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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 17/814,204 and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 02/09/2026.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 17-20 are previously pending of those claims, claims 1, and 11 have been amended, and new claims 21-25 have been added. All amendments have been entered. Claims 1, 7-11, and 17-25 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DEMONT (US 2024/0317109 A1).
DEMONT teaches a battery module for a vehicle which includes a plurality of battery cells (abstract). The housing includes holes 902 coaxial with the battery cell so that fumes from the battery cell can pass (paragraph 0213). There may further be a bottom housing 826 which may be fasted with the top housing 804 (paragraph 0166). There may be top spacers 863-865 which are made of a heat isolating material (paragraph 0173) and are placed between the cell and the top plate (Figure 9). There may further be bottom spacers 827 and 828 in the bottom plate (paragraph 0175 and Figure 9). These spacers are taken to be the claimed thermal barrier layer and are located on an interior surface of each side plate so that the thermal barrier layer is between the side plates and the battery (see Figure 9). The top and bottom housing 804 and 826 are taken to be the claimed first and second opposing cover segments (paragraph 6A). Each of the top and bottom housing may have the same structure (paragraph 0168) and includes the holes 902 which are taken to be the claimed openings aligned with vents of each cell (paragraph 0213 and Figure 6A). Each of the top and bottom housing include at least a base plate extending from the side plate towards a opposing base plates to define a bottom cover portion (see Figures 6A and Figure 10). The top housing 804 and the bottom housing 826 are assembled together by fastening to provide structural support for other components of the battery module 800 (paragraph 0166). The battery module includes a circuit board assembly 820 (paragraph 0165). The circuit board 820 is positioned on a lateral side of the battery module and is fixed to the housing (paragraph 0204) the circuit board taken to be at least a portion of the claimed housing.
PNG
media_image1.png
1133
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7. DEMONT teaches the battery cells 8120 are cylindrical (paragraph 0165 and Figures 6A-6E).
With respect to claim 9. DEMONT teaches at least a vent where when the pressure in the cells increase the pressure difference causes the tape or cover of the module to create an opening to release the pressure within the housing (paragraph 0218).
With respect to claim 11. The rejection of claim 1 in view of DEMONT from above is repeated here. DEMONT further teaches an aircraft 150 which includes a motor 160 (paragraph 0132). The motor is connected to a power source 180 (paragraph 0132). The power source includes at least the battery module (paragraph 0134).
With respect to claim 17. DEMONT teaches the battery cells 8120 are cylindrical (paragraph 0165 and Figures 6A-6E).
With respect to claim 19. DEMONT teaches at least a vent where when the pressure in the cells increase the pressure difference causes the tape or cover of the module to create an opening to release the pressure within the housing (paragraph 0218).
With respect to claim 21. The rejection of claim 1 in view of DEMONT from above is repeated here. DEMONT further teaches at least end plate coupling adjacent end edges of the side plate and base plate (see the annotated Figure 6A above).
With respect to claim 22. DEMONT teaches the battery cells 8120 are cylindrical (paragraph 0165 and Figures 6A-6E).
With respect to claim 24. DEMONT teaches at least a vent where when the pressure in the cells increase the pressure difference causes the tape or cover of the module to create an opening to release the pressure within the housing (paragraph 0218).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEMONT (US 2024/0317109 A1) in view of EBERHARD (US 2012/0121949 A1).
Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 1, claim 18 is dependent upon claim 11, and claim 23 is dependent upon claim 21, all of which are rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of DEMONT. DEMONT does not explicitly teach that the battery cells comprise a plurality of prismatic battery cells.
EBERHARD teaches a vehicle battery packaging 1 which accommodates a large number of cylindrical battery cells 2 (paragraph 0032). The packaging 1 includes a cover 3, a conductor plate 4, upper frame 5, and side walls 6 (paragraph 0033). There is simlary a lower frame 9, a graphite foil 10, a conductor plate 11, and a negative cover 12 (paragraph 0033). The upper frame 5, plate 3, and cover 3 then incorporates a ventilation system (paragraph 0037). The cells include a safety vent on the positive end of the cell, and the frame 5 and plate 4 then includes ventilation openings 16 aligned to the safety vents of the cell (paragraph 0037). EBERHARD teaches that the cells may have a cylindrical shape but also may have other shapes which include prismatic shape (paragraph 0023).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the cylindrical cells of DEMONT with prismatic cells as taught by EBERHARD, as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results, as both DEMONT and EBERHARD teach battery modules including openings for ventilations over the cells, and then EBERHARD teaches that these structures can be modified to function with prismatic cells.
Claim(s) 10, 20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEMONT (US 2024/0317109 A1).
Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 1, claim 20 is dependent upon claim 11, and claim 25 is dependent upon claim 21, all of which are rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of DEMONT. DEMONT teaches the spacers are formed of heat isolating, and heat resistant material. However, DEMONT does not explicitly teach they have a tensile strength below 150 kPa.
DEMONT teaches the spacer may be made of a ceramic, glass-fiber, or heat resistant plastic (paragraph 0173). The spacers support the battery cell while prevent heat from overheating the battery cells (paragraph 0175). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to achieve the desired tensile strength of the spacers as a matter of routine optimization, in order to have the desired characteristics to support the cells, while at the same time prevent the cells from overheating. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7-11, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of HINTERBERGER, YAMASHITA, HORI, and SCHUESSLER have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of DEMONT (US 2024/0317109 A1).
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks that the claims have been amended to recite the base plate extending from the side plate along a bottom of the battery toward the opposing base plate to define a bottom cover portion, and an upper plate extending from the side plate along a top of the battery towards the opposing upper plate to define a top cove portion. These arguments are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are made in view of DEMONT. Please see the annotated Figure 6A above to see how these amended and other claim limitations are being addressed.
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights