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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 27th 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 & 7-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments to the previous rejections of the claims were fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejections of the claims are maintained.
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, 2, 8, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al US 2019/0363392 A1 in view of Tao et al WO 2020/018618 A1, Bailey (“What is All the Buzz About Constant Force Springs?, https://www.stmarysspring.com/blog/buzz-constant-force-springs), and Qi et al. US 2014/0272514 A1. Further evidence is provided by Dube US 9,634,295 B2 and Fujiwara et al. JP H07122252 A. Citations to Fujiwara et al. are mapped to the English machine translation provided.
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al teaches a battery module (see 10, FIG. 4) comprising:
a battery cell stack (see 100, FIG. 4) comprising n battery cells (see 110, FIG. 4);
a case (see 200, FIG. 4) having one open end (see ¶ [0034] where 200 has a perforation portion) and accommodating the battery cell stack (100) inside (see FIG. 4) thereof;
an upper plate (see 211, FIG. 4) stacked on an upper end (see end of 200 where 211 is located, FIG. 4) of the battery cell stack (100); and a spring (see 300, FIG. 4) positioned inside the case (200/213) and fixed on a lower portion (see 213, FIG. 4) of the case, wherein the spring (300) includes a winding end (see end of 300 attached to 213, FIG. 4) and a free end (end of 300 directly attached to 211, see FIG. 4 and ¶ [0043]; American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “free” as: not fixed in position; capable of relatively unrestricted motion—it is the examiner’s position that the end of 300 directly attached to 211 is capable of relatively unrestricted motion compared to the end of 300 directly attached to 213),
wherein the winding end (end of 300 attached to 213) is fixed at a lower portion of the case (see end of the lower 300 attached to 213), and the free end (end of 300 attached to 211, FIG. 4) is fixed at the upper plate (211), and wherein the n is an integer equal to or greater than 2 (see FIG. 4 where more than 2 of 110 comprise 10).
Kim et al does not explicitly teach that the spring is a constant force spring such that it has the winding end wound in multiple coiled layers and an empty space in a center of the multiple coiled layers.
Tao et al is cited to show a similar battery pack (Figure 4) that uses springs (440) to apply a force to ensure stabilization of the battery pack while allowing for expansion. (Para 0035) Tao et al teaches that a variety of springs, including constant force springs, are suitable to provide the needed force. (Para 0035)
Since Tao et al does not illustrate conventional configurations of constant force springs, Bailey is cited to show such configurations, which include multiple coiled layers at the winding end, having an empty space at the center of the multiple coiled layers. (Illustration on Page 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Kim et al by selecting a constant force spring having multiple coiled layers with an empty space in the center of the multiple coiled layers as the elastic member of Kim, because Tao teaches that constant force springs may be used to provide the force needed to stabilize the battery pack while allowing for expansion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to substitute one spring design for another as the elastic member, with the predictable result of having uniform pressure applied by the elastic member, as desired by Kim et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Kim discloses that the elastic members are attached to the inner side of the end plates disposed at both sides of the casing [0011-0013], which is further shown in Figure 2 of Kim. Kim discloses that the elastic members function so as to apply uniform pressure to the battery cells when swelling occurs in the battery module [0018], the operation of which is represented in Figure 3. Kim explains that without the elastic members, when cell swelling occurs, there is more pressure in the center of the battery cells due to more inflation of the battery cells in the center region, which causes deterioration in the performance of the battery cells [0036]. Kim explains that the elastic members attached to the end plates enable uniform pressure to be applied to the battery cells so that non-uniform swelling does not occur and battery performance is maintained [0036]. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the elastic members of Kim, based on Kim’s explanation of the function of the elastic members and the direction of cell swelling, is functioning so as to pull the end plates inwardly to control the degree of cell swelling as opposed to pushing the end plates apart, which would further exacerbate the problems that Kim is trying to solve. Therefore, Kim discloses that the elastic members are configured to apply elastic force to pull the battery cell stack toward the lower end of the case thereby pressing the battery cells by a designed load (pull the end plates together, which would thereby pull the cell stack towards the lower end plate and compress the battery cells), reading on the limitations of Claim 1. The modification above in view of Tao and Bailey, with the substitution of a constant force spring for Kim’s elastic member, would be expected to perform this function successfully as well. Thus, modified Kim discloses that the constant force spring is configured to apply elastic force to pull the battery cell stack toward the lower end of the case thereby pressing the battery cells by a designed load (pull the end plates together, which would thereby pull the cell stack towards the lower end plate and compress the battery cells), reading on the limitations of Claim 1.
As further evidenced by Dube and Fujiwara et al., this structure and “pulling” function of springs in this configuration is known in the art as a way of controlling deformation of a battery pack during swelling similarly to that of modified Kim, such as in the battery pack of Dube having constant force springs as elastic members applying a constant pulling (compressive) elastic force on the end plates of a battery pack (Figure 5) [Column 4 Lines 39-44; Column 5 Line 62 – Column 6 Line 13], as well as in the battery of Fujiwara et al. having four springs attached to the holding plates, similar to that of Kim, that function so as to pull (compress) the holding plates together to hold the battery unit in a pressurized state [Page 3 Lines 5-9].
Modified Kim et al does not teach a compression pad formed at each of a lower end and an upper end of the battery cell stack, wherein the compression pad is made of a polyurethane material.
Qi et al discloses a battery module comprising a battery cell stack (plurality of battery cell assemblies) housed in a frame [0004], similar to that of Kim. Qi further discloses compression pads (support members), which Qi states function so as to focus additional compressive forces on central portions of the battery cell stack, are positioned on the lower and upper ends of the battery cell stack [0004, 0030], as further shown by Items 50 in Figure 2a of Qi. Qi discloses that the compression pads (support members) are made of a polyurethane material [0038].
Qi more specifically discloses that the compression pads (support members) function so as to protectively support and cushion the battery cell stack with the battery module [0030], which Qi further discloses helps enable the dispersion of gases that may be formed within the battery module [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to further modify Kim et al by implementing a compression pad as taught by Qi to provide protective support and cushioning to the battery module.
Thus, modified Kim discloses a battery module with the limitations as recited in Claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al teaches wherein the spring (300) is located at two or more spots which are symmetrical to each other with respect to a stacking surface (see FIG. 4 where each of 300 are symmetrically positioned relative to the surface of 211) of the battery cell stack (100).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however does not explicitly teach the case comprising a holder or mounting portion that fixes the constant force spring by penetrating the center of the multiple coiled layers of the winding end.
Bailey teaches that typical mounting for constant force springs is provided by having a drum attached at the inner diameter of the spring. (Page 3) It is the examiner’s position that such a drum attached to the winding end of the spring is reasonably described as “penetrating the center of the multiple coiled layers of the winding end”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the case of Kim et al to include a drum mount at plate 213 attached at the inner diameter of the spring, because Bailey teaches that this is how springs of this type are commonly mounted.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim et al discloses a battery pack comprising one or more battery modules of the embodiment of the invention [0044], thus modified Kim et al discloses a battery pack comprising the battery module according to Claim 1.
Claims 3-4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, Tao et al, Bailey, and Qi et al as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fukuoka US 2018/0287111 A1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim et al is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however does not teach a case cover covering the open end of the case.
Fukuoka teaches a case cover (140, FIG. 4; ¶ [0037]) covering the open end of the case (left end of 100G, FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kim et al by adding the cover taught by Fukuoka to the perforation and the terminals taught by Kim et al because Fukuoka teaches that the cover covers the terminals in order to protect the battery cell stack (¶ [0037]) and prevents short circuiting within the battery (¶ [0078]). Further, Kim et al teaches that modifications may be made to the device (see Kim, ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim et al in view of Fukuoka teaches wherein one or more stopper blocks (see 212, FIG. 4) are provided so as to limit movement of the upper plate (211) in an upward direction (see FIG. 4 where an upward direction is toward the right).
Modified Kim et al in view of Fukuoka does not teach the one or more stopper blocks being provided between the case cover (see Fukuoka, 140, and rejection of claim 3 above) and the upper plate (211).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device such that the second end plate is located between the cover of the terminals and the first end plate because it has been held that rearranging the parts of the device only requires ordinary skill in the art. Further, Kim teaches that modifications may be made to the device (see Kim, ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al teaches wherein the battery cell stack further includes a bus bar assembly (¶ [0030]).
Kim et al does not explicitly teach the bus bar assembly electrically connecting the n battery cells.
Fukuoka teaches wherein the battery cell stack (100S/G/M/N) further includes a bus bar assembly (see 130, FIG. 4; ¶ [0038]) electrically connecting the n battery cells (see 110, FIG. 4; ¶ [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kim et al by implementing a bus bar assembly as taught by Fukuoka because Fukuoka teaches that it is known in the art to connect adjacent cells via bus bar assembly to increase the capacity of a battery (¶ [0003]). Further, Kim et al teaches that modifications may be made to the device (see Kim, ¶ [0046]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, Tao et al, Bailey, and Qi et al as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kephart US 2011/0024596 A1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim et al teaches a battery module as described above in addressing claim 1.
Modified Kim et al does not teach wherein the free end of the constant force spring comprises a fixing hole formed thereon, and wherein a fixing pin, which penetrates the fixing hole, is formed at a side surface of the upper plate. Kim et al is silent as to the manner of securing the spring to first end plate 211.
Kephart is cited as teaching a known manner of attaching the free end of a constant force spring to a desired object, namely using a pin 25 that penetrates a hole in the free end. (Figure 3, para 0034; note that for pin 25 to secure spring ends 24, holes in the respective free ends of the springs are necessarily present). Such holes and pins are considered to reasonably correspond to fixing holes and fixing pins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kim et al by providing the needed securement of the free end of the spring using a hole in the free end of the spring, through which a pin penetrates, as taught by Kephart, because Kephart teaches that this is an effective manner to attach the free end of a constant force spring to a desired object. This would have involved combining the elements only through known methods (i.e. providing holes and pins as needed to the module of Kim et al), which would have predictably resulted in the securement of the free end of the spring as required by Kim et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kim’s elastic members push the end plates outward to create uniform pressure distribution when swelling occurs. Examiner respectfully points out, as stated in the rejection above, that Kim does not disclose that the elastic members of their invention push the end plates outward. Kim discloses that the elastic members are attached to the end plates disposed on both ends of a battery cell stack and apply an elastic force to as to apply a uniform pressure to the battery cells when cell swelling occurs. Kim describes, as further shown in Kim’s Figures, that when battery cells swell and the elastic members are not present, the cells non-uniformly swell due to more inflation happening in the center region which produces non-uniform pressure and thereby leading to battery performance deterioration. Kim explains that when the elastic members are present, an elastic force is applied to the cell stack to apply a uniform pressure to the cells by the elastic members attached to the end plates to prevent non-uniform swelling of the cells. Firstly, Kim is not specific as the exact elastic force applied, thus Applicant’s argument that Kim specifically discloses that the elastic members “push” the end plates outward is not correct and not persuasive. Secondly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the direction of elastic force applied by the elastic members would thereby need to be a pulling elastic force (pulling the end plates inward) in order to (1) properly contain the battery cell stack structure within the end plates and (2) apply the needed the uniform pressure to the cells to control the swelling. If Kim’s elastic members were applying a pushing elastic force to the end plates, the battery cell stack would not be able to be contained within the end plates, as the elastic members would push the end plates apart instead of hold the cell stack within the end plates via a pulling elastic force. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Thirdly, as evidenced by Dube and Fujiwara et al. above in the rejection, using a configuration such as this wherein elastic members apply a pulling elastic force to the end plates of a battery module so that the battery cell stack is pulled towards a lower end of a case is commonly known in the art. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the elastic members of Kim, as further modified by Tao and Bailey per the rejection above, would be reasonably expected to be applying a pulling force as claimed and not a pushing force. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 24 April 2026
Prosecution Insights