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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN-210723126-U) in view of Mori et al. (US-20140154559-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Li with the following modification in view of More teaches:
A battery module, comprising ( battery pack 3, see Fig. 1):
a battery cell stack including one or more battery cells (the battery packs 3 are described as comprising battery cores, see Pg4/L29-32),
Li is silent toward the structure of the battery cores and, therefore, does not teach:
each of the one or more battery cells including electrode leads,
To solve the same problem of designing an energy storage unit (see Abstract), Mori teaches a positive electrode terminal 200 and a negative electrode terminal 300 on each of the plural energy storage devices, see [0058] and Fig. 2. Mori further teaches the terminals are provided to electrically connect the electrode assembly and project from the container, see Fig. 2 and [0058].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the battery cores of Li with terminals to electrically connect the electrode assemblies as taught by Mori.
a housing for the battery cell stack (“battery box of the present invention includes a lower casing 1 and an upper cover 2,” see Figs. 1 and 3; Pg3/L34-35),
and a flame retardant sheet between the battery cell stack and the housing (battery packs 3 are covered with mica flakes 15 on the sidewalls and flame-retardant layer 16 on the upper portion wherein the flame-retardant layer 16 is made of mica flake, see Fig. 2 and Pg4/L29-31),
wherein the flame retardant sheet encloses a portion of the battery cell stack including an upper surface, a lower surface, and a first side surface, and a second side surface of the battery cell stack (Fig. 2 shows the battery packs 3 are covered with mica flakes 15 on the sidewalls and flame-retardant layer 16 on the upper portion this structure is interpreted to enclose an upper surface, a lower surface, and side surfaces),
wherein the portion excludes a front portion or a rear portion in a longitudinal direction of the battery cell stack (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
wherein the flame retardant sheet includes an upper surface that is adjacent to and parallel to the upper surface of the battery cell stack (flame-retardant layer 16 has at least one surface that is parallel and adjacent to the upper surface of the battery pack 3, see Fig. 2),
a lower surface that is adjacent to and parallel to the lower surface of the battery cell stack (mica flakes 15 has at least one surface that constitutes a lower edge that is both parallel and adjacent to the lower surface of battery 3, see Fig. 2),
and a first side surface that is adjacent to and parallel to the first side surface of the battery cell stack and a second side surface that is adjacent to and parallel to the second side surface of the battery cell stack (the mica flakes 15 has at least one surface that is parallel and adjacent to the indicated first and second side surfaces of the battery pack 3, see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
778
1072
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Li is silent toward the structure of the battery cores and does not teach:
wherein: the flame retardant sheet includes one or more openings in the portion of the battery cell stack covered by the flame retardant sheet, and the electrode leads extend through the one or more openings to outside.
To solve the same problem of designing an energy storage unit (see Abstract), Mori teaches disposing an insulating member that can suitably comprise mica and be a continuous sheet between the container of the individual energy storage devices and a bus bar wherein electrode terminals 200/300 fit through holes 165, see Fig. 8A-8B, [0145], and [0103]. Mori further teaches this arrangement prevents “electrical shorting between the bus bar and the container of an energy storage device in an abnormal state,” see [0044].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disposed the flame retardant layer 16 or the mica sheets 15 such that the terminal extend through holes to reduce electrical shorting between the container of the battery cores and a bus bar.
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches:
wherein: the flame retardant sheet includes a flame retardant material, and the flame retardant material includes at least one selected from silicone and mica (battery packs 3 are covered with mica flakes 15 on the sidewalls and flame-retardant layer 16 wherein the flame-retardant layer is made of mica flake, see Fig. 2 and Pg4/L29-31).
Regarding Claim 4, annotated Fig. 1 of Li given below teaches:
further comprising: a pair of end plates at respective ends in the longitudinal direction of the battery cell stack, wherein the flame retardant sheet is between one of the end plates and the battery cell stack in the front portion or the rear portion of the battery cell stack covered by the flame retardant sheet (at least a portion of the mica flake sheets 15 as shown to be between the indicated end plate and batteries 3 in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
759
879
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, annotated Fig. 1 of Li given below teaches:
wherein: the flame retardant sheet is not disposed between the one of the end plates and the battery cell stack in the front portion or the rear portion of the battery cell stack not covered by the flame retardant sheet (at least a portion of the mica flake sheets 15 as shown to not cover the indicated end plate and batteries 3 in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
990
1192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches:
wherein: the flame retardant sheet includes a plurality of vent holes in at least a portion of the flame retardant sheet (flame-retardant layer 16 is provided with a fire holes 161, see Pg4/L31-38 and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7, Li teaches:
wherein: the plurality of vent holes are in the portion of the flame retardant sheet adjacent to the upper surface of the battery cell stack (the fire holes 161 of the flame-retardant layer 16 are shown to be on the upper surface of the battery packs 3 in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 8, Li teaches:
wherein: the battery module is configured to induce flames produced during ignition in the battery cell stack to travel to the front portion or the rear portion of the battery cell stack that is not covered by the flame retardant sheet (“and at the same time the flames will circulate in the gap between the mica sheet 15 on the battery pack and the mica sheet 24 on the inner surface of the upper cover,” see Pg4/L35-38).
Regarding Claim 10, Fig. 1-2 of Li annotated below teach:
A battery pack, comprising:
at least one battery module of claim 1, and
a pack case for the at least one battery module.
PNG
media_image4.png
851
1387
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
759
833
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN-210723126-U) in view of Mori et al. (US-20140154559-A1) and Miyawaki (US-20220190425-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Li in view of Mori does not teach:
further comprising: a bus bar frame between the flame retardant sheet and the upper surface of the housing and electrically connected with the electrode leads.
To solve the same problem of designing an energy storage unit (see Abstract), Mori teaches disposing an insulating member that can suitably comprise mica and be a continuous sheet between the container of the individual energy storage devices and a bus bar wherein electrode terminals 200/300 fit through holes 165, see Fig. 8A-8B, [0145], and [0103]. Mori further teaches this arrangement prevents “electrical shorting between the bus bar and the container of an energy storage device in an abnormal state,” see [0044].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disposed the flame retardant layer 16 or the mica sheets 15 such that the terminal extend through holes to reduce electrical shorting between the container of the battery cores and a bus bar.
The structure of Mori does include bus bars but does not have the structure of a bus bar frame.
To solve the same problem of designing an energy storage apparatus (see Abstract) Miyawaki teach providing a bus bar holding member 600 (i.e., bus bar frame) to hold the bus bars 600.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a bus bar frame in the structure of Li in view of Mori in order to hold/organize the bus bars.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 of the response dated 02/04/2026 that the art of Li does not teach “any flame retardant material on the lower surface of its battery packs.” This argument has been fully considered an found unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. It is the Examiner’s position that the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claim term “adjacent” does not required the flame retardant sheet to be in direct physical contact with the bottom surface of the battery. It is interpreted that the lower edge of the mica sheet 15 is a surface that is both parallel and adjacent to the lower surface of the battery.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721