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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 Sep 2025, with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection now addresses the newly-amended claims, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Objections to claim 8 are withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 16-17 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn as these claims have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2020/0161611) in view of Ahn (US 2020/0194854) and Choi (US 2018/0097211).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a safety structure comprising a plurality of battery modules (100) that each include a plurality of battery cells stacked in a row between opposite endplates (110, [0045], [0049], Fig. 1). Sun further discloses a lower casing which covers a lower side of the battery modules (100) that are two-dimensionally arrayed (Fig. 1), but Sun does not disclose an upper cover coupled to the lower casing and covering an upper side of the battery modules.
Ahn, also working in the field of battery packs for electric vehicles, teaches a case for a plurality of battery modules (17) that comprises an upper cover (15) coupled to a lower casing (11) that covers the battery modules ([0033], Figs. 1-2). Ahn teaches that this allows for a sealed internal space to be created in which the battery modules can be housed ([0033]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to couple an upper casing to the lower casing to the safety structure of Sun such that said upper cover covers an upper side of Sun’s battery modules. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to create a sealed internal space in which to house the battery modules, as taught by Ahn.
Further regarding claim 1, Sun discloses battery modules (100) that each include a plurality of battery cells stacked in a row between opposite endplates (110, [0045], [0049], Fig. 1), but Sun does not disclose a plurality of connecting rods structurally connecting the opposite endplates. Further, Sun does not disclose endplates having a portion that protrudes outward.
Choi, also working in the field of battery module design, teaches a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells (100) stacked in a row between opposite endplates (460, [0033]-[0034], Figs. 1-2). Choi’s endplates (460) each comprise a protruding portion that protrudes outward and are connected by a plurality of connecting rods (support bars 465) structurally connecting the opposite endplates (460, [0015], [0034], Fig. 1 and Illustration 1 below). Choi further teaches that the use of connecting rods to couple opposite endplates increases the durability of the battery case by preventing the endplates from moving due to cell expansion ([0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 1 of Choi.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the endplates of Sun’s battery modules with enddplates having protruding portions that are connected via connecting rods coupled to the opposite endplates in the manner taught by Choi. Said artisan would have been motivated to add these connecting rods because Choi teaches that the use of connecting rods improves the durability of the battery case.
Further regarding claim 1, the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi as applied above comprises battery modules (Sun: 100), endplates (Choi: 460) having portions that protrude outward and coupled to connecting rods (Choi: 465), and a lower casing (Sun: Fig. 1), but does not disclose first cut-off pads disposed between a portion of the endplates that protrudes outward and the lower casing,
However, Sun teaches first cut-off pads (elastic pads 221) made of an insulating material (i.e., rubber) that are disposed on lateral sides of the endplates (110) of the battery modules ([0049]-[0051], Figs. 1-3). Sun teaches that when the battery module experiences an impact force, the cut-off pads can absorb some of this force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack ([0046], Figs. 2-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi with first cut-off pads disposed between a portion of the endplates that protrudes outward and the lower casing. This is because Sun teaches the use of cut-off pads to absorb force between laterally-adjacent battery modules, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the same design concept could be used in an analogous way to protect the battery modules from impact forces arising beneath the module by providing the system with first cut-off pads disposed between a portion of the endplates that protrudes outward and the lower casing. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to absorb impact forces and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Sun.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi as applied above comprises first cut-off pads (Sun: 221) disposed between a portion of the endplates (Choi: 460) that protrudes outward and the lower casing (Choi: Figs. 1-3, Sun: Fig. 1, and see Illustration 1 above). The prior art structure comprises endplates (Choi: 460) having portions (i.e., the protruding portions shown in Illustration 1) where gaps between the endplates and the lower casing become locally narrow. Further, Sun teaches that first cut-off pads (221) disposed on battery endplates can absorb impact force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack ([0046], Figs. 2-3).
Because this locally-narrow portion is the part of the endplate closest to the lower casing and is most likely to be impacted by impacts coming from the lower casing, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to dispose the first cut-off pads in portions where gaps between the endplates of the battery modules and the lower casing become locally narrow. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to absorb impact forces acting on the battery and thereby improve battery safety, as taught by Sun.
Regarding claim 3, Sun discloses a safety structure comprising first cut-off pads (221) that are attached to endplates (110) and a lower casing (see Figs. 1-3). Sun does not disclose first cut-off pads that are attached to a top surface of the lower casing and spaced from each other.
However, Sun teaches that when the battery module experiences an impact force, the cut-off pads can absorb some of this force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack ([0046], Figs. 2-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sun’s safety structure with first cut-off pads between the top surface of the lower casing and the endplates in order to absorb impact forces striking the battery module from the lower casing below, because this would be analogous to the use of first cut-off pads placed on the sides of the endplates taught by Sun. While Sun’s first cut-off pads are attached to the endplates rather than the lower casing (Fig. 2-3), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that attaching the first cut-off pads to the top surface of the lower casing would be an equivalent design choice that would accomplish the same result of absorbing impact forces acting on the battery.
Further regarding claim 3, Sun only explicitly discloses the use of a single first cut-off pad (221) rather than multiple first cut-off pads spaced from each other (Figs. 2-3). However, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that adding multiple pads spaced from each other would provide additional impact protection to the battery module, and said artisan would therefore have found it obvious to provide first cut-off pads that are attached to a top surface of the lower casing and spaced from each other.
Regarding claim 7, the combined prior art references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi as applied above teach a safety structure comprising endplates (Sun: 110) having lateral end portions (Sun: Fig. 1) and first cut-off pads (Sun: 221) made of an insulating material (see the rejection of claim 1 above), but do not teach a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members. The combined prior art references also do not teach a fourth cut-off pad made of an insulating material provided to longitudinal and/or cross members.
Ahn, also working in the field of battery pack design, teaches a housing for a battery pack comprising a lower casing (case 11) and an upper cover (top cover 15) coupled to the lower casing wherein the housing comprises a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members which are respectively mounted between the battery modules of the battery pack ([0033], Figs. 1 and 3 and Illustration 2 below. Fig. 3 shows battery modules 17 mounted between one of the longitudinal members, see Illustration 3 below).
Ahn teaches that this housing design provides a sealed internal space for the battery modules and provides a bottom plate (111) that the battery modules can be fixed to ([0033]).
PNG
media_image2.png
353
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
294
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: Reproduction with modification of Figs. 1 and 3 of Ahn.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to use the lower casing and upper cover of Ahn as the lower casing and upper cover for the battery pack of the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi such that a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members which are respectively mounted between the battery modules of the battery pack. Said artisan would have been motivated to use Ahn’s lower casing and upper cover, as Ahn teaches that these housing components provide a sealed internal space for the battery modules and a surface for the battery modules to be fixed to.
Further regarding claim 7, the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi as set forth above teaches battery modules that are mounted adjacent to a longitudinal member (see Illustration 2 above) such that longitudinal members are adjacent to a lateral end portion of the endplates of each battery module. Sun additionally teaches that placing cut-off pads (Sun: 221) made of an insulating material adjacent to a battery modules (100) can absorb an impact force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack (Sun: [0046], Figs. 2-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide fourth cut-off pads made of an insulating material to the lateral end portions of the endplates of the battery modules taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi as set forth above in order absorb impact forces and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack, as taught by Sun.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2020/0161611) in view of Ahn (US 2020/0194854) and Choi (US 2018/0097211) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Anantharaman (US 2009/0263705).
Regarding claim 4, Sun discloses battery modules (100) wherein each battery module is secured between endplates (110) and can thereby reasonably be said to be provided as a single unit, but the prior art does not disclose clamps respectively connecting the opposite endplates at upper and lower sides.
Anantharaman, also working in the field of battery pack design, teaches a battery module in which the battery modules is provided as a single unit by clamps (straps 104) connecting opposite endplates (108) of the module at upper and lower sides ([0030], Fig. 2A-2B). Anantharaman further teaches that these clamps help to couple the endplates together ([0030]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to apply the clamps taught by Anantharaman to the endplates of Sun’s battery modules in order to more securely couple the endplates together, as taught by Anantharaman.
Further regarding claim 4, the combined references of Sun and Anantharaman as applied above teach battery modules (Sun: 100) coupled together via clamps (Anantharaman: 104), a lower casing (Sun: Fig. 1), and cut-off pads (221) made of an insulating material (i.e., rubber). Further, Sun teaches that placing these cut-off pads adjacent to a battery modules (100) can absorb an impact force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack (Sun: [0046], Figs. 2-3). The prior art applied above does not teach a second cut-off pad made of an insulating material and disposed in a space between the lower casing and the clamps of each battery module.
However, because Sun teaches cut-off pads that absorb an impact force, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply this same design concept in an analogous way to also protect the clamps of the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun and Anantharaman as applied above. As such, said artisan would have found it obvious to add second cut-off pads similar to the cut-off pads taught by Sun in a space between the lower casing and the clamps of the battery module taught by the combined references of Sun and Anantharaman, and said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition in order to protect the clamps from impact forces from the lower casing.
Regarding claim 5, the combined prior art references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as applied above teach first cut-off pads (Sun: 221) that are attached to a top surface of the lower casing and spaced from each other (see the rejection of claim 3 above), but do not teach second cut-off pads attached to the top surface of the lower casing and disposed between, and spaced from, said first cut-off pads.
However, Sun teaches that cut-off pads absorb an impact force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack (Sun: [0046], Figs. 2-3). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the structure taught by the combined prior art references by adding additional second cut-off pads attached to the top surface of the lower casing and disposed between, and spaced from, the first cut-off pads. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide additional impact force absorption and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Sun.
Regarding claim 6, the combined prior art references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as applied above teach first cut-off pads (Sun: 221) made of an insulating material that are attached to a top surface of the lower casing and spaced from each other (see the rejection of claim 3 above), but do not teach a third cut-off pad made of insulating material and disposed on an inner surface of the upper cover facing the upper side of the battery modules.
However, Sun teaches that cut-off pads made of an insulating material (rubber) absorb an impact force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack (Sun: [0046], [0049], Figs. 2-3). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the structure taught by the combined prior art references by adding additional third cut-off pads made of insulating material and disposed on an inner surface of the upper cover facing the upper side of the battery modules
Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide additional impact force absorption to the battery module and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Sun.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2020/0161611) in view of Ahn (US 2020/0194854) and Choi (US 2018/0097211) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon (KR 20180067757A, as read via machine translation).
Regarding claims 8-9, Sun discloses a safety structure comprising a battery pack (Fig. 1), but does not disclose a mounting bracket or electrical parts mounted to a mounting bracket. Sun further does not disclose a fifth cut-off pad made of a heat-resistant and insulating material disposed on a bottom surface of a mounting bracket.
Kwon, also working in the field of battery housings, teaches a mounting bracket (mounting parts 113) onto which electrical parts comprising a power relay assembly (junction block housing 110, comprising power relay assembly) are mounted to the cover (200) of a battery housing ([0027]-[0028], [0030], Figs. 1 and 4). While Kwon depicts an embodiment in which the bracket (113) is mounted to a side cover (200) of the battery housing such that the electrical parts are disposed laterally to the battery modules (Fig. 1 and 4), mounting the bracket to the top cover of a battery housing such that the electrical parts are disposed above the battery modules and the electrical parts are mounted to an upper side of the mounting bracket would be an obvious rearrangement of Kwon’s design that would accomplish the same desired results of mounting the electrical parts adjacent to the battery modules. Kwon teaches that this mounting bracket allows for electrical parts such as a power relay assembly, high-voltage junction box, and a battery management unit to communicate with the battery modules and thereby facilitate maintenance of the batteries ([0001]-[0004]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to add the mounting bracket and power relay assembly of Kwon to the safety structure of Sun such that a power relay assembly is disposed above the two- dimensionally arrayed battery modules and the electrical parts are mounted to an upper side of the mounting bracket. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition to Sun’s system in order to allow the power relay assembly to communicate with the battery modules and thereby facilitate the maintenance of the batteries, as taught by Kwon.
Further regarding claims 8-9, the combined references of Sun and Kwon as applied above do not teach a fifth cut-off pad made of insulating material is disposed on a bottom surface of the mounting bracket.
However, Sun teaches first cut-off pads (elastic pads 221) made of an insulating material (i.e., rubber) that are disposed on lateral sides of the endplates (110) of the battery modules ([0049]-[0051], Figs. 1-3). Sun teaches that when the battery module experiences an impact force, the cut-off pads can absorb some of this force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack ([0046], Figs. 2-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi with fifth cut-off pads disposed on a bottom surface of the mounting bracket.
This is because Sun teaches the use of cut-off pads to absorb force between laterally-adjacent battery modules, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the same design concept could be used in an analogous way to protect the battery modules from impact forces arising between the battery pack and the bottom surface of the mounting bracket. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to absorb impact forces and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Sun.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2020/0161611) in view of Ahn (US 2020/0194854), Choi (US 2018/0097211), and Anantharaman (US 2009/0263705).
Regarding claim 10, Sun discloses a safety structure comprising a plurality of battery modules (100) that each include a plurality of battery cells stacked in a row where opposite sides of the modules are covered with endplates (110, [0045], [0049], Fig. 1). Sun further discloses a lower casing which covers a lower side of the battery modules (100, Fig. 1), but Sun does not disclose an upper cover coupled to the lower casing and covering an upper side of the battery modules from above.
Ahn, also working in the field of battery packs for electric vehicles, teaches a case for a plurality of battery modules (17) that comprises an upper cover (15) coupled to a lower casing (11) that covers the battery modules ([0033], Figs. 1-2). Ahn teaches that this allows for a sealed internal space to be created in which the battery modules can be housed ([0033]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to couple an upper casing to the lower casing to the safety structure of Sun such that said upper cover covers an upper side of Sun’s battery modules from above. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to create a sealed internal space in which to house the battery modules, as taught by Ahn.
Further regarding claim 10, Sun discloses battery modules (100) that each include a plurality of battery cells stacked in a row between opposite endplates (110, [0045], [0049], Fig. 1), but Sun does not endplates having a portion that protrudes outward.
Choi, also working in the field of battery module design, teaches a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells (100) stacked in a row between opposite endplates (460, [0033]-[0034], Figs. 1-2). Choi’s endplates (460) each comprise a protruding portion that protrudes outward and are connected by a plurality of connecting rods (support bars 465) structurally connecting the opposite endplates (460) at upper and lower sides ([0015], [0034], Figs. 1-2 and Illustration 1 above). Choi further teaches that the use of connecting rods to couple opposite endplates increases the durability of the battery case by preventing the endplates from moving due to cell expansion ([0034]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the endplates of Sun’s battery modules with enddplates having protruding portions that are connected via connecting rods coupled to the opposite endplates in the manner taught by Choi, Said artisan would have been motivated to add these connecting rods because Choi teaches that the use of connecting rods improves the durability of the battery case.
Further regarding claim 10, the combined prior art references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi as applied above teach a safety structure comprising endplates (Sun: 110) having lateral end portions (Sun: Fig. 1) and first cut-off pads (Sun: 221) made of an insulating material (see the rejection of claim 1 above), but do not teach a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members coupled to the lower casing and each positioned between the plurality of battery modules.
Ahn, also working in the field of battery pack design, teaches a housing for a battery pack comprising a lower casing (case 11) and an upper cover (top cover 15) coupled to the lower casing wherein the housing comprises a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members which are coupled to the lower casing (11) and which are respectively mounted between the plurality of battery modules of the battery pack ([0033], Figs. 1 and 3 and Illustration 2 above. Fig. 3 shows battery modules 17 mounted between one of the longitudinal members, see Illustration 3 above). Ahn teaches that this housing design provides a sealed internal space for the battery modules and provides a bottom plate (111) that the battery modules can be fixed to ([0033]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to use the lower casing and upper cover of Ahn as the lower casing and upper cover for the battery pack of the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi such that a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members which are respectively coupled to the lower casing and mounted between the battery modules of the battery pack. Said artisan would have been motivated to use Ahn’s lower casing and upper cover, as Ahn teaches that these housing components provide a sealed internal space for the battery modules and a surface for the battery modules to be fixed to.
Further regarding claim 10, the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi as applied above comprises battery modules (Sun: 100), endplates (Choi: 460) having portions that protrude outward and coupled to connecting rods (Choi: 465), and a lower casing (Sun: Fig. 1), but does not disclose cut-off pads made of an insulating material and disposed in at least one of the lower casing, the upper cover, the longitudinal members or the cross members wherein the cutoff pads are disposed between a portion of the endplates that protrudes outward and the lower casing.
However, Sun teaches cut-off pads (elastic pads 221) made of an insulating material (i.e., rubber) that are disposed in the lower casing and that are disposed on lateral sides of the endplates (110) of the battery modules ([0049]-[0051], Figs. 1-3). Sun teaches that when the battery module experiences an impact force, the cut-off pads can absorb some of this force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack ([0046], Figs. 2-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi with cut-off pads disposed in the lower casing and disposed between a portion of the endplates that protrudes outward and the lower casing. This is because Sun teaches the use of cut-off pads to absorb force between laterally-adjacent battery modules, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the same design concept could be used in an analogous way to protect the battery modules from impact forces arising beneath the module by providing the system with first cut-off pads disposed between a portion of the endplates that protrudes outward and the lower casing. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to absorb impact forces and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Sun.
Further regarding claim 10, the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi as applied above comprises battery modules (100) wherein each battery module is secured between endplates (110) and can thereby reasonably be said to be provided as a single unit, but the prior art does not disclose clamps respectively connecting the opposite endplates at upper and lower sides.
Anantharaman, also working in the field of battery pack design, teaches a battery module in which the battery modules is provided as a single unit by clamps (straps 104) connecting opposite endplates (108) of the module at upper and lower sides ([0030], Fig. 2A-2B). Anantharaman further teaches that these clamps help to couple the endplates together ([0030]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to apply the clamps taught by Anantharaman to the endplates of Sun’s battery modules in order to more securely couple the endplates together, as taught by Anantharaman.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as applied above comprises a lower casing (Sun: Fig. 1), and cut-off pads (221) made of an insulating material (i.e., rubber). Further, Sun teaches that placing these cut-off pads adjacent to a battery modules (100) can absorb an impact force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack (Sun: [0046], Figs. 2-3). The prior art applied above does not teach a second cut-off pad made of an insulating material and disposed in a space between the lower casing and the clamps of each battery module.
However, because Sun teaches cut-off pads that absorb an impact force, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply this same design concept in an analogous way to also protect the clamps of the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun and Anantharaman as applied above. As such, said artisan would have found it obvious to add second cut-off pads similar to the cut-off pads taught by Sun in a space between the lower casing and the clamps of the battery module taught by the combined references of Sun and Anantharaman, and said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition in order to protect the clamps from impact forces from the lower casing.
Further regarding claim 11, the combined prior art references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as applied above teach first cut-off pads (Sun: 221) made of an insulating material that are attached to a top surface of the lower casing and spaced from each other (see the rejection of claim 3 above), but do not teach a third cut-off pad made of insulating material and disposed on an inner surface of the upper cover facing the upper side of the battery modules.
However, Sun teaches that cut-off pads made of an insulating material (rubber) absorb an impact force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack (Sun: [0046], [0049], Figs. 2-3). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the structure taught by the combined prior art references by adding additional third cut-off pads made of insulating material and disposed on an inner surface of the upper cover facing the upper side of the battery modules
Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide additional impact force absorption to the battery module and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Sun.
Further regarding claim 11, the combined prior art references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as applied above do not teach a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members. The combined prior art references also do not teach a fourth cut-off pad made of an insulating material provided to longitudinal and/or cross members.
Ahn, also working in the field of battery pack design, teaches a housing for a battery pack comprising a lower casing (case 11) and an upper cover (top cover 15) coupled to the lower casing wherein the housing comprises a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members which are respectively mounted between the battery modules of the battery pack ([0033], Figs. 1 and 3 and Illustration 2 below. Fig. 3 shows battery modules 17 mounted between one of the longitudinal members, see Illustration 3 below).
Ahn teaches that this housing design provides a sealed internal space for the battery modules and provides a bottom plate (111) that the battery modules can be fixed to ([0033]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to use the lower casing and upper cover of Ahn as the lower casing and upper cover for the battery pack of the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman such that a plurality of longitudinal members and a plurality of cross members which are respectively mounted between the battery modules of the battery pack. Said artisan would have been motivated to use Ahn’s lower casing and upper cover, as Ahn teaches that these housing components provide a sealed internal space for the battery modules and a surface for the battery modules to be fixed to.
Further regarding claim 11, the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as set forth above teach battery modules that are mounted adjacent to a longitudinal member (see Illustration 2 above) such that longitudinal members are adjacent to a lateral end portion of the endplates of each battery module. Sun additionally teaches that placing cut-off pads (Sun: 221) made of an insulating material adjacent to a battery modules (100) can absorb an impact force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack (Sun: [0046], Figs. 2-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide fourth cut-off pads made of an insulating material to the lateral end portions of the endplates of the battery modules taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as set forth above in order absorb impact forces and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack, as taught by Sun.
Regarding claim 12, the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as applied to claim 11 above disclose first cut-off pads (Sun: 221). While the combined prior art does not explicitly depict first cut-off pads that extend lengthways along a direction in which the battery modules are overlapped, and face toward opposite end portions of the endplate, the arrangement and shape of the first cut-off pads of the prior art structure is a function of the layout and geometry of the battery module, and providing first cut-off pad that extend lengthways along a direction in which the battery modules are overlapped, and face toward opposite end portions of the endplate would be an obvious equivalent design that would perform the same function of insulating the battery module.
Regarding claim 13, the safety structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, Choi, and Anantharaman as applied to claim 12 above disclose first and second cut-off pads (Sun: 221). While the combined prior art does not explicitly depict second cut-off pads that extend lengthways along the direction in which the battery modules are overlapped, and are disposed between the first cut-off pads, the arrangement and shape of the first cut-off pads of the prior art structure is a function of the layout and geometry of the battery module, and providing second cut-off pad that extend lengthways along the direction in which the battery modules are overlapped, and are disposed between the first cut-off pads would be an obvious equivalent design that would perform the same function of insulating the battery module.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2020/0161611) in view of Ahn (US 2020/0194854), Choi (US 2018/0097211), and Anantharaman (US 2009/0263705) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kwon (KR 20180067757A, as read via machine translation).
Regarding claims 14-15, Sun discloses a safety structure comprising a battery pack (Fig. 1), but does not disclose a mounting bracket or electrical parts mounted to a mounting bracket. Sun further does not disclose a fifth cut-off pad made of a heat-resistant and insulating material disposed on a bottom surface of a mounting bracket.
Kwon, also working in the field of battery housings, teaches a mounting bracket (mounting parts 113) onto which electrical parts comprising a power relay assembly (junction block housing 110, comprising power relay assembly) are mounted to the cover (200) of a battery housing ([0027]-[0028], [0030], Figs. 1 and 4). While Kwon depicts an embodiment in which the bracket (113) is mounted to a side cover (200) of the battery housing such that the electrical parts are disposed laterally to the battery modules (Fig. 1 and 4), mounting the bracket to the top cover of a battery housing such that the electrical parts are disposed above the battery modules and the electrical parts are mounted to an upper side of the mounting bracket would be an obvious rearrangement of Kwon’s design that would accomplish the same desired results of mounting the electrical parts adjacent to the battery modules. Kwon teaches that this mounting bracket allows for electrical parts such as a power relay assembly, high-voltage junction box, and a battery management unit to communicate with the battery modules and thereby facilitate maintenance of the batteries ([0001]-[0004]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to add the mounting bracket and power relay assembly of Kwon to the safety structure of Sun such that a power relay assembly is disposed above the two- dimensionally arrayed battery modules and the electrical parts are mounted to an upper side of the mounting bracket. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition to Sun’s system in order to allow the power relay assembly to communicate with the battery modules and thereby facilitate the maintenance of the batteries, as taught by Kwon.
Further regarding claims 14-15 the combined references of Sun and Kwon as applied above do not teach a fifth cut-off pad made of insulating material is disposed on a bottom surface of the mounting bracket.
However, Sun teaches first cut-off pads (elastic pads 221) made of an insulating material (i.e., rubber) that are disposed on lateral sides of the endplates (110) of the battery modules ([0049]-[0051], Figs. 1-3). Sun teaches that when the battery module experiences an impact force, the cut-off pads can absorb some of this force and thereby improve the safety of the battery pack ([0046], Figs. 2-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the prior art structure taught by the combined references of Sun, Ahn, and Choi with fifth cut-off pads disposed on a bottom surface of the mounting bracket.
This is because Sun teaches the use of cut-off pads to absorb force between laterally-adjacent battery modules, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the same design concept could be used in an analogous way to protect the battery modules from impact forces arising between the battery pack and the bottom surface of the mounting bracket. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to absorb impact forces and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Sun.
Conclusion
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Milton Cano can be reached at (313) 446-4937. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 4 December 2025
Prosecution Insights