Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted November 26, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 4-8 and 11-12 are canceled and claims 1 and 10 are amended, resulting in claims 1, 2, 9, an 10 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 1, 2, 9, and 10 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 1, the disclosure does not provide support for the limitation “largest surfaces of outer surfaces of the first module case and the second module case are in contact with each other”. The term “largest” is not present in the specification. Additionally, Figures 1-3 depict a plan view of the battery pack, thus all of the dimensions are not disclosed. Therefore, the Figures do not provide adequate support or guidance for which “outer surfaces” are “largest”.
Claims 2, 9, and 10 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined with respect to claim 1, 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, 2, 9, and 10 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 limitation "outer surfaces" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 9, and 10 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation "the outer surfaces" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 (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 from 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 (exterior members 213, Fig. 5)
wherein the first battery sets and the second battery sets are alternatively arranged with respect to each other in a first direction (Fig. 6, “alternately arranged” pg. 8 third paragraph)
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 and the largest outer surfaces of modules are in contact with each other. Therefore, since KR2013 teaches that having two rows of battery sets and having the largest outer surface of modules in contact with each other 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, wherein the modules are stacked in such a way that the largest outer surfaces are in contact, in order to obtain a battery pack suitable for a desired battery application, thus resulting in the battery pack including a first row and a second row in which the plurality of first battery sets and the plurality of second battery sets are alternately arranged in a first direction such that largest surfaces of outer surfaces of the first module case and the second module case are in contact with each other and the first row and the second row being disposed adjacent to each other in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
Modified KR2013 does not expressly teach a first battery set in the first row and a second battery set in the second row are disposed adjacent to each other.
However, as described above, the battery pack of modified 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 a first battery set in the first row and a second battery set in the second row being disposed adjacent to each other.
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 claim 1 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 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 from the group consisting of nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese (pg. 5 paragraphs 5-8).
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 Objections
The objections to claims 1 and 10 because of the following informalities and overcome due to Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and 10 in the response received May 20, 2026. These objections are withdrawn.
Response –35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 6 and 7 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 cancelation of claims 6 and 7 in the response received May 20, 2026. These rejections of clams 6 and 7 are withdrawn.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to claim 10 necessitated a new 112b rejection, as presented above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §102 and 103
The rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR2013 are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received May 20, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that KR2013 does not teach the battery sets each being surrounded by a module case.
This argument is not persuasive. KR2013 teaches each battery set being surrounded by a module case (exterior members 213, Fig. 5).
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to the newly added limitations in 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).
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 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
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights