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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 17/790,092 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 1-2, 4 and 8 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See e.g. claims 1-2, 4 and 8 rejections below.
Applicant argues “the amendment to claim 1 requiring ‘a direction of recession of the groove part into the upper plate [to be] substantially perpendicular to a direction of protrusion of the protruding support part from the assembly guide part’ distinguishes the claimed invention over Lee because Lee’s clinching mechanism involves protrusions and recessions that are protruded and recessed in the same direction” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art, as annotated in the previously filed figure, shows that Lee’s groove recess is three-dimensional and includes multiple directions: a height direction (up/down), a width direction (left/right), and a thickness direction (into-the-paper). The protruding supporting part extends primarily in the height (up/down) direction. The groove recess in Lee receives the protruding part not only along the height direction but also has dimensions along the width and thickness directions, both of which are perpendicular to the height/protrusion direction.
The applicant’s argument relies on a reading that the limitation “substantially perpendicular” requires engagement specifically in the vertical (height) direction. However, the amended claim does not specify which perpendicular direction is intended, leaving the limitation open to any axis that is perpendicular to the protrusion. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this would encompass the groove recesses in Lee that extend along the width or thickness directions, which are indeed perpendicular to the protruding support.
Because the claim does not clearly define the perpendicular axis, the purported distinction over Lee is ambiguous and does not structurally or functionally exclude the prior art. Therefore, the limitation does not clearly distinguish over Lee, and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Yang does not cure the deficiencies of Lee, because Yang also does not disclose or suggest the above-identified limitation of amended claim 1” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yang discloses an end plate covering the busbar frame and a tapered escape part on a groove that facilitates coupling of a protruding part, which, in combination with Lee, renders the claim obvious. The claimed ‘substantially perpendicular’ limitation is ambiguous as to which axis is intended, and the prior art teachings cover groove recessions that have perpendicular components to the protrusion in multiple directions. Thus, Yang in view of Lee would have rendered the claim obvious. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “because of the amendments, the cited prior art cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the amendments do not introduce a clearly limiting structural distinction from Lee or Lee in combination with Yang. The ‘substantially perpendicular’ language is not sufficiently specific to distinguish over the prior art because the prior art includes recessions having perpendicular components relative to the protruding part. Accordingly, the amendments do not overcome the rejection. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See e.g. claims 1-2, 4 and 8 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20200176745-A1) and further in view of Yang et al. (US-20190131596-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a battery module (see e.g. "battery module" in paragraph [0048] and part number 10 in FIG. 1) comprising:
a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells (see e.g. "battery cells" in paragraph [0049] and part number 110 in FIG. 5);
a frame surrounding the battery cell stack (see e.g. "bottom plate" and "side plates" in paragraph [0048] and part number 400 and 500 in FIG. 3) wherein the frame includes a lower frame covering a lower surface and both side surfaces of the battery cell stack (see e.g. part numbers 400 and 500 in FIG. 3), and an upper plate covering an upper surface of the battery cell stack (see e.g. part number 300 in FIG. 2);
a busbar frame covering an exposed front surface and an exposed rear surface of the battery cell stack (see e.g. "sensing assembly" in paragraph [0074] and part number 600);
at least one assembly guide part at a corner of the lower frame where the lower frame joins the upper plate (see e.g. annotated figure below),
wherein the assembly guide part includes a protruding supporting part (see e.g. annotated figure below) and a depressed part on two sides of the supporting part (see e.g. annotated figure below); and
a groove part recessed into the upper plate and forming corners in the upper plate, wherein the protruding supporting part of the assembly guide part fits into the groove part (see e.g. annotated figure below), wherein a direction of recession of the groove part into the upper plate is substantially perpendicular to a direction of protrusion of the protruding support part from the assembly guide part (see e.g. annotated figure below),
wherein each of two ends of the groove part includes an escape part (see e.g. annotated figure below).
Lee does not disclose an end plate covering the busbar frame or that the escape part is a tapered region configured to facilitate coupling of the supporting part.
Yang, however, in the same field of endeavor, battery modules, discloses an end plate covering the busbar frame (see e.g. "side cover plate" in paragraph [0042] and part numbers 160 and 162 in FIG. 1 of Yang; the side cover plates cover busbar assembly 140 and 142 in FIG. 4).
Yang further discloses an escape part that is on two ends of a groove part on an upper plate of a battery module is a tapered region configured to facilitate coupling of the supporting part (see e.g. annotated figure below).
Yang also teaches that an advantage of this type of battery module is that the battery module can be more easily assembled than other battery modules due to the frame and thus easily receive battery cells when assembling the battery module (see e.g. paragraph [0041] of Yang). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Lee such that it includes end plate covering the busbar frame and an escape part tapered region configured to facilitate coupling of the supporting part as taught by Yang et al. in order to more easily assembly the battery module to the frame as suggested by Yang.
PNG
media_image1.png
792
1307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
PNG
media_image2.png
607
942
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Yang, figure 23, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 2, Lee in view of Yang discloses the battery module of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee further discloses that the lower frame includes a bottom part supporting the lower surface of the battery cell stack (see e.g. "horizontal surface" and part number 410 in FIG. 2) and two side parts extending upward from both ends of the bottom part, respectively (see e.g. "horizontal portions" in paragraph [0063] and part number 420 in FIG. 2), and the assembly guide part is at a corner of an upper end of the corresponding side part of the lower frame (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
749
833
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Lee, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Yang discloses the battery module of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Lee further discloses that the depressed part has an escape shape wherein the corner of the upper end of the side part of the lower frame is concave in a direction toward the bottom part of the lower frame (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
718
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Lee, figure 3, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Yang discloses a battery pack (see e.g. "The battery module according to the present disclosure as described above may be applied to a battery pack" in paragraph [0027] of Lee) comprising the battery module of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723