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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has resolved the rejection of claim 1 on the grounds of indefiniteness. Accordingly, said rejection is withdrawn.
Additionally, in regards to the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection in view of the amended claims, the applicant’s arguments are persuasive. However, a new rejection based on the same prior art Kim (US 20190097192 A1) is presented below, with a new mapping which reads upon the claims as amended. Here, specific notable differences from the previous rejection of record include mapping the first direction as being the vertical direction as depicted in Kim’s figure 5, with the second direction being the horizontal direction of the same figure, as well as mapping the end cover of claim 1 to Kim’s case frame 200, while the duct member of the instant claim is mapped to Kim’s case cover 300.
Additionally, where the applicant asserts that Kim’s guide barriers 320, 330, and 340 cannot be regarded as structures protruding from the edge of the seating portion towards the end cover, this argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive, in view of the new mapping in the action presented below.
The partition walls 320, 330, and 340 are a part of the seating portions, and the intersection of the partition walls and the internal top face and internal bottom face of the case cover 300 creates an edge, thereby resulting in the partition wall protruding from at least a portion of an edge of the seating portion. Additionally, the end cover is case frame 200, which as shown in Kim’s figure 5, comprises multiple walls which surround the partition walls. Here, the first direction, defined previously as the vertical direction of figure 5, is the direction in which the partition walls protrude from the portions of edges of the seating portion. Additionally, the instant claim requires that the partition wall protrude towards the end cover, which is interpreted as requiring that the direction of protrusion oriented towards the end cover in the first direction, without requiring any contact between the partition walls and the end cover. Accordingly, the partition wall protrudes from at least a portion of an edge of the seating portion towards the end cover in the first direction.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that the wall of the duct member is not a configuration that partitions the space inside the case cover 300 into a plurality of subspaces. This argument has been fully considered, but is not persuasive in view of the new mapping presented in the action below.
The duct member comprises the case cover 300 and the end cover comprises case frame 200, while the partition wall comprises partitions 320, 330, and 340. Accordingly, the partition walls are in indirect contact with the end cover 200, as shown in figure 5, contacting it through the seating portions, which are the inner upper face and inner lower face of the duct member as discussed above. Accordingly, where the end cover 200 surrounds the duct member 300, the space between the top of the end cover 200 and the bottom of the duct member 300, as shown in figure 5, can be considered to be space between the duct member and the end cover.
This interpretation is consistent with the language of the claim, as the claim specifies that the partition walls are a part of the duct member, and for the partition wall to partition a space between the duct member and the end cover, the partitioned space must therefore be able to include space within the duct member. Accordingly, where the partition walls partition space within the duct member 300 into a plurality of sub-spaces, as shown in figure 5, and where the space within the duct member is a space between the duct member and the end cover, as discussed above, Kim therefore discloses that the partition wall is in contact with the end cover to partition a space between the duct member and the end cover into a plurality of sub-spaces.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20190097192 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a battery module (Abstract, “Disclosed is a battery module,”) comprising a housing having an internal space and a plurality of battery cells accommodated in the internal space (Abstract, “which includes a plurality of battery cells, a case frame configured to accommodate the plurality of battery cells,”) and a cover assembly coupled to at least one side of the housing (Abstract, “and a case cover mounted to a front side and a rear side of the case frame to package the plurality of battery cells together with the case frame,”), shown in their figure 4 which depicts a case cover 300 (Paragraph 0032, “Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4, a battery module 10 may include a battery cell 100, a case frame 200 and a case cover 300.”).
Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the cover assembly comprises a duct member 300 forming a venting flow path along which gas, generated in at least a portion of the plurality of battery cells, is flowable, shown in their figure 5, which depicts a gas flow path from a plurality of battery cells 100 through a duct member formed within the cover assembly. Additionally, Kim discloses an end cover 200 including one or more outlets connected to the flow path, here the end cover 200 including outlet 250, which is connected to the venting flow path as shown in figure 5. Additionally the end cover 200 and outlet 250 face the duct member 300 in the first direction, where the first direction is the direction extending vertically in the perspective shown in figure 5, facing the portions of the duct member which are above and below, as shown in figure 2, where the end cover 200 surrounds the duct member 300, thereby resulting the faces of the end cover facing the duct member in the first direction.
Additionally, Kim discloses a plurality of filters disposed in the venting flow path, their filters being the three filters 370, 380, and 390 (Paragraph 0038, “a mesh member 370, a flame-retardant member 380 and a pre-filter 390.”). where the plurality of filters are disposed in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, where the plurality of filters are disposed in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, where the second direction is the axis which extends left-right/horizontally from the view depicted in Kim’s figure 5.
Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the duct member comprises a body portion comprising plurality of seating portions, shown in Kim’s figure 5, where the internal top face and internal bottom face of the case cover 300 are seating portions. Here these seating portions comprise partition walls 320, 330, and 340, through the partition walls being seated on and attached to the top face and the bottom face of the case cover 300. As shown in figure 5, the partition walls 320, 330, and 340 are positioned to at least partially surround the side walls of the filters of the plurality of filters 370 and 380, with partition wall 340 being in direct contact with, and therefore at least partially surrounding filters 370 and 380. Additionally, each seating portion comprises an inlet in fluid communication with the venting flow path, here the inlets being the inlet passages 335 and 345 located within the partition walls which are a part of the seating portions, where figure 5 depicts the venting flow path being in communication with the inlets. Additionally, the filters cover the inlet, as shown in figure 5, where filters 370 and 380 cover the flow path of the gas that moves through the inlet, thereby covering the inlet.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the partition wall protrudes from at least a portion of an edge of the seating portion toward the end cover in the first direction, Kim discloses said structure. As discussed above, the partition walls 320, 330, and 340 are a part of the seating portions, and the intersection of the partition walls and the internal top face and internal bottom face of the case cover 300 creates an edge, thereby resulting in the partition wall protruding from at least a portion of an edge of the seating portion. Additionally, as discussed above, the end cover is case frame 200, which as shown in Kim’s figure 5, comprises multiple walls which surround the partition walls. Here, the first direction, defined previously as the vertical direction of figure 5, is a direction in which the partition walls protrude from the portions of edges of the seating portion. Additionally, the instant claim requires that the partition wall protrude towards the end cover, which is interpreted as requiring that the direction of protrusion oriented towards the end cover in the first direction, without requiring any contact between the partition walls and the end cover. Accordingly, the partition wall protrudes from at least a portion of an edge of the seating portion towards the end cover in the first direction.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the partition wall is in contact with the end cover to partition a space between the duct member and the end cover into a plurality of sub-spaces, Kim discloses said structure. As discussed above, the duct member comprises the case cover 300 and the end cover comprises case frame 200, while the partition wall comprises partitions 320, 330, and 340. Accordingly, the partition walls are in indirect contact with the end cover 200, as shown in figure 5, contacting it through the seating portions, which are the inner upper face and inner lower face of the duct member as discussed above. Accordingly, where the end cover 200 surrounds the duct member 300, the space between the top of the end cover 200 and the bottom of the duct member 300, as shown in figure 5, can be considered to be space between the duct member and the end cover. This interpretation is consistent with the language of the claim, as the claim specifies that the partition walls are a part of the duct member, and for the partition wall to partition a space between the duct member and the end cover, the partitioned space must therefore be able to include space within the duct member. Accordingly, where the partition walls partition space within the duct member 300 into a plurality of sub-spaces, as shown in figure 5, and where the space within the duct member is a space between the duct member and the end cover, as discussed above, Kim therefore discloses that the partition wall is in contact with the end cover to partition a space between the duct member and the end cover into a plurality of sub-spaces.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein a first surface of the body portion opposes the end cover, shown in Kim’s figure 5, where the top of the body portion is positioned away from and extending in a direction away from the end cover, therefore opposing it. Additionally, a second surface opposite to the first surface of the body portion opposes the battery of cells, positioned away from and extending away from the plurality of cells, and therefore opposing them.
Additionally, Kim discloses structure where the seating portion is disposed on first surface of the body portion, where the faces of the walls of the body portion which are the seating portion are therefore seated on the body portion.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the edge of the seating portion forms a polygon, shown in Kim’s figure 3, where the edge of the seating portion forms a square/rectangle. Additionally, Kim discloses structure where the venting flow path passes through at least one side among sides of the polygon, where the venting flow path extends through said polygon, shown in Kim’s figure 5, where it extends through the duct member which includes the polygon, extending through the polygon.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure where the edge of the seating portion comprises a first edge on which the partition wall is disposed, shown in Kim’s figure 5 where the partition walls 340 and 330 are disposed a section of the edges of the seating portion, as well as second edge through which the venting flow path passes, this being the section of the seating portion’s edge which comprises the outlet vent 250.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 6. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the body portion includes a protrusion protruding on the second edge to support at least one of the plurality of filters, shown in Kim’s figure 5, where the outermost wall of component 310 is a protrusion protruding on the second edge, supporting the filter 370.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the one or more inlets penetrate through the body portion to communicate with the internal space of the housing, as shown in Kim’s figure 5, where the inlets, which are the region occupied by the pre-filter 390 and the first guide opening 325, penetrate through the volume occupied by the body portion to communicate with the internal space of the housing, where the battery cells are located.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the plurality of cells are stacked in a third direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, Kim discloses that in regards to the cells position and orientation it is required that the battery cells be stacked (Paragraph 0034, “The plurality of battery cells 100 may be stacked on one another so as to be electrically connected to each other”, and that the gas generated by the battery cells be able to flow in the second direction, as shown in figure 5. Additionally, though Kim’s disclosure of figure 5 depicts the battery cells stacked in the first direction, Kim discloses that their present disclosure is not limited to the drawings (See paragraph 0023). Accordingly, where Kim requires that the battery cells be stacked, and further does not disclose any specific criticality in regards to the orientation of the stacking, Kim therefore discloses stacking of their batteries both in the first direction, which is the vertical direction of figure 5, and a third direction, which is a direction on a normal axis of figure 5, which is perpendicular to the first direction.
Additionally, Kim discloses structure where the one or more inlets are disposed along the third direction, as shown in Kim’s figure 5, where the inlet is the space occupied by the filter 390, which is disposed in positions along the third direction’s axis. It is noted that a single inlet will always be disposed along the third direction, as the third direction is an axis, and any inlet in the battery will exist in the three dimensional space and have a position in said axis.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses the invention of Claim 10. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the one or more outlets are disposed along the third direction, which is the normal direction to Kim’s figure 5, where outlet 250 is disposed along the third direction, extending in the third direction. Here, as the third direction is an axis, any outlet in the battery will exist in the three dimensional space and have a position in said axis and therefore be one outlet disposed along the third direction.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses the invention of Claim 10. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the one or more inlets are spaced apart from the one or more outlets in the second direction, as shown in Kim’s figure 5, where the outlet 250 is spaced apart from the inlet portion which is the space occupied by filter 390 of the duct member in the second direction, where the second direction is a left-right/horizontal directional axis of the view shown in Kim’s figure 5. Here, the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction, where the first direction is an axis vertical to the perspective of figure 5, and the third direction is the normal directional axis of the perspective of figure 5.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the one or more inlets include a first inlet and a second inlet, where the first inlet is the passage comprising the volume occupied by the filter member 390 (where said passage is an outermost bound of the duct member, and through which gas flows into the duct member, as shown in Kim’s figure 5), and the second inlet is guide opening 325, and where the one or more outlets include a first outlet and a second outlet, those being the outlets 350 and 250, shown in Kim’s figure 5.
Additionally, Kim discloses structure where the venting flow path includes a first venting flow path connecting the first inlet and the first outlet to each other, shown in Kim’s figure 5 where the first inlet which is the passage comprising the volume occupied by the filter 390 connects to the first outlet 350, as well as a second flow path which connects the second inlet 325 to the second outlet 250. Here, the first venting flow path and the second venting flow path comprise portions which are separated from each other by a partition wall, where the portion of the first flow path before the second inlet 325 is separated from the second flow path by the partition wall 320.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the plurality of filters includes different types of filters, where the filters are a mesh member 370, a flame-retardant member 380 and a pre-filter 390 (Paragraph 0038, “a mesh member 370, a flame-retardant member 380 and a pre-filter 390.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190097192 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung (US 20220118838 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure comprising a busbar electrically connected to the plurality of battery cells, though Kim discloses structure which comprises a plurality of battery cells (Abstract, “Disclosed is a battery module, which includes a plurality of battery cells”) they fail to specifically disclose the components by which the battery cells are connected together. Therefore, we look to Jung, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a battery module comprising a plurality of stacked battery cells contained inside a cover (Abstract, “A battery module includes: a stacked structure including a plurality of stacked battery cells; and a front cover and a rear cover respectively disposed on a front side and a rear side of the stacked structure,”).
Here, Jung discloses structure where their stacked plurality of battery cells are interconnected by means of a pair of bus bars disposed on each respective electrode bearing end of the battery cells (Paragraph 0046, “a pair of bus bar assemblies 30 disposed at both longitudinal ends of the structure 100 of the stacked battery cells 110 and bonded to electrodes of the battery cells 110”). Here, Jung discloses that their bus bar assemblies further are bonded to the electrodes of their battery cells, and are contained within an insulating material, while having connecting pins that allow for the voltage of the battery to be detected at an outside of the busbar cover (Paragraph 0052, “The bus bar assemblies 30 may include metallic bus bars bonded to the electrodes of the battery cells 110 in an injection-molding structure made of an insulating material such as plastic and may have a connector having pins connected to bus bars, etc., so that the voltage of the battery cell 110 can be detected at the outside.”).
Here, where Jung discloses that their busbar assembly allows for the interconnection of their battery cells, as well as providing insulative protection from external objects, as well as allowing for controlled voltage detection outside the battery, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the busbar structure of Jung, including the insulative cover, to the invention of Kim, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 14. Additionally, as discussed above, Jung makes obvious a busbar structure which includes an insulating cover positioned on an outer side of the bus bar (Paragraph 0052, “The bus bar assemblies 30 may include metallic bus bars bonded to the electrodes of the battery cells 110 in an injection-molding structure made of an insulating material such as plastic and may have a connector having pins connected to bus bars, etc., so that the voltage of the battery cell 110 can be detected at the outside.”). Here, where the bus bar is fixed to the electrodes of the battery, the outer side of the bus bar where the insulating cover is located is therefore located between the bus bar and the end cover.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 15. Additionally, in regards to the combination of Kim and Jung discussed above, where the insulating cover is positioned adjacent to the busbar, which is located on the electrode terminals, and where the body portion is positioned on the end cover side facing the plurality of battery cells, the body portion is therefore disposed between the insulating cover and the end cover.
Additionally, where the busbar is located on the contact ends of the batteries, and where the housing extends around to surround the structure of the duct assembly, the inlet of the duct assembly is therefore positioned between the busbar and a section of the housing, based on the basic structure shown in Kim’s figure 5.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190097192 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bradwell (US 20220013835 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim anticipates the invention of Claim 17. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure where at least one of the plurality of filters has amorphous pores, though Kim discloses three types of filters, a mesh member 370, a flame-retardant member 380 and a pre-filter 390 (Paragraph 0038, “a mesh member 370, a flame-retardant member 380 and a pre-filter 390.”), Kim is silent in regards to pore structure in any of their filters. Here, for the purpose of examination the term “amorphous pore” is interpreted as corresponding to an irregular pore structure, based on the disclosure of the instant specification (Paragraph 00125, “Among the plurality of filters 340, at least some filters 340 may include metal-mesh filters including a composite layer or mesh filters including porous metal foam. The porous metal foam may have a porous structure having amorphous pores.”).
Therefore, we look to Bradwell, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing an energy storage system comprising a plurality of battery cells (Abstract, “The energy storage system may comprise a plurality of electrochemical cells,”) which are protected by a ventilation system which ventilates the battery cells to remove dangerous gasses (Paragraph 0015, “In some embodiments, the energy storage system further comprises a ventilation system configured to ventilate the enclosure upon the enclosure reaching a threshold temperature. In some embodiments, the ventilation system comprises a filter configured to remove hydrogen chloride or chlorine gas.”).
Here, Bradwell discloses the use of an activated carbon filter, which is further impregnated with acid and chlorine neutralizing compounds (Paragraph 0118, “The filtration portion of the filtration system may comprise an activated carbon filter. The activated carbon filter may be impregnated with acid and chlorine neutralizing compounds such as potassium hydroxide and potassium iodide, for example.”), as well as a particulate absorbing HEPA filter, which is made of randomly arranged fibers to filter out solid particles (Paragraph 0118, “The filtration system may also comprise a high-efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter. The HEPA filter may be made of a mat of randomly arranged fibers (e.g., fiberglass fibers) that filter solid particles in any vapors released from the cell during a breach.”). Here, where the activated carbon filter, and HEPA filter both achieve the goals of the filtration system of Kim, that being to filter out particulates in the case of their pre-filter (Paragraph 0067, “First, the pre-filter 390 disposed near the battery cells 100 may prevent a large flame or a dust or fragment larger than a predetermined size, which may be generated at the ignition point during the ignition, from penetrating into the anti-exposure channel 360.”), and the filtration and prevention of gasses before being released to an exterior environment for the mesh member 370, as shown in Kim’s figure 3, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the activated carbon filter and HEPA filters of Bradwell to the invention of Kim. Accordingly, where activated carbon is a carbon structure formed as a bed of particles, it would therefore have irregular pores, and where the HEPA filter comprises randomly arranged fibers, it too would have an irregular pore structure, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights