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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2016/0336563 A1, hereinafter Choi, previously cited) in view of Xu et al. (CN 111416167 A, hereinafter Xu, previously cited), Zhan et al. (WO 2015/139465 A1, hereinafter Zhan), and Yoshioka et al. (US 2013/0095359 A1, hereinafter Yoshioka, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Choi teaches a battery module comprising:
a stack of battery cells (item 10);
a lower frame (items 21 & 50) that accommodates the stack of battery cells and has an opened upper part; and
at least two upper plates (item 30) spaced apart from each other and covering a part of the stack of battery cells at the opened upper part of the lower frame,
wherein a part where two adjacent upper plates among the at least two upper plates are spaced apart from each other is an empty space (Fig. 7),
wherein the empty space is configured to act as a vent hole (functional limitation),
wherein each of the at least two upper plates includes a coupling portion extending toward the lower frame at both ends of the respective upper plate (Fig. 7),
wherein the lower frame includes a bottom part (item 50) and two side parts (item 21) extending upward from both ends of the bottom part (Fig. 7),
and wherein the bottom part and two side parts form an integral structure (Fig. 7).
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Choi fails to specifically teach that the coupling portion of each of the at least two upper plates and the lower frame are coupled by a snap fit, wherein the coupling portion includes a hook portion including a protrusion protruded toward the stack of battery cells, wherein the lower frame includes a coupling hole that engages the protrusion.
The invention of Xu encompasses battery module. Xu teaches that that the coupling portion of the upper plate (Fig. 2, item 21) and the U-shaped frame (items 22-24) are coupled by a welding or a snap fit (P6).
In view of Xu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Choi to have the coupling portion of the upper plate and the U-shaped frame are coupled by a snap fit, since using a well-known technique for connecting the upper plate and the U-shaped frame is within purview of one skill in the art.
In addition, using a snap fit instead of bolting is a simple substitution of one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.
The invention of Zhan encompasses battery cover assembly. Zhan teaches that the coupling portion includes a hook portion including a protrusion (Fig. 2, item 91) protruded toward the stack of battery cells (item 40), and wherein the lower frame includes a coupling hole (item 62) that engages the protrusion.
In view of Zhan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Choi in view of Xu to employ the configuration of Zhan, since using a well-known configuration for the snap fit is within purview of one skill in the art.
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein each of the at least two upper plates is a strap shape such that both of the ends of each of the at least two upper plates are joined to the upper portion of the side part in the lower frame (Choi, Fig. 7).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches a battery pack (Choi, para. 73) comprising:
the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1); and
a pack case (Choi, para. 74) packaging the battery module.
Re Claim 10. The combination teaches a device (Choi, para. 74) comprising the battery pack of claim 9.
Re Claim 11. The combination teaches wherein a width of the empty space is smaller than a width of one of the upper plates (Choi, Fig. 7-10).
Re Claim 14. The combination teaches wherein the coupling portion is bent from the respective upper plate and extends from an upper portion of the side part in the lower frame to a lower portion of the side part in the lower frame (Choi, Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Xu and Zhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2017-0036639 A, hereinafter Lee, previously cited).
Choi fails to specifically teach a protection sheet disposed between the upper plate and the stack of battery cells.
The invention of Lee encompasses battery module. Lee teaches a protection sheet disposed between the upper plate and the stack of battery cells (P11-12).
In view of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Choi to employ a protection sheet disposed between the upper plate and the stack of battery cells, since Lee teaches the advantage of using it, which is to provide electrical insulation (P11-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6 and 7, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Choi fails to teach that the bottom part and two side parts form an integral structure, because the base bar 50 and end plates 21 are separate structures.
The examiner disagrees with this because the end plates of Choi are coupled to the base bar (para. 52). The current claim language only requires the bottom part and two side parts to form an integral structure, which Choi satisfies. The current claim language does not require the bottom part and two side parts to be not separate components, i.e. monolithic.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the bottom part and two side parts are not separate components) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
2/20/2026