses the spacer (42) has a first surface and a second surface spaced from each other in the stack direction, and wherein the first surface directly contacts a first secondary battery of the two adjacent secondary batteries and the second surface directly contacts a second secondary battery of the two adjacent secondary batteries.
The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have placed the spacer between the stack instead of the side of the stack without any undue experimentation or any expectation of a different result to spacing the stack.
Claims 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018151415, SHIN et al. the US 20190280263 is used as an English translation, in view of KR102021072 (B1), JEON et al.
Regarding claim 6, SHIN teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
SHIN does not teach the battery pack is configured such that a fire extinguishing liquid is supplied into the module housing when an internal temperature of the module housing equals or rises above the predetermined temperature.
JEON [0007] teaches a fire prevention system for an energy storage device, which detects an abnormal temperature in a battery cell, and prevents the occurrence of a fire by spraying a fire extinguishing agent inside a module where a battery cell is located before the battery cell reaches the temperature of the ignition point.
JEON [0004] also teaches the need to prevent a fire before it starts.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have combined the fire suppression taught by JEON with the battery module taught by SHIN in order to prevent battery fires before they ignite.
Regarding claims 9 and 10. SHIN in view of JEON teaches in the annotated figure below a battery rack [0028] which the reference refers to as an energy storage system comprising the battery packs that JEON refers to as battery cells and a rack case in which the battery pack is received.
JEON [0002] further teaches that the battery rack which JEON refers to as an energy storage device, can contribute to improving energy efficiency, increasing the utilization of renewable energy, and stabilizing the power supply system by storing electric energy when it is used less and supplying it when needed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have combined the battery rack of JEON with the battery module of SHIN in order to improve energy efficiency, increase the utilization of renewable energy, and stabilize the power supply system by storing electric energy when it is used less and supplying it when needed.
PNG
media_image7.png
452
776
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018151415, SHIN et al. the US 20190280263 is used as an English translation, in view of KR102021072 (B1), JEON et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20190326571 A1, WUENSCHE et al.
Regarding claims 7, and 8. SHIN modified by JEON teaches the battery pack according to claim 6,
Modified SHIN does not teach that the spacer includes a synthetic fiber configured to absorb the fire extinguishing liquid and expand in volume when the synthetic fiber contacts the fire extinguishing liquid supplied into the battery pack.
WUENSCHE [0008] discloses spacer which the reference refers to as an absorbent layer, disposed on the bottom portion inside the battery housing, thereby contacting the inner surface of an outer wall of the housing by volume expansion when the synthetic fiber absorbs liquid according to claim 8.
WUENSCHE [0023] further discloses that the absorbent layer (spacer) expands, and [0028] it is possible to secure operational safety of a battery system even in case of leakage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the absorbent spacer of WUENSCHE with the battery pack of modified SHIN in order to increase the operational safety of the battery pack.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018151415, SHIN et al. (US 20190280263 is used as an English translation) in view of US 4002808 A, FAFA, Jean.
Regarding claim 15: SHIN discloses the battery pack according to claim 1.
SHIN does disclose the support has a column shape if the shape of a column is interpreted to be a vertical structural support, which can be rectangular, or square.
SHIN does not explicitly disclose the support has a column shape insomuch as it being cylindrical, or circular.
FAFA in the annotated figure below depicts a column shaped support.
It has been held that the configuration or shape of a claimed device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a cylindrical or column shape in order to support the batteries in the stack.
PNG
media_image8.png
1001
802
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11: While the examiner has been able to find many examples of spring type mechanisms between battery cells, modules or batteries there are none that have the limitations of "inner tubes and outer tubes", that coupled with the limitation of claim 5 where the support is "configured to be able to irreversibly increase a length in two directions" the office finds the limitations of claims 11 allowable if written in independent form.
Regarding claims 12 and 13 the limitation wherein a holder retaining the support in a retracted position and where the holder releases the support when the temperature exceeds the predetermined temperature, would be rejected on the same grounds as claim 14 above. However, claims 12 and 13 are dependent on a claim that has allowable subject matter so they are only rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights