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
In response to the amendments received 03/13/2026:
Claims 1-2 and 4,6-14 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 2 and 7-10 remain withdrawn. Claim 14 is new.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 14 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 14 is directed to embodiment of Fig. 8, wherein Applicant elected Species I-B, drawn to Fig. 9 in the response on 05/01/2025. Fig. 9, with a filler material is taught as an embodiment separate from the embodiment of Fig. 8, with an adhesive in at least paragraph 85 of the disclosure (PGPUB US20230044305A1)
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Examiner notes the election with respect to the amendments including the adhesive in the independent claim and still comprising dependent claims drawn to the filler.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 20190296321) in view Chi et al. (KR20180113906A with US20190326569A1 used as translation)
Regarding claim 1, Newmann teaches a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells 208 standing in a first direction, and including a pair of electrode terminals 1302/1306 disposed on top, and arranged in at least one direction (P60.124.145-150; Fig. 12.16B)
a cooling frame, formed by cooling plate 224 and lower cover 212A, having an upper surface to which a bottom of the plurality of battery cells is fixed (P93; Fig. 7), and extending in a second direction; an adhesive interposed between the plurality of battery cells and the cooling frame (P93);
an upper frame 212B configured to cover the plurality of battery cells 208 (P74; Fig. 2.4); and a plurality of busbars 1204/1034 mounted on an outer surface of the upper frame 212B and configured to contact the pair of electrode terminals of each of the plurality of battery cells 1302/1306 (P55-61.147-154; Fig.13-14.16B-17)
wherein the upper frame 212B includes an upper wall disposed on the plurality of battery cells and a sidewall configured to cover a side of the plurality of battery cells with a mount (P68.74.79; Fig. 2C.4B.13), wherein the cooling frame 224/212A includes a coupling portion 410, such as flange surface 408A and/or mount 228 which protrudes in the upward direction on an outer periphery of the cooling frame (P68.79; Fig. 2C.4B.13), and an adhesive 406 (or alternatively 404 wherein mount 228 couples with upper) is interposed between the coupling portion of the upper frame and the cooling frame (P68.74.79; Fig. 4)
While Newman is silent in explicitly teaching wherein an insertion groove which runs in an upward direction is provided on a bottom of the sidewall of the upper frame, wherein the cooling frame includes a coupling portion which protrudes in the upward direction on an outer periphery of the cooling frame, wherein the coupling portion is inserted into an internal space of the insertion groove (P74-79.93-96), Newman teaches a bottom of the sidewall of the upper frame is joined to an outer periphery of the cooling frame and that the mating surface can have a tab (protrusion)-and-slot (groove) connection with adhesive interposed between (P68.78-79; Fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form an insertion groove, or slot, in an upward direction on a bottom of the sidewall of the upper frame and a coupling portion, or tab which protrudes in the upward direction on an outer periphery of the cooling frame, wherein the coupling portion is inserted into an internal space of the insertion groove with adhesive interposed between as an obvious variation of the configuration of Newman to pair such surfaces together. A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143
Newman teaches using fastening portions in sidewalls of the upper frame to couple components together (P68.78-79; Fig. 10A), but is silent in teaching such structure separate from those of the groove; however, Chi, in a similar field of endeavor related to housing battery modules, teaches a fastening portion, such as 121 having a fastening hole H, provided on a side of a sidewall of a frame to connect battery modules together to allow for easily increasing the number of modules according to demanded size of a battery pack while reducing necessary coupling components (P43—59.62.66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a fastening portion having a fastening hole provided on a side of the sidewall of the upper frame of Newman to allow for easy connection with additional modules wherein a capacity increase is needed, as taught by Chi.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, modified Newman teaches the upper frame 212B includes: an exposure portion 1604/1608 which is open to expose the top of the plurality of battery cells 208; and a protruding portion 1610/1612which protrudes over the pair of electrode terminals to cover parts of the pair of electrode terminals of each of the plurality of battery cells (P145-149; Fig. 16-17)
Regarding claim 6, modified Newman teaches a filler disposed around sides of the plurality of battery cells (P62.74-75; Fig. 4C.7).
Regarding claim 11, modified Newman teaches the filler is filled in the battery module to such a height that the filler does not cover a positive electrode terminal and a negative electrode terminal disposed on each of the plurality of battery cells (P62.74-75; Fig. 4C.7).
Regarding claim 12, modified Newman teaches the filler includes an electrically insulating material (P42.48-49.62.74-75; Fig. 4C.7).
Regarding claim 13, modified Newman teaches the filler is a polymer resin configured to be cured after being filled in the battery module (P42-49.62.74-75.92; Fig. 4C.7).
Regarding claim 14, modified Newman teaches adhesive filled between the plurality of battery cells and the cooling frame and in in the insertion groove, but is silent in teaching the adhesive extends continuously.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have the adhesive extend continuously from the internal space of the insertion groove to the upper surface of the cooling frame and between the plurality of battery cells and the cooling frame, as it would not produce new or different function and would reduce components needed. The convenience of a continuous adhesive layer, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, does not produce a ‘new’ or ‘different function’” and that to those skilled in the art the use of the old elements in combination would have been obvious. MPEP 2143 A
The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
