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.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto, et. al. (US10680219B2), in view of Lee, et. al. (US2021320374A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakamoto teaches a battery module (battery pack 100) comprising: a cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are vertically stacked (a plurality of unit cells 110; at [0049], the text and Fig. 1 together indicate the cells 110 are vertically stacked); a module housing in which the cell stack is accommodated (pressurization unit 120); a bus bar frame assembly (bus bar holder 131) covering an opening portion formed on a side of the module housing (the pressurization unit is shown to cover four faces of the cell stack 110S; the “opening” is the opening formed by this housing) in a longitudinal direction of the module housing (see Fig. 1). Nakamoto at [0049, 74-79], Fig .1-2. Nakamoto teaches the bus bar holder is composed of an insulating resin, and that its insulating parts 131c prevent accidental electrical discharge. Id. at [0081 - 83]. However, this resin is electrically insulating rather than thermally insulating. Nakamoto teaches a protective cover 134 for protecting the busbars.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
637
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1-2 of Nakamoto.
However, Nakamoto is silent as to a fire-proof sheet assembly located between the bus bar frame assembly and the cell stack and coupled to the bus bar frame assembly.
Lee teaches a “[0010] cell stack formed by stacking a plurality of battery cells and a plurality of mica barrier assemblies and a pair of bus bar frames coupled to both side portions of the cell stack; and a housing configured to accommodate the cell stack assembly and having a plurality of flow path holes formed at locations corresponding to a front side, a rear side and both side portions of the cell stack assembly, wherein the mica barrier assembly is provided between adjacent battery cells and at an outermost side of the cell stack to form a flow path along a stacking direction of the cell stack at a temperature lower than a reference temperature and to block the flow path at a temperature equal to or higher than the reference temperature.” Lee at [0010].This teaches, “a fire-proof sheet assembly located between the bus bar frame assembly and the cell stack and coupled to the bus bar frame assembly,” because Lee teaches “[0046] Mica constituting the mica barrier 112 a is one of coarse materials constituting granite and has excellent electrical insulation properties and very little change in properties when heated. The mica maintains an insulation resistance of approximately 150 kV/mm even at high temperatures of 500° C. to 1000° C. and may be used as an asbestos substitute serving as an eco-friendly material. In addition, the mica has excellent flame retardancy and smoke-free properties during combustion or heating.” Id. at [0046]. Lee teaches this mica sheet provides the benefit of “[0021] smoothly discharge[ing] gas generated by venting of the battery cell in normal use and simultaneously to delay/prevent that flame generated in some battery cells propagates to adjacent battery cells.” Id. at [0021]. Put simply, the mica sheet allows the flame to be channeled to the mesh plate 600 of the side plate, which helps to further halt the flow of flame.
PNG
media_image3.png
487
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Lee, depicting the first mica plate 700, second mica plate 800, situated between the bus bar frame 120 on one side and the cell stack assembly 100 on the other.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the bus bar frame 131 of Nakamoto, such that it comprises the fire-proof sheet assembly (mica plates 700, 800 of Lee) of Lee, because Lee teaches a benefit to excellent flame retardancy and redirecting flame and heat.
Claim 1 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto teaches a module housing comprises: a base plate (lower pressurization plate 122) supporting the cell stack (100S); and a pair of side plates covering both side portions of the cell stack (side plates 123). Regarding the limitation, “wherein each of the pair of side plates comprises a spark direction changing portion formed by bending an end portion of the side plate in a longitudinal direction toward the cell stack,” Examiner notes that the side plates 123 and the columns formed by the first spacer 114 and second spacer 115 (and their mirrored portions) form similar protruding / “bent” portions to the spark redirection portions 200a of the instant application’s Fig. 1. Further, without additional spatial information as to the location of spark generation, this “portion” is defined by its structure rather than its function. For this the side plates 123 and the columns formed by the first spacer 114 and second spacer 115 (and their mirrored portions) read upon spark redirection portions.
Claim 2 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee. Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto teaches an opening portion (formed by the four faces of the pressurization unit) is formed between a pair of spark changing portions (the protruding portions shown in Fig. 2) provided on the pair of side plates. Nakamoto at Fig. 3.
In Fig. 3A – 3B, Nakamoto depicts electrode tabs 112 which are formed and welded to the busbars along a contact 132 c, which extends outwards longitudinally. Id. at Fig. 3A – 3B. This reads upon, “wherein an electrode lead of the battery cell is exposed to outside of the module housing through the opening portion,” given the “outside of the module housing” is covered by the bus bar frame assembly, meaning the leads are still ultimately internal, and because they extend out through the opening despite uniting in the bus bar contact 132 c.
Claim 3 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto discloses a battery pack. Nakamoto at [0001].
Modified Nakamoto teaches a battery pack comprising the battery module according to any one of claim 1.
Claim 11 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto teaches battery packs for a vehicle; Lee teaches an “ESS module having a structure capable of preventing external exposure of flame.” Lee at [0002].
Claim 12 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto teaches battery packs which can be “mounted in vehicles.” Claim 13 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto teaches the unit cells of the battery pack are stacked in a vertical direction in Fig. 1. Nakamoto at Fig. 1.
Claim 15 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee.
Claims 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto, in view of Golubkov, further in view of Lee, et. al. (US 20190389318 A1; this is hereinafter referred to as Sa, et. al., referring to the second author, because the surname Lee is already used to refer to another reference).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto teaches a bus bar frame covering the opening portion.
Sa teaches a frame assembly 1, comprising tabs T1, T2, wherein the tabs “pass through the slits 1211 and 1221 formed in the first bus bars 121 and 122.” Lee at [0113]. The tabs T1 and T2 are bent “such that the surfaces of the tabs come into contact with the front surfaces of the first bus bars 121 and 122 . . . [and] are bonded to the first bus bars 121 and 122 . . . so as to be electrically connected to each other.” Id. Lee teaches this reduces the number of welding processes between the tab terminals by more than half. Id. at [0114]. This reads upon “a plurality of frame slits through which an electrode lead of the battery cell passes; and at least one bus bar located on an outer surface of the bus bar frame and coupled to the electrode lead passing through the frame slit.”
PNG
media_image4.png
487
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify modified Nakamoto, such that the bus bar assembly comprises “a plurality of frame slits through which an electrode lead of the battery cell passes; and at least one bus bar located on an outer surface of the bus bar frame and coupled to the electrode lead passing through the frame slit” as in Sa, because Sa teaches a benefit to reducing welding processes between tab terminals.
Claim 4 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee, and further in view of Sa.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto teaches a protective cover 135, which protects the bus bars 132, and is made of insulating plastic.
Sa teaches a frame assembly 1, comprising tabs T1, T2, wherein the tabs “pass through the slits 1211 and 1221 formed in the first bus bars 121 and 122.” Lee at [0113]. The tabs T1 and T2 are bent “such that the surfaces of the tabs come into contact with the front surfaces of the first bus bars 121 and 122 . . . [and] are bonded to the first bus bars 121 and 122 . . . so as to be electrically connected to each other.” Id. Lee teaches this reduces the number of welding processes between the tab terminals by more than half. Id. at [0114]. This reads upon “a sheet cover comprising a plurality of cover slits through which the electrode lead of the battery cell passes.”
One of ordinary skill would find it obvious to further modify the fire-proof sheet assembly of modified Nakamoto, such that it further comprises “a fire-proof sheet comprising a plurality of sheet slits through which an electrode lead of the plurality of battery cells passes, respectively; and a sheet cover comprising a plurality of cover slits through which the electrode lead of the plurality of battery cells passes, respectively, the sheet cover covering the fire-proof sheet,” because Sa demonstrates a benefit to reduced welding processes in the same manner as above. Treating the device of modified Nakamoto as the base device, the prior art contains the known technique of utilizing slits to permit pass-through of battery tabs or leads for coupling to the bus bars of a bus bar frame, and creating slits within a sheet cover comprising a plurality of cover slits through which the electrode lead of the plurality of battery cells pass, to permit the connection of the bus bars through the insulation would have the predictable result and improvement of permitting electrical connection, further indicating obviousness.
Claim 5 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee, and further in view of Sa.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 5.
Regarding the term, “a shape whose width decreases toward the bus bar frame assembly,” the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (which repeats this phrase at p. 11 without elaboration, and wherein at Fig. 6 the slits do not decrease in size sequentially) includes an interpretation wherein “toward the specification” includes in the x direction, or the direction facing the cell stack, and “decreases” indicates a shallow width or a decrease relative to the perpendicular direction. Lee at Fig. 3 shows a series of slits which meet this criteria.
Claim 10 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee and Sa.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto, in view of Lee and Sa, and further in view of Chou, et. al. (US 20030203267 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 5. Claim 5 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Lee teaches a fire-proof sheet, but is silent as to the use of mica. As modified, modified Nakamoto comprises the fire-proof sheet assembly of Claim 5.
Chou teaches a seal for an electrochemical device, which may comprise a mica component; Chou teaches “[0057] When split into thin films, they remain tough and elastic even at high temperature . . . With respect to electrical properties, mica has the unique combination of great dielectric strength, uniform dielectric constant and capacitance stability, low power loss (high Q factor), high electric resistivity and low temperature coefficient and capacitance . . . With respect to thermal properties, mica is fire proof, infusible, incombustible, and non-flammable and can resist temperatures in excess of 600.degree. C., and significantly higher, depending upon the type of mica. It has low heat conductivity, excellent thermal stability, and may be exposed to high temperatures without noticeable effect. Mica is also relatively soft and can be hand cut, machined or die-punched. It is flexible, elastic and tough, having high tensile strength, and can withstand great mechanical pressure perpendicular to plane but the lamination has cleavage and can be easily split into very thin leaves.” Chou at [0057].
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the fire-proof sheet of modified Nakamoto to comprise a mica sheet, because Chou teaches a benefit to fire-proof performance, stability, electrical resistivity, machinability, and strength.
Claim 6 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee, Sa, and further in view of Chou.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 6. Claim 6 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Regarding the meaning of the term “the mica sheet is not exposed to external air,” this term is not given special definition within the specification. However, the mechanism recited at page 11 of the present specification teaches “when the sheet cover 420 formed of a resin injection molding product is melted by high temperature venting gas and sparks, rapidly close the cover slit 420b and block the inflow of air from the outside of the battery module. Lee teaches “[0043] However, if the temperature rises further to reach the reference temperature equal to or higher than a temperature at which some battery cells 111 cause thermal runaway, the flow path is blocked to prevent the flame generated due to the thermal runaway of some battery cells 111 from propagating to adjacent battery cells 111 inside the cell stack, thereby suppressing rapid propagation of the thermal runaway phenomenon.” To the extent that “exposed to external air,” is understood, it is taken to mean the inflow of external air may be blocked during flame generation, not that the there are no openings present on the sheet cover (here, read upon by the mesh sheet 600).
Claim 7 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee and Sa, and further in view of Chou.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto, in view of Lee and Sa, and further in view of Sakurai, et. al. (US 20190006643 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Modified Nakamura is silent as to a fastening frame.
Sakurai teaches a battery module having a cell stack body with a pair of end plates on the front and rear surface, wherein the fastening frame connects the pair of end plates. Sakurai at Fig. 1, [0080]. The end plates comprise a hollow portion penetrating in an up down direction. Id. at [0027], Fig.1. These end plates’ hollow portions 33 meet fixing portions 63 to secure the plates. Id. at [0113]. Sakurai teaches a benefit to cost reduction because it is not necessary to lengthen the lower frame to provide fixing portions and because press working is not required. Id.
PNG
media_image5.png
462
612
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Sakurai
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the battery module housing of Nakamoto, such that the housing comprises a fastening frame connecting the pair of spark direction changing portions, connected to a hollow end plate wherein the extending leads pass through holes in the hollow portions to meet the bus bar frame. This modification meets “wherein the module housing further comprises a fastening frame connecting the pair of spark direction changing portions and having an empty central portion.” As modified, this hollow portion is between the frame slits of the fire-proof assembly as previously modified and the busbar assembly, given that this hollow portion is an “end plate.” This is obvious because Sakurai teaches a benefit to stability, as well as lowering costs associated with extending the components of the battery and in modified Nakamoto, this hollow space would provide additional structural support to the leads without requiring additional fasteners.
Claim 8 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee and Sa, and further in view of Sakurai.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies on Claim 8. Claim 8 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
As previously modified, modified Nakamoto teaches the fastening frame is located between the bus bar frame assembly and the fire-proof sheet assembly, wherein the bus bar frame assembly and the fire-proof sheet assembly are closely attached to the fastening frame, and are coupled to each other through the empty central portion of the fastening frame. Here, “closely attached” includes a configuration wherein the leads, the fastening frame portions of Sakurai, and the pressurization unit of Nakamoto, “couple” the end plates of Sakurai, fire-proof sheet assembly, and bus bar frame assembly.
Claim 8 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee and Sa, and further in view of Sakurai.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto, in view of Lee and Sa, and further in view of Chun, et. al. (US2021074978A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 5. Claim 5 is obvious over modified Nakamoto.
Nakamoto is silent as to melting.
Chun teaches a safety vent for a lithium ion battery, wherein “[0017] the safety vent may be covered by attaching a resin plate to the surface of the curved portion, or a resin layer may be directly coated on the surface of the safety vent, thereby preventing the surface of the safety vent exposed to the exterior of the coating from being oxidized or damaged when the safety vent is formed. When the temperature of the secondary battery increases to exceed a predetermined temperature, the resin plate or the resin layer may be melted, so that the operation of the safety vent may not be hampered.” More directly, Chun teaches “[0012] A resin plate melted at a temperature of 100° C. to 300° C. may be attached to the curved portion to cover the safety vent.” This reads upon “a resin product that is configured to melt in a presence of venting gas or sparks,” because the “predetermined temperature,” and the temperature of 100 to 300C indicates that in the presence of venting gas or sparks, this resin plate or layer would melt. Further, “the operation of the safety vent” includes, for example, the redirection of flames or hot gas, and the prevention of a flow of air to stoke said flames.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the battery of modified Nakamura, such that it comprises the resin plate of Chun along the sheet cover of Lee as applied to Nakamura, such that it includes a resin product that is configured to melt in a presence of venting gas or sparks.
Claim 14 is obvious over Nakamoto, in view of Lee and Sa, and further in view of Chun.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments / Remarks Filed in an Amendment filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725