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
The amendment filed December 15, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 13 remain pending in the application. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in the last office action filed September 15, 2025. Applicant’s explanation regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 4 and 13 have been considered and are persuasive; therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 4 and 13 in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
The examiner respectfully acknowledges the cancellation of claim 11.
New rejections follow.
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, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou et al (CN 209592241 U, published 2019-11-05) in view of Shin et al (US 20180175468 A1, published 2018-06-21).
Evidentiary support is provided by references Collins Dictionary, “laminate,” v., definitions 1, 3-4, 2026, and Le TN "Melting point of Carbon Steel & Stainless Steel,” 2019 (previously cited in the office action of 2025-02-11)
Regarding claim 1, Dou teaches a battery module (machine translation [0031] describes a battery structure, i.e. a battery module) comprising:
A battery cell stack 2 (i.e., module body [0031]) in which a plurality of battery cells 6 are stacked in a first direction (Figs. 4-5 show battery cells 6 can be stacked in a first direction corresponding to the left to right direction of the page and Figs. 7 and 9 show the battery cells can also be stacked in a first direction corresponding to the in and out direction of the page);
A module frame (1, 4) for housing the battery cell stack having a pair of side walls spaced apart in the first direction and a top wall ([0033]; Fig. 3 shows upper cover plate 1 and heat pipe 4 as rigid structures define an interior space surrounding and enclosing the battery cell stack; thus, they correspond to a module frame housing the battery cell stack. Annotated Fig. 3 shows heat pipe 4, part of the claimed module frame, having a pair of side walls spaced apart in the left and right direction of the page as corresponding to the stacking direction of the battery cells in Figs. 4-5, i.e. the first direction, and the top wall. The instant specification states that “the word “on” or “above” means disposed on or below a reference point, and does not necessarily mean being “on” or “above” the reference portion toward the opposite direction of gravity” (p5 lines 18-20). Accordingly, a “top” wall can be positioned below another a reference point and in the direction of gravity as shown in annotated Fig. 3.
Alternatively, if the first direction is in the in/out direction of the page based on the stacking of the battery cells in Figs. 7 and 9, Dou’s taught upper cover plate 1 would correspond to the portion of the module frame having a pair of side walls spaced apart in the first direction);
Annotated Fig. 3 of Dou:
PNG
media_image1.png
480
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Dou does not teach in the embodiment of Fig. 3 a metal sheet positioned between the battery cell stack and an upper surface of the module frame, Dou teaches in Fig. 9 a temperature-equalizing plate 5 to control the temperature of the battery cells 6 [0038]. Dou also does not teach wherein a thermal conductive resin layer is between the metal sheet and the module frame.
In the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches a cooling plate 120, 220 interposed between a cooling unit 130, 230 (described in [0053], [0077] and similar to the heat pipe of Dou) and battery cells ([0014]) and discloses that it transfers heat from the battery cells to the cooling unit to carry out cooling such that the temperature of the battery module may be controlled [0076]-[0077], thus Shin’s cooling plate 220 functions as a temperature-equalizing plate. Shin teaches the cooling plate to have a composite structure, as shown in Fig. 4, wherein the cooling plate 220 has metal plating layer 224 around resin layer 222 ([0079]), and Shin discloses the cooling plate provides the advantages of excellent cooling performance and a low weight ([0010]-[0011]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the cooling plate taught by Dou as the temperature-equalizing plate of Dou for the advantages of excellent cooling performance and a low weight.
Accordingly, the combination teaches a metal sheet (i.e, the metal plating layer 224 taught by Shin) positioned between the battery cell stack and an upper surface of the module frame, wherein an upper surface of the module frame corresponds to the position of the top wall of the module frame,
Wherein the module frame is laminated on the metal sheet and the metal sheet is laminated on the upper surface of the battery cell stack (Within the combination, Dou teaches the temperature-equalizing plate 5 and the heat pipe 4 can be connected by means of adhesive bonding or welding, which would read on the limitation of the module frame being laminated on the metal sheet, and Dou also teaches the temperature -equalizing plate is provided between the heat pipe 4 and the surface of the battery cells 6 ([0038]; Fig. 8). Therefore, the metal sheet 224 which is a component of the modified temperature-equalizing plate (i.e., cooling plate 220 in Shin’s disclosure) reads on the metal sheet as laminated on the upper surface of the battery cell stack, as Collins Dictionary provides a definition of laminate as to form or press into a thin sheet or layer, to cover with or bond to one or more thin layers, or to make by building up in layers (Collins p2: “laminate,” v., definitions 1, 3-4)).
Wherein the metal sheet is formed as a thin plate to prevent flames generated in the battery cell stack from propagating to an exterior of the battery module (The metal sheet 224 as taught by Shin is shown to be a thin plate in Fig. 4, and Shin further discloses “When the heat of a battery module generated during charging/discharging is not removed effectively, heat accumulation occurs, resulting in deterioration of the battery module. In some cases, this causes ignition or explosion of the battery module.” [0004]). Therefore, use of the cooling plate with its metal sheet in the form of a thin metal plate to transfer heat generated in the battery module would satisfy the intended function of preventing flame generation, and as a consequence, prevent flames in the battery cell stack from propagating to an exterior of the battery module.)
Wherein the metal sheet is unitary U-shaped and extends along an upper surface and opposite side surfaces of the battery cell stack (Shin’s cooling plate 220 within the combination teaches the metal sheet. Figs. 3-4 of Shin show the cooling plate 220 is unitary U-shaped with respect to the entire cooling plate (annotated Fig. 4, included below) and also unitary U-shaped with respect to regions within the cooling plate (insert within Fig. 4); therefore, the metal plating layer 224 (i.e. metal sheet) within the cooling plate would be unitary U-shaped. The surface of the cooling plate 220 corresponding to the bend in the larger “U” shape is shown to extend along an upper surface of the battery cell stack as defined by the previously introduced orientation of top and upper, and the side surfaces of the cooling plate extend along opposite side surfaces of the battery cell stack; thus, the metal plating layer 224 (i.e., metal sheet) within the cooling plate would also extend along an upper surface and opposite side surfaces of the battery cell stack.)
Annotated Fig. 4 of Shin:
PNG
media_image2.png
856
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a thermal conductive resin layer is between the metal sheet and the module frame to adhere and fix the metal sheet and the module frame to each other and wherein the thermal conductive resin layer is U-shaped and extends between the metal sheet and the module frame (Annotated Fig. 4 of Shin shows a resin layer 222 of the U-shaped cooling plate (as applied to the shape of the entire cooling plate and/or to the shape of regions within the cooling plate) that is between the metal sheet 224 and the module frame, and the resin layer 222 within the cooling plate would correspondingly be U-shaped. Shin also describes the resin layer can be advantageously made thermally conductive ([0062]-[0063]), disclosing that when the thermal conductivity of a material is increased for the purpose of efficient heat radiation, it is possible to remove the heat accumulated in the material effectively and to prevent the material from being broken by sudden thermal impact [0061], as is the function of the cooling plate containing the resin layer and the metal layer).
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 1. Dou further teaches that upper cover plate 1, part of the module frame, can be made of a metal such as aluminum ([0033]). Shin teaches copper for the metal sheet (124) ([0012]). Therefore, the melting point of copper (1084°C) is higher than that of the melting point of the aluminum module frame (660°C), with the properties reported by evidentiary reference Le.
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 2 and copper has a melting point in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 1, and Shin teaches a thermal pad 240 attached to the surface of the cooling plate 220 (Fig. 4), and therefore it is also attached to the surface of the metal sheet 224. Shin teaches the thermal pad can be made of an elastic material such as silicone, an insulating resin, to improve adhesion between the battery cell stack, cooling plate, and cooling unit [0052], which implies attachment (or fixing) to these components. In this configuration, the thermal pad taught by Shin corresponds to the limitation of an insulating film attached to the surface of the metal sheet. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the battery module of modified Dou with the thermal pad of Shin to improve adhesion between the battery cell stack, temperature-equalizing plate (analogous to a cooling plate), and heat pipe (analogous to a cooling unit), given that Dou teaches the temperature-equalizing plate 5 and the heat pipe 4 are fixedly connected and can be connected by adhesive bonding (Dou: [0038]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 1, and as seen in annotated Fig. 3 of Dou, the module frame comprises an upper frame 4 corresponding to the upper surface of the battery cell stack, and a U-shaped frame 1 that wraps a lower surface and opposite side surfaces of the battery cell stack.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou et al (CN 209592241 U, published 2019-11-05) in view of Shin et al (US 20180175468 A1, published 2018-06-21) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Yang (US 10,601,003 B2, published 2020-03-24, previously cited in the Office Action of 2025-02-11).
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 1. Dou shows end plates at each of a front surface and rear surface of the battery cell stack in Fig. 7, with an annotated Fig. 7 included below. However, Dou does not explicitly disclose a busbar frame positioned between the battery cell stack and the end plate and does not teach wherein the metal sheet is formed integrally with the busbar frame or is attached to the busbar frame.
Annotated Fig. 7 of Dou:
PNG
media_image3.png
331
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches a similar battery module using a U-shaped frame member (Figure 4), wherein the battery module has an end plate at each of a front surface and rear surface (160, 162) of the battery cell stack (50-80) and a busbar frame (Figure 15: 680, 682) positioned between the battery cell stack and the end plate. Yang also discloses that the bus bars are part of the interconnect assembly (140) (Col 7: lines 51-53) which is coupled to the module frame (150) (Col 7: lines 46-48). In the combination of modified Dou, the module frame is laminated to the metal sheet, as established in addressing the limitations of claim 1. Consequently, the coupling of the structures containing the busbars and the metal sheet read upon the limitation that the metal sheet is attached to the busbar frame. Yang discloses that the interconnect assembly electrically couples the battery cells to one another (Col 7: lines 48-50) and that their battery module can be more easily assembled (Col 1: lines 6-8).
The use of a busbar to electrically couple battery cells to one another was a known configuration in the art at the time of filing of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention 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. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to undertake the combination because Yang teaches that such a configuration contributes to a more easily assembled battery module.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou et al (CN 209592241 U, published 2019-11-05) in view of Shin et al (US 20180175468 A1, published 2018-06-21) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Yamada et al (US 2017/0018747 A1, published 2017-01-19, previously cited in the Office Action of 2025-02-11).
Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the battery module of claim 1. It does not teach the battery pack comprising of at least one battery module of claim 1, and a pack case for packaging at least one battery module.
Yamada is relied upon to teach (Figure 1) the use of at least one battery module (20) contained within a battery pack (30) and which is enclosed within a pack case (50) for the purposes of housing the battery stack ([0036] - [0037]).
The use of a pack case to package at least one battery module was a known configuration in the art at the time of filing of the invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention 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. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 03/12/2026