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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 4, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted November 4, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 4-5, 10, 13, and 15 are amended and claim 14 is canceled, resulting in claims 1-13 and 15 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the instant specification states that the partition “may be deformed by the through-area” ([199]) and the through-area “may be a component for inducing the deformation of the partition” ([198]). The instant specification does not appear to recite “localized”, nor provide support for or a meaning of “localized deformation”.
Claims 11 and 12 are dependent on claim 10 and therefore, for the reasons outlined with respect to claim 10, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the plurality of surface pressure pads” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1. It is noted that “a plurality of surface pressure pads” is recited in line 8 of claim 1.
Claims 2-9 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “an elastic part” in line 3. It is unclear if this recitation of “an elastic part” refers to the same “an elastic part” recited in line 12 of claim 1.
Claims 6 and 7 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what is meant by the through-are being configured to induce “localized” deformation. For example, where the deformation is localized to or in what way the deformation is localized. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpretated as requiring the through-area be configured to induced deformation of the partition, pending further clarification from applicant.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation "the battery cell" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the battery cell” refers to the “battery cell unit” of line 2 or one of the battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (line 6).
Claims 11 and 12 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 requires “each elastic part has a smaller area than each of the battery cells and a larger area than each of the surface pressure pads”. However, claim 6 also recites this limitation and depends from claim 5, thus claim 6 does not further limit the claim from upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz (US 2020/0266403 A1), as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Regarding claim 1, Stuetz teaches a battery cell unit (Stuetz Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of battery cells (element 50, Stuetz Fig. 2) and a support bar configured to fix the plurality of battery cells (busbars, element 250 Stuetz Fig. 2), a case having a frame shape (elements 10, 20, 30, 31, 40, Stuetz Fig. 2) including a pair of first frames (elements 30 and 31, Stuetz Fig. 2) and a pair of second frames (element 20, Stuetz Fig. 2), and configured to house the battery cell units therein (Stuetz Fig. 2), the first frames have a cut area disposed at a position corresponding to one of a plurality of surface pressure pads and formed along a side area thereof (inner surface of end plate 30 is shown to have grooves (cut area), Stuetz Fig. 6); and a plurality of surface pressure pads disposed in the case (pressure plate, element 230, Stuetz Fig. 2), each surface pressure pad being disposed between the case and an outermost battery cell on both ends of each of the plurality of battery cell units (element 230 between 30 and 50a, Stuetz Fig. 2), wherein the cut area of each of the first frames abuts one of the plurality of surface pressure pads (Stuetz Fig. 2) and the cut area defines an elastic part that is elastically deformable and abuts the respective surface pressure pad (element 201, Stuetz Fig. 6; claim 10). “Define” is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as meaning “to fix or mark the limits of”. The cut area (grooves) of Stuetz define the positioning of the elastic part (201), as shown in Fig. 6.
Stuetz teaches that the elastic part (element 201, Stuetz Fig. 6) “is made from, or comprises, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyester, polyamide, polyimide, or polyvinylchloride” (Stuetz claim 10). The ordinary artisan would recognize that all materials have an ability to undergo elastic deformation, including the polymers taught by Stuetz in claim 10.
Fig. 2 of Stuetz does not teach a plurality of battery cell units. However, Stuetz teaches that “a battery system of an electric vehicle comprises a battery pack…the battery pack is made of several battery modules” (Stuetz [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a battery pack comprising multiple of the battery modules taught by Stuetz Fig. 2 in order to achieve a battery pack suitable for use in a desired application, such as electric vehicles.
Claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim ( US 2013/0252058 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Stuetz does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein the battery cell units are disposed along a longitudinal direction of the case.
Kim teaches a battery pack including battery cell units (battery modules, Kim abstract, Fig. 1b) wherein each battery cell unit comprises a plurality of battery cells (Kim Fig. 1b) and the battery cell units are disposed along a longitudinal direction of a battery case (Kim Fig. 1b).
Since Kim teaches that it is known and suitable to arrange battery cell units along a longitudinal direction of a battery case, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the battery cell units of Stuetz in a longitudinal direction of the battery case in order to achieve the predictable result of a battery pack comprising battery cell units.
Regarding claim 3, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the case comprises: a frame member (elements 20, 30, 31, Stuetz Fig. 2) that defines a body of the case; and a cover member (element 40, Stuetz Fig. 2) disposed on the frame member and configured to cover the frame member. Stuetz does not teach a gasket disposed between the frame member and the cover member (element 40, Stuetz Fig.2).
However, Kim teaches a battery pack assembly (Kim abstract) comprising a gasket (sealing member 230, Kim Fig. 4A) disposed between a frame member (element 210, Kim Fig. 4A) and a cover member (element 220, Kim Fig. 4A). Kim further teaches that the gasket (sealing member) “may prevent moisture from coming into the battery pack” (Kim [0051]).
Since Kim teaches that gaskets are used in a battery pack assembly to prevent moisture from entering battery packs, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a gasket, as taught by Kim, between the frame member (elements 20, 30, 31, Stuetz Fig. 2) and cover member (element 40, Stuetz Fig. 2) in the battery pack assembly (battery module) taught by Stuetz in order to achieve the predicable result of a sealed battery pack that prevents moisture from entering the battery pack.
Regarding claim 4, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1 and 3, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein a pair of first frames spaced apart from each other,and disposed adjacent to the outermost battery cells on both ends of each of the plurality of battery cell units (elements 30 and 31, Stuetz Fig. 2), respectively; and a pair of second frames disposed spaced apart from each other, each of the pair of second frames is disposed at ends of the pair of first frames (element 20, Stuetz Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1, 3, and 4, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein each of the first frames comprises an elastic part elastically deformed by the cut area and abutting the respective surface pressure pad (element 201, Stuetz Fig. 2; claim 10).
Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein each elastic part has a smaller area than each of the battery cells, and has a larger area than each of the surface pressure pads (the elastic member 201 has a larger area than the segment shown at the bottom of 230, as shown in annotated Stuetz Fig. 2). The examiner notes that, as claimed, the “area” of claim 6 is not limited to a specific type of area. For example, the area could be a total surface area, a cross-sectional area, or an area of a portion of the element.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1 and 3-5, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 5, wherein each of the first frames (element 30, 31, Stuetz Fig.2) has a cross- section corresponding to a rectangular frame shape, and the cut area (inner surface 110 of end plate 30, grooves (cut area), Stuetz Fig. 3) and the elastic part (element 200, Stuetz Fig. 4; claim 10) of each of the first frames are disposed at facing surfaces of the pair of first frames (Stuetz Fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, Stuetz, as evidenced by Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1 and 3-4, as described above. Stuetz is silent regarding how the cover member (element 40, Stuetz Fig. 2) is attached (“which are attached to each other”, Stuetz [0094]) to the frame member (elements 20, 30, 31, Stuetz Fig. 2).
Kim teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein the gasket comprises: a support member formed in a rectangular frame shape (element 230, Kim 4A), and having a bottom surface that comes into surface contact with a top surface of the frame member (element 210, Kim Fig. 4A); a pair of pressurization members disposed at positions corresponding to the pair of first frames (reinforcing members, element 240 Kim Fig. 4A); and a pair of cover fixing members disposed at positions corresponding to the pair of second frames (reinforcing members, element 240 Kim Fig. 4A), wherein the cover member (element 220, Kim Fig. 4A) is seated on the top surface of the support member (element 230, Kim Fig. 4A), and the pressurization member and the cover fixing member are seated on the top surface of the cover member (element 220, Kim Fig. 4A). Fig. 4A of Kim teaches two pairs of reinforcing members, wherein one of the pairs corresponds to the “pair of pressurization members disposed at positions corresponding to the pair of first frames” and the other pair corresponds to the “pair of cover fixing members disposed at positions corresponding to the pair of second frames”.
Since Stuetz is silent regarding how the cover member is attached to the frame member and Kim teaches the use of a pair of pressurization members and a pair of cover fixing members for assembling a battery pack , it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the attachments taught by Kim to attach the cover and frame members, with the gasket disposed between, of the modified battery pack assembly of Stuetz (described for instant claim 3) in order to achieve the predictable result of an assembled battery pack.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and in further view of Choi (Choi, Y. H. Development of Standardized Battery Pack for Next Generation PHEVs in Considering the Effect of External Pressure on Lithium Ion Pouch Cells. SAE International Journal of Alternative Powertrains, 7(3), 195-206 (2018)).
Regarding claim 8, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1 and 3, as described above. Kim teaches a battery pack assembly, wherein the gasket (element 230, Kim 4A) is coupled to the frame member (element 210, Kim 4A) and the cover member (element 220, Kim 4A) through the use of fastening members (element 20, Kim 4A). Kim is silent regarding the structure or identity of the fastening members.
Choi teaches that bolts are suitable for assembling components of battery packs (Choi pg. 200 left col. second paragraph).
Since Kim teaches a gasket being coupled to a frame member and cover member using fastening members and Choi teaches that bolts are suitable for assembling components of battery packs, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coupled the gasket to the frame and cover member in the modified battery pack assembly of Stuetz (as described for instant claim 3) through bolting in order to achieve the predictable result of an assembled battery pack.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi (US 2020/012731 A1) in view of Etou (US 2001/0014417 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chi teaches a battery pack assembly comprising: a battery cell unit (element 10, Chi Fig. 8) comprising a buffer member disposed on each of a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell unit, configured to pressurize the plurality of battery cells in a front-to-rear direction (protection pad, element 300, Chi Fig. 2).
Chi further teaches a case configured to house the battery cell unit (element 50, Chi Fig. 8), wherein the battery cell unit comprises a plurality of battery cells arranged in parallel to the front-to-rear direction (element 100, Chi Fig. 2), wherein the case comprises a frame member defining an internal space in which the battery cell unit is housed, wherein the frame member comprises (annotated Chi Fig. 8): a frame member body defining a body of the frame member (annotated Chi Fig.8), and having the internal space disposed therein (Chi Fig. 8); and a partition disposed in the internal space, spaced apart from an edge surface of the frame member body toward the battery cell, and configured to partition the internal space into a plurality of spaces (annotated Chi Fig. 8).
Chi does not teach the partition comprising a through-area through which the spaces partitioned by the partition are at least partially open to each other and the through-area is configured to include localized deformation.
However, Etou teaches a battery pack assembly comprising a plurality of battery cell units (Etou Fig. 4) and a partition (element 112, Etou Fig. 5) that separates the interior of the case into separate spaces (Etou Fig. 4). Etou further teaches the partition comprising a through-area through which the spaces partitioned by the partition are at least partially open to each other (Etou Fig. 5) and the through-area is configured to induce localized deformation of the partition in order to prevent cracks in the module container upon exposure to a load (Etou [57]).
Since Chi and Etou both teach battery packs and Etou teaches that a partition separating spaces within a battery pack assembly can comprise a through-area that is configured to induce localized deformation in order to prevent cracks in the module container, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a partition comprising a through-area configured to induce localized deformation and through which the spaces partitioned by the partition are at least partially open to each other in the battery pack assembly of Chi in order to prevent cracks in the module container upon exposure to a load.
The limitation of the through-area being configured to induce localized deformation of the partition in response to pressure from swelling of the plurality of battery cells is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
PNG
media_image2.png
795
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chi does not explicitly state that the buffer member (protection pad) comprises an elastic material. Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, “elastic material” is taken to mean any material that has any amount of elasticity. The examiner notes that all materials inherently have some amount of elasticity and, therefore, no material is perfectly non-elastic.
Additionally, Chi states that “the protection pad 300 may buffer an impact transferred from the pressing plate 200 when an external impact or the like occurs” (Chi [0039]).
Since all materials inherently have some amount of elasticity and Chi states that the purpose of the buffer member (protection pad) is to provide a buffer against impacts to the battery cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a battery pack assembly comprising a buffer member comprising an elastic material.
Regarding claim 11, Chi in view of Etou teaches all features of claim 10, as described above. Etou further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein the through-area comprises: a first through-area extended upward; and a second through-area extended horizontally from the first through-area (the through-area depicted in Fig. 5 of Etou is shown to be an opening that extends in both a horizontal and vertical direction).
Regarding claim 12, Chi in view of Etou teaches all features of claim 10, as described above. Chi further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein the battery cell unit comprises: a cell fixing member (pressing plates, element 200, Chi Fig. 2) disposed on either side of the plurality of battery cells in a side-to- side direction, and configured to pressurize the plurality of battery cells in the side-to-side direction.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz (US 2020/0266403 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Stuetz teaches a battery pack assembly (battery module, abstract) comprising: a battery cell unit (collection of battery cells (50), Fig. 2); and a case configured to house the battery cell unit (elements 10, 30, 31, 40, Fig. 2), wherein the battery cell unit comprises: a plurality of battery cells (element 50, Fig. 2) disposed in parallel to a front-to-rear direction (element 60, Fig. 2; “the battery cells 50 are arranged next to each other and stacked in a stack direction, indicated by arrow 60” [0095]); a cell fixing member disposed on either side of the plurality of battery cells in a side-to- side direction, and configured to pressurize the plurality of battery cells in the side-to-side direction (element 20, Stuetz Fig. 2); and a buffer member disposed on each of a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell unit (pressure plate, element 230, Fig. 2), configured to pressurize the plurality of battery cells in the front-to-rear direction ([0101]), wherein the case comprises: a frame member defining an internal space in which the battery cell unit is housed (elements 10, 30, 31, Fig. 2); and a cover member coupled to a top of the frame member (element 40, Fig. 2), wherein the cell fixing member is coupled to the frame member (element 20 is coupled to element 10, Stuetz Fig. 2), and the buffer member is spaced apart from the cell fixing member (elements 230 and 20, Fig. 2).
Stuetz does not explicitly state that the buffer member is comprised of an elastic material. Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, “elastic material” is taken to mean any material that has any amount of elasticity. The examiner notes that all materials inherently have some amount of elasticity and, therefore, no material is perfectly non-elastic.
Additionally, Stuetz states that “the pressure plate 230 distributes the pressure…to achieve a more even pressure distribution on the leftmost battery cell” (Stuetz [0101]).
Since all materials inherently have some amount of elasticity and Stuetz states that the purpose of the buffer member (pressure plate 230) is to provide even pressure distribution on the outermost battery cell, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a battery pack assembly comprising a buffer member comprising an elastic material.
Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein the frame member comprises: a frame member body (element 10, Stuetz Fig. 2) having the internal space disposed therein; and a protrusion member (element 30, 31 Stuetz Fig. 2) protruding from the frame member (elements 10, 30, 31 Stuetz Fig.2) toward the internal space, wherein the cell fixing member comprises: a body region in contact with the plurality of battery cells, and extended in the front- to-rear direction (annotated Stuetz Fig. 2); and an assembly region having an indented portion protruding from an end portion of the body region in the front-to-rear direction to the outside in a side-to-side direction, and indented upward (annotated Stuetz Fig. 2), wherein the protrusion member is inserted into and coupled to the indented portion of the assembly region (30, 31 is inserted into and coupled to the indented portion of the assembly region, Stuetz Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
596
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Stuetz teaches all features of claim 13, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein a width of the protrusion member in the side-to-side direction corresponds to a width of the indented portion in the side-to-side direction such that the cell fixing member and the protrusion member are coupled to each other to prevent the plurality of battery cells from moving in a horizontal direction (30, 31 is inserted into and coupled to the indented portion of the assembly region, Stuetz Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-9 presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated March 11, 2025 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 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on November 4, 2025. These rejections to claims 41-9, as presented in the Final Office Action dated August 11, 2025, are withdrawn.
However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejections have been applied above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed November 4, 2025 regarding claims 1, 10, and 13 on pages 7-10 of the response have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1:
On page 7 of the response applicant states that “the specification makes clear that the cut area in the first frame forms an elastic part that abuts the surface pressure pad”. Applicant further states that “the relied-upon structure is a grooved end plate (not the pair of first frames in a frame-member geometry) and a separate pressure plate” and that “treating grooves in an end plate as a “cut area” of a first frame that abuts the pad uses elements from different structural components”.
These arguments are not persuasive. Independent claim 1 requires a pair of first frames, wherein each of the first frames has a cut area that abuts the respective surface pressure pad, all of which is taught by Stuetz, as described above. It is unclear what is meant by applicant’s allegation that the claim mapping “uses elements from different structural components”. In the above rejections, the end plates of Stuetz (elements 30 and 31) are the “pair of first frame members”, each of the end plates has grooves which are “a cut area”, and the pressure plates (element 230) are the surface pressure pads.
Additionally, it is unclear that is meant by a “frame-member geometry” and how the alleged structure of a frame-member geometry would differ from the structure taught by Stuetz. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. It is noted that the instant disclosure and the instant claim 1 do not define or limit the structure of the pair of first frame members or the frame shape.
On page 7 of the response applicant alleges that there is no teaching in Stuetz that a cut area of a frame “directly” abuts the pressure pad “as required by amended claim 1”.
This argument is not persuasive. Stuetz teaches that “the end plate 30 is pressed against the pressure plate 230, which in turn is pressed against the first battery cell 50a of the stack of battery cells” (Stuetz [101]). Additionally, Fig. 2 of Stuetz depicts the assembly of the battery cell unit. The ordinary artisan would recognize that, when the battery cell unit is assembled, the cut area abuts the surface pressure pad.
Regarding independent claim 10:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claim 13:
On pages 9-10 of the response, applicant appears to allege that the structure of Stuetz does not meet the limitations of the claim since it does not expressly teach restraint against movement in the direction perpendicular to the stacking direction achieved by a “three-way relationship”, as described by applicant. Applicant states that “Applicant explained when proposing this amendment that the purpose of this protrusion/indented-portion coupling is to “restrict movement in the direction perpendicular to the stacking direction of the battery cells”, and that this particular restraining function is not disclosed in the cited reference”.
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., restriction of movement in the direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and the “three-way relationship” described by applicant on pages 9-10) 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).
On page 10 of the response, applicant states that “Even if the Office were correct that “any” buffer plate would have some elasticity, that would not render obvious a structure in which the buffer plate is deliberately spaced from the cell fixing member so that the fixing member can be rigidly held to the frame by a protrusion/indent engagement to prevent horizontal movement”.
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., restriction of horizontal movement and the fixing member being rigidly held to the frame) 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
You (US 2021/0305651 A1): appears to disclose a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cell units (Fig. 7), a case having a frame shape configured to house the battery cell units (Fig. 4), and a cut area defining an elastic part that is elastically deformable (Fig. 4, [11]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789