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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23rd, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed October 23rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim 1-4, 8-10, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Response to Applicant’s arguments are below. The rejections in modified form are provided below in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-4, 8-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara et al., US 2014/0017531 A1 and further in view of Huang et al., US 2021/0320368 A1 and Morita et al., US 2005/0031945 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Uehara discloses a battery pack (battery pack Figure 1 Item 100) [0033] comprising:
a plurality of cell holders (battery storage sections Figure 6 Item 13) [0010] for receiving battery cells (plurality of unit cells Figure 6 Item 11) [0010] arranged in N rows and M columns (see Figs. 5 and 6, which show battery storage sections 13 arranged in a N = 12 × M = 13 array) and are “integrally formed with and integrally connected” to one another so that a flat battery cell mount is formed (see Annotated Figure 6 which shows that the cell holders are integrally formed with each other on the external case; see also Fig. 5, which shows a flat geometry of the holder) [0016, 0036, 0041], with M and N each > 3 (see above), wherein said cell holders are open in the vertical direction such that both poles of a battery cell stored therein can be contacted (see Fig. 3, which shows the pass-through nature of the cell holder for purposes of connection by lead plates 20A/B on both sides) [0034];
PNG
media_image1.png
618
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6
a plurality of cells (plurality of unit cells Figure 6 Item 11) [0010] stored in said cell holders (battery storage sections Figure 6 Item 13) [0010] with equal polarity in the N rows (“rows”) and opposite polarity in the M columns (“tiers”) (connected in parallel in 12 rows…and arranged in 13 tiers connected in series, which implies equal polarity in rows and opposite in columns) [0038];
a plurality of cell connectors (lead plates Figure 3 Item 20) [0038] which are arranged on both sides of said battery mount in a staggered manner over two of the N rows (see 20A/B in Fig. 4) and interconnect said battery cells with one another (see 20A/B in Fig. 4).
However, Uehara is silent regarding the presence of reinforcing members.
Huang discloses a battery pack [0068] comprising a plurality of individual cells (plurality of battery units) [0068], similar to that of Uehara. Huang further discloses that the battery pack comprises a plurality of reinforcing partition walls (reinforcing members, also referred to as beams, that hold plates that act as partition walls positioned between battery cells, as shown in Huang Annotated Figure 4 below) [0069].
PNG
image2.png
100
100
image2.png
Greyscale
Huang Annotated Figure 4
Huang discloses that each reinforcing partition wall (ss shown above in Huang Annotated Figure 4) includes at least one indentation (see Huang Figure 4, also Figure 3 Item 33 “recessed portion”).
Huang discloses that the reinforcing partition wall is integrally formed with the walls of the battery box [0070]. Huang further discloses that the reinforcing partition walls are located between the rows (N) of two adjacent battery cells in cell holders, as shown in Huang Annotated Figure 1 below, and as further shown in Huang Annotated Figure 4 below, Huang illustrates that the reinforcing partition walls are formed higher in the longitudinal direction than the battery cells in their holders such that they separate the adjacent cells:
PNG
image3.png
100
100
image3.png
Greyscale
Huang Annotated Figure 1
PNG
image4.png
100
100
image4.png
Greyscale
Huang Annotated Figure 4
Huang discloses that the reinforcing partition walls improve the strength and stability of the battery pack [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 incorporate the reinforcing partition walls of Huang in the battery pack of Uehara to improve the strength and stability of the battery pack.
Thus modified Uehara discloses a battery pack comprising reinforcing partition walls as claimed in Claim 1.
Uehara and Huang are both silent as to the reinforcing partition walls specifically being arranged between the N rows at an interval of two rows. Huang depicts in Figure 1 that the reinforcing partition walls are between every row of battery cells, but it is noted that this positioning of reinforcing partition walls is a matter of design choice and would be so recognized by a skilled artisan.
Additionally, Morita discloses a battery pack with a plurality of battery cells [Abstract], similar to that of Uehara and Huang, and further discloses that the battery pack comprises reinforcing partition walls (spacers) between every two rows of battery cells [0014], see Morita Figure 3 Item 7 “spacers”).
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 place the reinforcing partition walls between the N rows at an interval of two rows as a matter of design choice as noted above and further supported by the embodiment shown in Morita’s battery pack.
With regards to the limitation that the indentation (in the reinforcing partition wall) is “configured to act as an expansion joint that compensates for the deformation of the battery cell mount caused by heating and/or cooling of the battery cell mount”, Examiner notes that this limitation is considered functional language as it does not limit the structure of the indentation, and was therefore not given undue weight. However, Huang discloses that the reinforcing partition wall, which is inclusive of the indentation (recessed portion), is made of aluminum [0034], which is known to be easily deformable. Huang also discloses that the reinforcing partition wall comprises cavities as shown in Figures 3 & 4 [0034], making it further deformable. Thus, modified Uehara, with the reinforcing partition wall of Huang positioned on the battery cell mount of Uehara, describes that the reinforcing partition wall and thus the indentation would be expected to have the capability to expand and deform to compensate for the deformation of other battery pack components such as the battery cell mount (plate on which the battery cells are mounted).
Regarding claim 2, modified Uehara further discloses that N = 12 and M = 13 (see Uehara Fig. 4), which are both > 10 as mentioned above with regards to Claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Uehara discloses pin-shaped spacers in the row direction of the cell holder (see Annotated Uehara Fig. 5).
PNG
image5.png
100
100
image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Uehara Figure 5 showing the pin-shaped spacer
Modified Uehara, as modified by Huang and further supported by Morita as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, discloses that the reinforcing partition walls are positioned at intervals of two rows, and thus modified Uehara reads on the structure recited in Claim 8, as indicated below in Modified Uehara Annotated Figure 5 below.
PNG
image7.png
100
100
image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Uehara Annotated Figure 5
Regarding claim 9, as shown in Annotated Huang Figures 4 & 5 below, the reinforcing partition wall of Huang extends above the battery cells in the longitudinal direction and extend flush along the tops of the battery cells:
PNG
image8.png
100
100
image8.png
Greyscale
Huang Figures 4 & 5
Thus, modified Uehara discloses that the reinforcing partition walls (as modified by Huang) are arranged to extend above and flush with the tops of the battery cell holders.
As shown in Annotated Uehara Figure 5 above with regards to Claim 8, the pin-shaped spacers sit on top of the battery cell holders in the longitudinal direction (length of the battery cell), thus modified Uehara discloses that the reinforcing partition walls as modified by Huang extend up to below the pin-shaped spacers in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 10, modified Uehara discloses that the individual cells are connected in parallel in 12 rows and arranged in 13 tiers connected in series [0038]. Additionally, Uehara discloses that the battery cells can be arranged either way, in series or in parallel [0038, 0071]. Switching rows/columns to be connected in parallel/series would be obvious to the skilled artisan because there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., rows in series and columns in parallel or rows in parallel and columns in series), and either choice would lead to the predicted outcome of a battery pack capable of outputting power. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Uehara discloses that the cell holders are cylindrical in shape [0041].
Regarding claim 14, modified Uehara discloses at least four passages for connecting elements (see connector portion Item 16 in Uehara Figs. 1 and 3, which is a passage for connecting the battery and is the opening to a negative space formed along each of the four sides to the battery device).
Regarding claim 15, modified Uehara teaches all limitations of claim 1. The limitation of “use of the battery pack…in a battery module for home applications” is an intended use of the battery pack of claim 1 and does not impose further structural limitation. A skilled artisan would have understood that the battery pack of modified Uehara is capable of use in any number of alternatively suitable applications in and around the home.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara et al., US 2014/0017531 A1 in view of Huang et al., US 2021/0320368 A1 and Morita et al., US 2005/0031945 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura et al., US 2015/0147638 A1 (hereinafter “Tamura”). Further evidence provided by NPL reference Williams, C. “The 10 Most Popular Injection Molding Materials,” Star Rapid; published 28 August 2018.
Regarding claim 5, modified Uehara discloses that the battery case (and by extension, holders) are made of resin [0016, 0041]. The reinforcing partition walls of Huang as applied to Uehara are made from aluminum [0034, 0086], however Huang is silent regarding plastic as an alternatively usable material.
Tamura discloses a battery pack [0024] featuring a reinforcing member [0025, 0046], similar to that of Huang, and further discloses that the reinforcing member may be made of any number of alternatively usable materials, including aluminum or a synthetic resin such as ABS [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute one known material for a reinforcing member, i.e. aluminum of Huang, for another material, i.e. ABS of Tamura, with reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one reinforcing member material for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above with regards to Claim 5, Tamura discloses ABS as an alternatively usable material, thus modified Uehara discloses that the reinforcing partition walls are made of ABS.
Regarding claim 7, modified Uehara discloses the battery pack of Claim 5. Injection die casting (e.g., injection molding) is a common method of manufacturing ABS and other thermoplastic parts and would have been so understood by a skilled artisan [Williams Page 2]. Therefore, claim 7 is obvious over modified Uehara in view of Williams as an evidentiary reference.
Additionally, Examiner notes that the limitation “manufactured by means of injection die casting or vacuum casting” is functional language and does not provide any structural limitation to the product claimed (i.e. the battery pack), and therefore will not be given any undue weight.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara et al., US 2014/0017531 A1 in view of Huang et al., US 2021/0320368 A1 and Morita et al., US 2005/0031945 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anastas et al., US 2014/0147737 A1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Uehara discloses that the cells employed therein are round (cylindrical) [0035] but is silent regarding a plastic coating on the cells employed.
Anastas discloses battery cells and packaging for battery cells [0005]. Anastas discloses more specifically coating batteries in a plastic material [0058].
Anastas discloses that coatings such as this provide battery cells and their sensitive internal components with protection from damage due air/moisture/foreign matter contaminants [0003].
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 modify the battery cells of modified Uehara to include the plastic coating of Anastas to provide battery cells and their sensitive internal components with protection from damage due air/moisture/foreign matter contaminants.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara et al., US 2014/0017531 A1 in view of Huang et al., US 2021/0320368 A1 and Morita et al., US 2005/0031945 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hermann et al., US 2010/0136402 A1.
Regarding claim 12, modified Uehara discloses the broad use of lithium cells [0044] but does not further disclose the specific use of lithium ferrophosphate cells.
Hermann discloses a battery pack [0011] comprising a plurality of cells (plurality of individual batteries) [0011], similar to that of Uehara. Hermann further discloses a number of alternatively usable lithium-based battery technologies for their battery pack, including lithium iron phosphate (a synonym for lithium ferrophosphate) [0010].
It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the filing date of the claimed invention, to select the lithium ferrophosphate cells taught by Hermann for use in the battery pack of modified Uehara.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Uehara and Huang both fail to disclose that the reinforcing partition walls are located between the two adjacent cell holders. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the updated rejection above, Huang discloses that the reinforcing partition walls (comprising reinforcing beams holding plates that act as partitioning walls) are shown in Figures 1 & 4 to be located between two adjacent cells. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the arrangement of battery polarities of the applied references allegedly differ from that of the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully points out, as stated in the previous office action, that because battery terminals are either positive or negative and individual cells can be connected in either series or parallel, a skilled artisan would recognize that the connection of batteries within a battery pack has a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, and the simple rearrangement of the connection of battery cells within the battery pack is not patentable. Additionally, as pointed out in the rejection above, Uehara does disclose that the battery cells can be arranged with in parallel or series [0038, 0071] and further discloses that the arrangement and connection method can be optimized in accordance with necessary voltages and output capacity required [0038], and therefore optimal configuration of the battery pack would be selected by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the cell holders of Uehara are not integrally formed with and integrally connected to one another. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the updated rejection above, Uehara illustrates in Figure 6 that the cell holders (battery storage sections) and the external case (Item 12 – 12a, 12b) are formed as one piece, thus the cell holders are “integrally formed with and integrally connected to one another”, within each of the sides of the external case (12a, 12b). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Huang fails to disclose that the reinforcing partition members comprise indentations. Examiner respectfully points out as stated in the updated rejection above that the reinforcing partition walls (reinforcing beams holding plates that act as partition walls) do comprise at least one indentation (recessed portion) as shown in Huang Figure 4. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
The previous office action neglected to directly address Claim 13. This has been addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
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 15 January 2026