DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 12/22/2025, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 3, 6, 17, and 20 have (previously) been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-16 and 18-19 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection.
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, 4-5, 7, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju (EP 3664186 to Ju et al.) in view of Wang (US 2021/0036389 to Wang et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Ju teaches:
a pouch battery module comprising at least two module assemblies arranged along a length direction that is the longest direction of the assembles, and wherein an intermediate plate 500 for fixing the module assemblies is provided in the middle of adjacent module assemblies (Figs. 2 and 3)
wherein the module assemblies are connected in series, or series/parallel as desired (¶ 0004-0005)
PNG
media_image1.png
536
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
825
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ju also teaches wherein the intermediate plate is provided with two abutting plate structures on either side corresponding to the modules. Ju does not explicitly teach what material they are made out of. Wang, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery module comprising a plurality of assemblies assembled in a length-wise direction (Fig. 5), teaches that it was common in the art to provide rigid plastic frames for battery assemblies (¶ 0003, 0012).
PNG
media_image3.png
850
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide a rigid plastic, and hence, insulating plate on either side of the intermediate plate in Ju, since it was a common frame material in the art. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. Likewise, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2, Ju teaches:
two module assemblies (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 4, Ju teaches:
wherein the module comprises an outer casing for enclosing the assemblies, and wherein the intermediate end plate is fixedly connected with the outer casing through through-holes 510 (Figs. 2-3)
Regarding Claim 5, Ju teaches:
wherein the intermediate plate has convex parts, and wherein those parts are fixedly connected with an outer casing (Figs. 2-3)
Regarding Claim 7, Ju teaches:
pouch cells of standard laminated/winded type known in the art, that are able to be wired in series/parallel configuration as desired (¶ 0004-0005)
Regarding Claim 15, Ju teaches:
a pouch battery module for a vehicle (¶ 0064) comprising at least two module assemblies arranged along a length direction that is the longest direction of the assembles, and wherein an intermediate plate 500 for fixing the module assemblies is provided in the middle of adjacent module assemblies (Figs. 2 and 3)
wherein the module assemblies are connected in series, or series/parallel as desired (¶ 0004-0005)
Ju also teaches wherein the intermediate plate is provided with two abutting plate structures on either side corresponding to the modules. Ju does not explicitly teach what material they are made out of. Wang, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery module comprising a plurality of assemblies assembled in a length-wise direction (Fig. 5), teaches that it was common in the art to provide rigid plastic frames for battery assemblies (¶ 0003, 0012). It would have been obvious to provide a rigid plastic, and hence, insulating plate on either side of the intermediate plate in Ju, since it was a common frame material in the art. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. Likewise, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 16, Ju teaches:
two module assemblies (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 18, Ju teaches:
wherein the module comprises an outer casing for enclosing the assemblies, and wherein the intermediate end plate is fixedly connected with the outer casing through through-holes 510 (Figs. 2-3)
Regarding Claim 19, Ju teaches:
wherein the intermediate plate has convex parts, and wherein those parts are fixedly connected with an outer casing (Figs. 2-3)
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju (EP 3664186 to Ju et al.) in view of Wang (US 2021/0036389 to Wang et al.), in further view of Hashimoto (US 2013/0004822 to Hashimoto et al.).
Regarding Claims 8 and 14, Ju teaches:
a module comprising bent plates with end plates to form an accommodation space (Figs. 2-3)
Ju does not explicitly teach:
the module outer frame comprises a first panel, a second panel, and a third panel, fixedly connected with each other, the module side plate fixedly connected with the first and third panel
Hashimoto, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery module with two assemblies separated by an intermediate end plate, teaches an outer module with first, second, and third panels fixedly connected to each other, and wherein a side plate 4 is fixedly connected to first and third panels of the outer frame via fasteners (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
674
784
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hashimoto further teaches two end plates covering openings at either end, with cover plates and assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an outer frame like that in Hashimoto in lieu of the frame in Ju, because there were obvious shape variants conventional in the art.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Ju teaches:
wherein a side face of the intermediate end plate(s) is provided with two through-holes 510corresponding to through holes in the side plate
Hashimoto teaches through holes in the first and third panels for fastening the inner frame along the length of the panels, including near side panels to stabilize the assemblies. It would have been obvious to provide through holes for an outer frame, including through holes in a third panel close to the intermediate plate, that connect to the intermediate plate of Ju, with the motivation of securing the intermediate plate relative to the outer frame. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, Ju teaches:
providing a cutting groove at a middle portion by the intermediate plate that extends transversely through first and third panels of an outer frame and through a side plate 230 (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 12, Ju teaches:
shaped protrusions for covering intermediate and end portions that extend from a bent cover piece and bent bottom piece along a length direction of what could be called a second panel
Regarding Claim 13, Ju teaches:
a conventional battery module known in the art and a battery pack with two modules
The claimed length is interpreted to be an obvious commercial standard in the art. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and MPEP 2144 IV. A.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 12/22/2025 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the claim amendments, the rejections have been modified to rely on Ju and Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723