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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 10 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in original claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 10, Figs. 2 and 4, and pg. 7, ln. 22-25 of the specification.
Claims 1-11 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Choi fails to disclose an FFC connecting portion that extends between bus bar frames with a film portion positioned above it (pg. 7, para. 1), that Takeishi’s film is not positioned above an FFC connecting portion that connects busbar frames at both ends of a battery cell stack (pg. 7, para. 2), and that Takeishi does not disclose or suggest “wherein the film portion extends between the pair of busbar frames and is above the connecting portion comprising the flexible flat cable (FFC), and is configured to prevent moisture from flowing into the connector” as recited in claim 1 (pg. 7, para. 3).
These arguments are not found persuasive because Choi in view of Oota discloses a connecting portion (Fig. 9; 511c) that connects ([0109]) the pair of busbar frames (60a, 60b) and comprises a flexible flat cable (Oota [0039])
a connector (Fig. 9; 511b, 511a) formed on (Fig. 9) each of the busbar frames (60a, 60b) and coupled to (Fig. 9) the connecting portion (511c).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Choi in view of Oota by adding the film portion taught by Takeishi such that it was between the connector and upper portion of the housing, the film portion extends between the ends (Choi Fig. 1; 30a, 30b) of the housing, the film portion is above all essential electronic components, and the film portion is configured to prevent moisture from flowing into the electronic components, in order to reliably avoid the penetration of water and moisture and maintain the electrical reliability of the battery cell stack as Takeishi teaches ([0020]).
The examiner notes that by performing this modification one of ordinary skill in the art would naturally arrive at the limitations “wherein the film portion extends between the pair of busbar frames and is above the connecting portion comprising the flexible flat cable” and is configured to prevent the moisture from flowing into the connectors because the film portion extends between the ends (Choi, Fig. 1; 30a, 30b) of the housing, which are beyond the bus bar frames (see Fig. 1), and must therefore also extend between the frames. Further, the connecting portion comprising the flexible flat cable and the connector are electronic components that a PHOSITA would understand to be essential components of the battery module because the battery module would not function as designed were they to be damaged, and would therefore be covered by a film portion, placed above it, based on Takeishi’s teaching.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “the pair busbar frames” should read “the pair of busbar frames”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation “moisture” in line 6 refers to the previously recited moisture of claim 1 or to another moisture. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 3-7 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 2.
Claim 7 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation “moisture” in line 3 refers to the previously recited moisture of claim 1, claim 2, both, or to another moisture. For examination, the third interpretation is used.
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, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20190198952A1) in view of Oota (US20200006814A1) and Takeishi (JPH08298103A, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a battery module (Fig. 1; 1) comprising:
a battery cell stack (Fig. 1; 10) comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1; 11);
PNG
media_image1.png
686
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a housing (Fig. 1; 20-40) for the battery cell stack (10);
a pair of busbar frames (Fig. 1; 60a, 60b) formed at a front portion (annotated Fig. 1; F) and a back portion (annotated Fig. 1; B) of the battery cell stack (10);
a connecting portion (Fig. 9; 511c) that connects ([0109]) the pair of busbar frames (60a, 60b) and comprises a flexible print circuit (“flexible print circuit”; [0113]);
a connector (Fig. 9; 511b, 511a) formed on (Fig. 9) each of the busbar frames (60a, 60b) and coupled to (Fig. 9) the connecting portion (511c).
While Choi discloses a flexible print circuit ([0113]), Choi fails to disclose a flexible flat cable specifically.
Oota discloses a flexible flat cable ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Choi by substituting the flexible print circuit of Choi for a flexible flat cable as taught by Oota because Oota teaches that an FPC and an FFC are suitable alternatives.
Choi in view of Oota fails to disclose a film portion formed between the connector and an upper portion of the housing, wherein the film portion extends between the pair of busbar frames and is above the connecting portion comprising the flexible flat cable, and is configured to prevent moisture from flowing into the connector.
Takeishi discloses a battery module (Fig. 1; [0026]) comprising:
a battery cell stack (Fig. 1; 2) comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1; 2a);
a housing (Fig. 1; 1, 4) for the battery cell stack (2);
a film portion (“waterproof plastic film”; [0026]; Fig. 1; 3) formed between a connector (“wiring circuit” located in 1 of Fig. 1 per [0007-0008]) and an upper portion (Fig. 1; 4) of the housing (1,4), wherein the film portion (3) extends between (Fig. 1) ends (Fig. 1; rightmost and leftmost ends of 4) of the housing (1, 4) is above essential components ([0040]) of the battery module, including all electronic components (Fig. 1; 2 and [0040] teaches that the connector, i.e. the wiring circuit is also protected by the film), and is configured to prevent moisture (“waterproof/driproof”; [0040]) from flowing into the electronic components (Fig. 1; 2; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Choi in view of Oota by adding the film portion taught by Takeishi such that it was between the connector and upper portion of the housing, the film portion extends between the ends (Choi Fig. 1; 30a, 30b) of the housing, the film portion is above all essential electronic components, and the film portion is configured to prevent moisture from flowing into the electronic components, in order to reliably avoid the penetration of water and moisture and maintain the electrical reliability of the battery cell stack as Takeishi teaches ([0020]).
The examiner notes that by performing this modification one of ordinary skill in the art would naturally arrive at the limitations “wherein the film portion extends between the pair of busbar frames and is above the connecting portion comprising the flexible flat cable” and is configured to prevent the moisture from flowing into the connector because the film portion extends to the ends of the housing, which are beyond the bus bar frames (see Fig. 1), and must therefore also extend between the frames. Further, the connecting portion comprising the flexible flat cable and the connector are electronic components that a PHOSITA would understand to be essential components of the battery module because the battery module would not function as designed were they to be damaged, and would therefore be covered by a film portion, placed above it, based on Takeishi’s teaching.
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi fails to disclose wherein a size of the film portion corresponds to a size of the upper portion of the housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
312
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takeishi discloses wherein a size (annotated Fig. 1; S1) of a film portion (Fig. 1; 3) corresponds to a size (annotated Fig. 1; S2) of an upper portion (Fig. 1; 4) of a housing (Fig. 1; 1, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi by making a size of the film portion correspond to a size of the upper portion of the housing, in order to reliably avoid the penetration of water and moisture and maintain the electrical reliability of the battery cell stack as Takeishi teaches ([0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi discloses a battery pack (Fig. 1; 1) comprising the battery module (1) of claim 1.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20190198952A1) in view of Oota (US20200006814A1) and Takeishi (JPH08298103A, machine translation used for rejection below), as applied to claim 1 as set forth above and further in view of Lee (US-20190389318-A1), Kubota (US-20040089467-A1) and Yamamoto (US-20160036103-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi discloses a pair of covers (Fig. 1; 30a, 30b) for covering (Fig. 1) an outer surface (Fig. 1; outer surface of 60a and 60b) of each of the pair busbar frames (60a, 60b), respectively (Fig. 1).
Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi fails to disclose insulating covers, a pair of end plates for covering an outer surface of each of the pair of insulating covers, respectively, or
wherein the film portion is configured to guide moisture inside the battery module to a passage between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively.
Lee discloses a battery module (Fig. 2; M) comprising:
a pair of busbar frames (Fig. 3; 120, 130);
a pair of insulating ([0105]) covers (Fig. 3; 3) for covering an outer surface (Fig. 3; outer surface of 120, 130) of each of the pair busbar frames (120, 130), respectively; and
a pair of end plates (Fig. 3; 4) covering (Fig. 3) an outer surface (Fig. 3; outer surface of 3) of each of the pair of insulating covers (3), respectively (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi by substituting the non-descript material of the covers, for the insulating material of Lee, such that the covers were insulating covers, and adding the pair of end plates taught by Lee such that the end plates covered an outer surface of each of the pair of insulating covers, in order to prevent short circuiting ([0115]) and protect the internal structure of the battery module ([0108]) as taught by Lee.
Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi and Lee still fails to disclose wherein the film portion guides moisture inside the battery module to a passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively.
Kubota teaches a film portion (Fig. 5; 2) that is configured to guide moisture (“water dropped onto the upper wall portion 9”; [0056]) inside a module (Fig. 5; 1) to a passage (“gap between the upper wall portion 9 and the upper wall portion 20”;[0056]; and passage of B in Fig. 5) extending through and on an outside of each of a pair of insulating (“synthetic resin”; [0044]) covers (Fig. 5; 3, 4) respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi and Lee by substituting the configuration of the insulating covers and the film portion of Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi and Lee for the configuration of the film portion and insulating covers of Kubota such that the film portion is configured to guide moisture inside the battery module to a passage extending through and on an outside of each of the insulating covers, as taught by Kubota, in order to prevent water from collecting on the film portion by rapidly discharging it as taught by Kubota ([0056]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine a battery module with the invention of Kubota because Kubota is directed to the protection of electric components ([0001]) in a housing (“box”; [0001]), and a battery module, as claimed, comprises electric components accommodated in a housing.
Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee and Kubota fails to disclose the passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively.
Yamamoto discloses a battery module (“energy storage apparatus”; Fig. 1) comprising:
a pair (Fig. 2; 30) of end plates (Fig. 17; 306)
a pair (Fig. 2; 30) of covers (Fig. 17; 301, 302), respectively,
a passage (“a gap”; [0146]; Fig. 17; flow path of W) formed between the end plates (306) and the insulating covers (301, 302), respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee and Kubota by adding a passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively, as taught by Yamamoto, to the passage of Choi, Takeishi, Lee and Kubota, such that the film portion is configured to guide moisture inside the battery module to a passage between each of the end plates and insulating covers respectively, in order to discharge water to the outside ([0146]) as taught by Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 3, Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto discloses wherein:
each of the insulating (Lee [0105]) covers (Choi 30a, 30b) comprises an extension portion (Kubota Fig. 5; 16, 17) that extends from a lower side (Kubota annotated Fig. 5; LS) of the film portion (Takeshi 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
359
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto discloses wherein: the extension portion (Kubota 16, 17) is inclined downward (Kubota Fig. 5) in a direction (annotated Kubota Fig. 5; direction D) towards the respective end plate (Lee 3, 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
330
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto discloses wherein: a tip (Kubota Fig. 5; 17) of the extension portion (Kubota 16, 17) is curved upward (Kubota Fig. 5; 17 curves upward from 19).
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto fails to disclose wherein: a crack between the upper portion of the housing and each of the end plates is connected with the respective extension portion.
Lee discloses a crack (annotated Fig. 2; C, i.e. seam between EP and UP) between an upper portion (annotated Fig. 2; UP) of a housing (annotated Fig. 2; H) and each of a pair of end plates (annotated Fig. 2; EP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto by joining the end plates to the upper portion of the housing such that there was a crack between the end plates and the upper portion of the housing in order to protect the internal structure of the battery module
PNG
media_image5.png
544
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0108]) as taught by Lee.
The examiner notes that the crack of Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto is connected with the respective extension portion because both the upper portion of the housing and the end plates are directly or indirectly connected with the insulating covers which comprise the extension portion.
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Oota, Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto discloses wherein: the passage (Kubota; “gap between the upper wall portion 9 and the upper wall portion 20”;[0056]; Fig. 5; passage of B; Yamamoto “a gap”; [0146]; Fig. 17; flow path of W) is connected with (Yamamoto Fig. 17) an outside (Choi Fig. 2; outside 20, 30a, 30b and 40) of the housing (Choi 20-40), and wherein the passage (Kubota; “gap between the upper wall portion 9 and the upper wall portion 20”;[0056]; Fig. 5; passage of B; Yamamoto “a gap”; [0146]; Fig. 17; flow path of W) is configured to discharge moisture (Yamamoto Fig. 17; W) to the outside (Yamamoto Fig. 17; [0146]) of the housing (Choi 20-40) through the passage (Kubota; “gap between the upper wall portion 9 and the upper wall portion 20”;[0056]; Fig. 5; passage of B; Yamamoto “a gap”; [0146]; Fig. 17; flow path of W).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20190198952A1) in view of Oota (US20200006814A1) and Takeishi (JPH08298103A, machine translation used for rejection below), as applied to claim 8 as set forth above and further in view of Zhang (US-20180277800-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi fails to disclose wherein the film portion is coupled with opposite edge portions of the upper portion of the housing by a plurality of adhesive members, and
a moisture moving passage is formed in the space formed between the plurality of adhesive members.
PNG
media_image6.png
363
364
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Takeishi discloses wherein a film portion (Fig. 1; 3) is coupled with opposite edge portions (annotated Fig. 1; OEP) of an upper portion (Fig. 1; 4) of a housing (Fig. 1; 1, 4) by an adhesive member (Fig. 1; 6c; “adhesive tape”; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi, by coupling the film portion with opposite edge portions of the upper portion of the housing with an adhesive member in order to reliably avoid the penetration of water and moisture and maintain the electrical reliability of the battery cell stack as Takeishi teaches ([0020]).
Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi fails to disclose a plurality of adhesive members or wherein a moisture moving passage is formed in the space formed between the plurality of adhesive members.
Zhang discloses a plurality of adhesive members (Fig. 2; 30; [0084]) and wherein a moisture moving passage (Fig. 2; space between each element 30; “spaced apart”; [0084]) is formed in the space (Fig. 2; space between each element 30; “spaced apart”; [0084]) formed between (Fig. 2) the plurality of adhesive members (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi by substituting the adhesive member for the plurality of adhesive members taught by Zhang such that a moisture moving passage is formed in the space formed between the plurality of adhesive members, in order to make the bonding force large ([0084]), as taught by Zhang, between the film portion and the upper portion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20190198952A1) in view of Oota (US20200006814A1) and Takeishi (JPH08298103A, machine translation used for rejection below), as applied to claim 1 as set forth above and further in view of Yoo (US20160155987A1).
Regarding claim 10, Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi discloses wherein: the film portion (Takeishi 2) is formed of a sheet (Fig. 1; 3). Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi fails to disclose polycarbonate.
Yoo discloses a film portion (“encapsulant film”; [0007]; for batteries per [0002]) that is formed of a polycarbonate (“a polycarbonate-based resin”; [0030]) sheet (“film”; [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi by substituting the material of the film portion of Choi in view of Oota and Takeishi for the polycarbonate material taught by Yoo in order to secure a film with an excellent water barrier property ([0028]) as taught by Yoo.
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 GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights