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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's reply filed 6/10/2026 includes claim amendments and corresponding arguments. Some of Applicant’s amendments are not supported by the instant disclosure, see 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) sections in this action for additional detail. Applicant argues the art of record does not disclose all limitations set forth in amended Claim 1. Examiner agrees the references cited in the previous action do not disclose the new limitations. After an updated search and consideration of the amended claims, the claimed invention remains obvious, but over new prior art. See updated action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-23 are 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the following limitation on lines 20-25:
“wherein the battery module housing comprises a top wall and a bottom wall that are parallel to each other and spaced apart along the z-direction, wherein the respective cell stack is positioned between the top wall and the bottom wall, and wherein the dividing wall extends (i) along the z-direction between a top end that is directly connected to the top wall and a bottom end that is directly connected to the bottom wall and (ii) along the x-direction between the two chambers.”
Although Applicant states “support for the new claims and amendments to claim 1 may be found, for example, FIG. 5 and its description,” the written description does not recite the terms “a top end,” “a top wall,” “a bottom end,” and “a bottom wall.” Examiner has annotated instant Fig. 5 to show an assumed “top wall” and “bottom wall” on the battery module structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
17/857,351 – Fig. 5
Claim 1 requires “the dividing wall extends (i) along the z-direction between a top end that is directly connected to the top wall and a bottom end that is directly connected to the bottom wall.” Since the instant disclosure does not recite “a top end” and “a bottom end,” it is unclear whether the top and bottom ends correspond to the dividing wall or the presumed top and bottom walls (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection in this action). Please identify support for this limitation or amend the claim accordingly.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-23 are also rejected, as they depend upon rejected Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “the dividing wall is a monolithic component.” This limitation (or any synonymous term such as a “continuous structure”) is not disclosed in the written description. Please identify support for this limitation or amend the claim accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 15-17, and 19-23 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 1 requires “the dividing wall extends (i) along the z-direction between a top end that is directly connected to the top wall and a bottom end that is directly connected to the bottom wall” on lines 22-24. Since the instant disclosure does not recite “a top end” and “a bottom end,” and the limitation has more than one interpretation, the battery structure set forth by Claim 1 is indefinite.
It is possible the claimed top and bottom ends correspond to opposite ends of the dividing wall.
This would mean the top and bottom ends of the dividing wall are directly connected to the top and
bottom walls of the battery module. However, the instant disclosure does not appear to teach a
connection method or structure between the dividing wall and the battery module walls.
It is also possible the claimed top and bottom ends correspond to interior surfaces of the presumed top and bottom walls. This interpretation would mean the dividing wall extends between a top end of the top wall and a bottom end of the bottom wall, and is how the claim will be examined in this action. However, if this interpretation is correct, the use of “connected to” in the terms “a top end that is directly connected to the top wall” and “a bottom end that is directly connected to the bottom wall” does not clearly communicate the “ends” are actually surfaces on the wall structures.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-23 are also rejected, as they depend upon rejected Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 9-12, 15-17, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 20220223939 A1, and further in view of Juzkow et al., US 20190372173 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a battery arrangement (Figs. 2-6) comprising:
a battery module (100 [0038, 0056-0057]) having a battery module housing (module frame 200 [0038-0043]), the battery module housing having at least two chambers separated from one another by a dividing wall extending vertically in a z-direction (partition wall 400 [0046], see two chambers in Annotated Fig. 4), at least one cell stack disposed in each chamber, each cell stack having at least two stacked battery cells that are stacked together in an x-direction, which is orthogonal to the z-direction (cell stack between each partition wall 400 includes battery cells 110 [0050], plurality of battery cells 110
may be stacked along a direction parallel to the x-axis [0040]), and a thermal insulation layer (insulating
member 500 [0046]). Examiner notes the x-, y-, and z-directions of Claim 1 are consistent with Lee’s x-, y-, and z-directions, see [0040-0044] and Fig. 6.
See Annotated Figs. 4 and 6 for the limitations: wherein each battery cell of the cell stack has: (i) a length dimension extending in a y-direction, which is orthogonal to both the x-direction and the z-direction, (ii) a width dimension extending in the x-direction, and (iii) a height dimension extending in the z-direction, wherein the width dimension of the battery cell is smaller than each of the length and height dimensions, and the length dimension is greater than each of the width and height dimensions ([0039]),
wherein the battery module housing (200) comprises a top wall (upper plate 220) and a bottom wall (bottom surface 210a of the lower frame 210 [0057]) that are parallel to each other and spaced apart along the z-direction, wherein the respective cell stack is positioned between the top wall and the bottom wall, and wherein the dividing wall (400) extends: (i) along the z-direction between a top end that is directly connected to the top wall and a bottom end that is directly connected to the bottom wall, and (ii) along the x-direction between the two chambers.
PNG
media_image2.png
566
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee – Annotated Fig. 4
PNG
media_image3.png
660
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee – Annotated Fig. 6
Lee does not disclose the claimed “first compression pad stacked directly between and in contact with said two stacked battery cells.” However, this limitation is taught by Juzkow et al.
Juzkow teaches a first compression pad stacked directly between and in contact with two stacked battery cells (expanded tape 620C wrapped on battery cell B, in contact with and directly between cells A/B and B/C [0067-0074], Fig. 6C). Juzkow teaches each battery cell may be partially wrapped with a compression pad (620C) in a staggered height direction to ensure a compact and contained battery assembly, while also achieving the benefits of shock absorption, compression compensation, and heat transfer management in the battery module during charging ([0020-0031, 0073]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to wrap a portion of each battery cell of Lee with the expanded tape of Juzkow, in order to ensure a compact and contained battery assembly, while also achieving the benefits of shock absorption, compression compensation, and heat transfer management.
PNG
media_image4.png
260
320
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Juzkow – Fig. 6C
Lee modified by Juzkow creates the following battery module structure, which meets the Claim 1 limitations: “a first compression pad stacked directly between and in contact with two stacked battery cells,” the thermal insulation layer (Lee, 500) “positioned between the dividing wall and a second compression pad,” and “the second compression pad being stacked directly between and in direct contact with the thermal insulation layer and one of the two stacked battery cells.” The structure of modified Lee also teaches “a first distance from (i) a surface of the thermal insulation layer that is contacted by the dividing wall to (ii) the nearest battery cell adjacent to the dividing wall” (see “D1” in Modified Lee) is “at least twice as great as a second distance between said two stacked battery cells that are separated by said first compression pad” (see “D2” in Modified Lee):
PNG
media_image5.png
650
1144
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Lee
Regarding the limitation “at least two battery modules each having a battery module housing,” this limitation is met by Lee (“one or more battery modules may be mounted together” to form a battery pack for an electric vehicle [0007]), and/or modified Lee (Juzkow, a battery for an electric vehicle comprises “a plurality of battery modules electrically interconnected with one another” [0094]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the thermal insulation layer is bonded to the battery module housing (Lee, insulating member 500 is attached to at least one surface of the partition wall 400 [0046-0049]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the battery module housing has at least one extrusion profile including the at least two chambers and the at least one dividing wall (Lee, the partition wall 400 may be integrally formed with the bottom surface 210a of the lower frame 210 [0057], Fig. 6; module frame 200 may have an integrated “mono frame” structure [0043]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses at least two cell stacks are disposed in at least one of the chambers (two cell stacks per chamber, see Claim 1 and Annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses an adhesive bond between the first compression pad and at least one adjacent battery cell (Juzkow, expanded tape is in contact with the adjacent cells, Cell B has the expanded tape 620B from cell A, cell B, and cell C in contact with portions of the side surface of cell B [0069], Fig. 6C).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses each battery module housing is sealed (Lee, module frame may be an integrated “mono frame” [0043]; module frame is coupled together by welding [0042]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses a vehicle comprising the battery arrangement as claimed in claim 1 and an electric motor (Lee, electric vehicle [0007]; Juzkow, electric vehicle with an electric motor and power system [0003-0004]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the first compression pad (Juzkow, 620C) is disposed between the two stacked battery cells (Juzkow, [0067-0074], see Claim 1), and does not disclose any additional components between the two stacked battery cells. Therefore, the claimed “second distance between said two stacked battery cells that are separated by said first compression pad” is the same distance created by the thickness of the first compression pad.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the thermal insulation layer is stacked directly between and in direct contact with the dividing wall and the second compression pad (see structure of Modified Lee in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses a height of the dividing wall is equal to a vertical distance in the z-direction separating the top wall and the bottom wall (Lee, the partition wall 400 may be integrally formed with the bottom surface 210a of the lower frame 210 [0057], Fig. 6; module frame 200 may have an integrated “mono frame” structure [0043]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses top-side end faces of each battery cell face the top wall and bottom-side end faces of each battery cell face the bottom wall (see Annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
532
766
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lee - Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding Claim 22, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the first and second distances are measured in the x-direction (see Claim 1, “D1” and “D2” in Annotated Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the dividing wall is a monolithic component (Lee, the partition wall 400 may be integrally formed with the bottom surface 210a of the lower frame 210 [0057], Fig. 6; module frame 200 may have an integrated “mono frame” structure [0043]).
Claims 2, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, US 20210184190 A1 (herein “Lee 190”).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee does not disclose the thermal insulation layer (Lee, 500) comprises “at least one material from the material group consisting of steel, glass fiber-reinforced plastic, composite material, ceramic, aerogel, fire retardant fleece, and metal-plastic composite system.” However, this limitation is taught by Lee 190.
Lee 190 teaches a thermal insulation layer (ceramic sheet 20) disposed between a housing side wall and a battery cell stack (first assembly portions 24 at end portions of cell holder [0030-0034, 0076-0083]). Lee 190 teaches the ceramic sheet 20 may be “formed of a material having thermal insulation and insulating characteristics” so as to reduce thermal runaway and prevent electrical interference and shorting between the battery cells ([0058-0065]). Lee 190 also teaches “the ceramic sheet 20 may be formed of a ceramic material exhibiting superior thermal insulation and insulating characteristics” ([0065]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art have the thermal insulation layer of modified Lee (Lee, 500) be made of the ceramic material of Lee 190, in order to reduce thermal runaway, prevent electrical interference, and reduce the opportunity for short-circuiting.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the thermal insulation layer is an electrical insulator (Lee 190, ceramic sheet 20 has insulating characteristics to prevent electrical interference and short circuiting [0065, 0098]).
The limitation “configured to prevent current flow between the dividing wall and the adjacent
battery cell” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While
features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim (i.e., the thermal insulation layer of modified Lee is an electrical insulator), the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitation “a height of the dividing wall is greater than a height of the thermal insulation layer,” modified Lee discloses “the ceramic sheet may have a height less than a height of each of the battery cells, and an upper end portion and a lower end portion of each of the battery cells may be exposed from the ceramic sheet” (Lee 190, [0021, 0068]). Modified Lee discloses the thermal insulation layer (ceramic sheet) should have a lesser height in order to expose portions of the battery cell for cooling (Lee 190, [0086]). Examiner notes the battery module of modified Lee has a cooling layer on an inner surface of the bottom wall (see Lee resin layer 600 in Fig. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art have the thermal insulation layer of modified Lee (Lee, 500) have a lesser height than the battery cells (i.e., a lesser height than the dividing wall), in order to expose a lower portion of the battery cells for cooling.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ju et al., US 20200411814 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee teaches more than one battery module can be “mounted together” to form a battery pack (Lee [0007]). Modified Lee does not disclose “the battery modules are spaced apart from each other.” However, this limitation is taught by Ju.
Ju teaches a battery pack 1 and pack tray 30, wherein the battery pack comprises more than one battery module 10 ([0066-0068], Fig. 4). Ju teaches the battery modules are separated in the pack tray by connection bridges, which enhance the structural rigidity of the battery pack in the lateral direction and function as a crush beam that is capable of absorbing an external impact applied to the pack ([0080-0092]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art have the battery modules of modified Lee be mounted in the battery pack structure of Ju, wherein the battery modules are spaced apart from each other, in order to enhance the structural rigidity of the battery pack and add a crush beam structure.
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 BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights