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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted November 26, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 4, 8, and 11-12 are cancelled and claim 1 is amended, resulting in claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, it is suggested that the last line of claim 1 be amended to recite “stability compared to the first secondary batteries”
Regarding claim 1, it is suggested that “each of the plurality of first battery sets” be amended to “each of the first battery sets” and “each of the plurality of second battery sets” be amended to “each of the second battery sets” in order to improve clarity and readability.
Regarding claim 10, it is suggested that line 1 be amended to recite “wherein the first surfaces of the first”.
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 6 and 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.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “a second surface of the first outer surfaces in the first row” and “a second surface of the second outer surfaces in the second row”. It is unclear if these limitations refer to the same “a second surface of the first outer surfaces of the first row” and “a second surface of the second outer surfaces of the second row” recited in claim 5 or if these limitations refer to different surfaces than those in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “a second surface of the first outer surfaces in the first row”. It is unclear if this limitation refers to the same “a second surface of the first outer surfaces of the first row” recited in claim 5 or if this limitation refers to a different surfaces than the one recited in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR2013 (KR 20130038795 A, English Translation used for text citations, original document used for figure citations).
Regarding claim 1, KR2013 teaches a battery pack (element 100) comprising a battery module having a high output/ low capacity (element 200a) and another battery module having a low output/ high capacity (element 200b) (different battery cell types: high output/low capacity battery cell, low output/high capacity battery cell, abstract) and that these two different modules are alternately arranged (pg. 8 paragraph 3, “alternating arrangement refers to an arrangement in which two types of modules are alternately positioned” pg. 5 last paragraph).
Therefore, KR2013 teaches a battery pack comprising:
a plurality of first battery sets, each of the first battery sets including a plurality of first secondary batteries having a first cathode material (Fig. 6 200b, low output/high capacity, lithium transition metal oxide pg. 5)
wherein each of the first battery sets is surrounded by a first module case having first outer surfaces (exterior members 213, Fig. 5)
a plurality of second battery sets, each of the second battery sets includes a plurality of second secondary batteries having a second cathode material different form the first cathode material (Fig. 6 200a, high output/low capacity, lithium iron phosphate pg. 4-5)
wherein each of the second battery sets is surrounded by a second module case having second outer surfaces (exterior members 213, Fig. 5)
wherein the first battery sets and the second battery sets are alternatively arranged with respect to each other (Fig. 6, “alternately arranged” pg. 8 third paragraph)
wherein a first surface of the first outer surfaces is disposed adjacent to a first surface of the second outer surfaces (the battery sets are alternately arranged, thus leading to an outer surface being adjacent)
KR2013 teaches that lithium iron phosphate “is excellent in high temperature stability” (pg. 5 second paragraph). KR2013 does not explicitly teach that lithium iron phosphate has higher thermal stability relative to lithium metal oxide and is silent to the energy density of the first and second secondary batteries. However, since KR2013 and the instant disclosure both disclose a lithium metal oxide for the first cathode material and a lithium iron phosphate for the second cathode material, the second secondary batteries having lower energy density and higher thermal stability compared to the first secondary batteries is inherent to the battery pack of KR2013.
Regarding claim 2, KR2013 teaches all features of claim 1. As described above, KR2013 teaches the first cathode material including lithium metal oxide and the second cathode material including lithium iron phosphate. KR2013 further teaches the lithium metal oxide including at least one metal selected form the group consisting of nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese (pg. 5 paragraphs 5-8).
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.
Claims 3, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR2013.
Regarding claim 3, KR2013 teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Fig. 6 of KR2013 does not explicitly teach the width of the surfaces. However, Fig. 2 of KR2013 teaches the first surface of the first outer surfaces being a widest of the first outer surfaces and the first surface of the second outer surfaces is a widest of the second outer surfaces. Therefore, since KR2013 teaches that this configuration is known and suitable for their invention, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the battery pack of KR2013 to have the first surface of the first outer surfaces being a widest of the first outer surfaces and the first surface of the second outer surfaces is a widest of the second outer surfaces.
Regarding claim 5, KR2013 teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Fig. 6 of KR2013 does not explicitly teach two rows of alternating first and second battery sets. However, Fig. 2 depicts a battery pack of KR2013 wherein battery sets (battery modules) are present in two rows. Therefore, since KR2013 teaches that having two rows of battery sets is a known and suitable battery module configuration for their invention, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the battery pack of KR2013 that has alternating first and second battery sets to have two rows of alternating first and second battery sets in order to obtain a battery pack suitable for a desired battery application, thus resulting in a second surface of the first outer surfaces of the first row and a second surface of the second outer surfaces of the second row being disposed adjacent to each other.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, KR2013 teaches all features of claims 1 and 5, as described above. KR2013 does not expressly teach (A) at least a portion of a second surface of the first outer surfaces in the first row and a portion of a second surface of the second outer surfaces in the second row are adjacent to each other or (B) at least a portion of a second surface of the first outer surfaces in the first row and a portion of a second surface of the first outer surfaces in the second row are adjacent to each other.
As described above for claim 5, the battery pack of KR2013 comprises two rows of battery sets alternately arranged. Given a determined first row configuration, there are two configurations for which type of battery set starts the second row, either a first battery set or a second battery set. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from either of these configurations, thus resulting in the satisfaction of the limitations of claim 6 or 7.
Additionally, when battery sets are alternately arranged in two rows, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that both of the above mentioned limitations of claims 6 and 7 be met since “adjacent to each other” only requires a portion of the surface to be adjacent and does not require direct contact or limit to a specific amount of the surface being “adjacent”.
Regarding claim 10, KR2013 teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. KR2013 Fig. 6 does not expressly teach the battery sets (modules) in direct contact without intervening structures, since the purpose of Fig. 6 is to depict electrical connections (pg. 6 description of Fig. 6, “schematic diagram showing the electrical connection) between the alternatively arranged battery sets (battery modules).
However, Fig. 2 of KR2013 depicts a battery pack of their invention and teaches the first surface of the first outer surfaces and the first surface of the second outer surfaces in direct contact with each other without other intervening structures (Fig. 2). Since KR2013 teaches that Fig. 2 depicts a battery pack according to their invention, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the battery pack, as described by Fig. 6 of KR2013, to have battery sets (modules) in direct contact without intervening structures.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR2013, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Saw (Saw, L. H. et al. “Integration issues of lithium-ion battery into electric vehicles battery pack”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 113, 1032-1045. (2016), previously cited in Office Action dated August 26, 2025).
Regarding claim 9, KR2013 teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. KR2013 teaches the plurality of first battery sets being electrically connected to each other and the plurality of second battery sets being electrically connected to each other (connected in series, pg. 8, Fig. 6).
KR2013 does not teach the plurality of first battery sets and the plurality of second battery sets being electrically connected by a switching method.
However, Saw teaches that the electrical connections between battery cells and battery modules are tuned according to desired battery performance (Saw pg. 1037, 2.3 Electrical Connection). Saw further teaches that a battery management system (switching method) comprising components such as sensors and electronic controls is important in order to ensure safety and protect battery cells from being damaged (Saw pg. 1037-1038, 2.4 Battery management system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the battery pack of KR2013 wherein the plurality of first battery sets are electrically connected to each other, the plurality of second battery sets are electrically connected to each other, and the plurality of first battery sets and the plurality of second battery sets are electrically connected by a switching method in order to achieve desired electrical performance and provide a suitable battery management system for the battery pack configuration being used.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kim are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received on November 26, 2025.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kim and Saw is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received on November 26, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peng, P. and Jiang, F. “Thermal safety of lithium-ion batteries with various cathode materials: A numerical study”. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 103, 1008-1016 (2016), cited in the Non-Final Office Action dated March 21, 2025: appears to provide a discussion of the thermal safety of different cathode materials including lithium metal oxides and lithium iron phosphate (abstract).
US 2017/0365886 A1, cited in the Non-Final Office Action dated March 21, 2025: appears to disclose a battery pack including heterogeneous secondary batteries comprising olivine-type lithium phosphate or lithium-containing composite oxide (abstract).
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