DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/1/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Future Claim Markings
2. It is requested that future claim sets are provided with the same font color and/or font weight as the original portion of the claim. The manner in which the markings are being made show poorly in the system, prevent OCR capture, and are difficult to read (see example below):
PNG
media_image1.png
104
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
3. The objection to claim 19 is withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
4. Claim 1 is objected to for failure to invoke full and proper antecdent basis at line 6 as amended and should be corrected to “the at least one barrier wall.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
5. The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the claim corrections filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 4-18; claim 8; and claim 19, and thus claim 20, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
The rejections of claim 12, claim 16, and claim 19, and thus claim 20, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423) is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed. All rejections pending from this are also withdrawn.
8. The rejection1 of claims 1, 4-10, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (WO 2021/002626) (using US 2022/0115737 as a family member and translation thereof) is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a battery cell module 200 (“battery cell bundle”), comprising:
a flame retardant plate 230 (“support member”) including at least one body 231 (“barrier wall”) including first and second sides extending from an end (i.e., top surface(s) thereof) of the support member in a first direction (direction that is 180° from the annotated Z direction or what would be the “down” direction (i.e.. -Z direction) relative to the figure orientation on the page);
a plurality of first battery cells 110 (in first assembly 100) disposed along the support member 230 on the first side of the at least one barrier wall 231, the plurality of first battery cells 110 arranged in a row in a second direction (the Y-direction), which is a length direction of the of the [at least one] flame retardant plate 230 (“support member”) (i.e., the Y-direction can arbitrarily be named/labeled “a length direction”);
a plurality of second battery cells 110 (in second assembly 100) disposed along the support member 230 on the second side of the at least one barrier wall 231, the plurality of second battery cells arranged in a row in the second direction;
an upper cover 220 (“cover member”) surrounding at least a portion of respective outer portions of the plurality of first battery cells 110 and the plurality of second battery cells 110, and coupled to the support member 230 (Fig. 5- see insertion protrusion 226p) such that the upper cover 220 (“cover member”) and the support member 230 define an internal space for accommodating the plurality of first battery cells 110 and the plurality of second battery cells 110; and
a panel member 270 covering an open end of the internal space (alternatively this could be base plate 240, front cover 250, or rear cover 260),
wherein the internal space is divided into a plurality of installation spaces by the at least one barrier wall 230, and
wherein the plurality of first battery cells are disposed in one of the plurality of installation spaces and the plurality of second battery cells 110 are disposed in another of the plurality of installation spaces (Figs. 1-9; entire disclosure relied upon),
wherein the support member 230 further includes a flame barrier 236 (“external side wall”) extending from at least one end of the at least one barrier wall 231 in a third direction (the X direction) perpenidcular to the first direction (+Z/-Z direction) and the second direction (+Y/-Y direction) of the battery cell (Fig. 4),
wherein the support member 230 further includes a first venting member 236h at a position corresponding to a position between adjacent first battery cells adjacent to each other in the second direction (+Y/-Y direction) and between second battery cells adjacent to each other in the second direction (+Y/-Y direction), and
wherein the first venting member 236h is disposed on the flame barrier 236 (“external side wall”) of the support member 230 and exposed to an outside of the battery cell bundle (see Fig. 3 in which it is exposed to “an outside” (i.e., a non-central portion) of the battery cell bundle).
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches the battery cell bundle of claim 2, further comprising:
an internal busbar 272 electrically connecting the plurality of first battery cells to each other or electrically connecting the plurality of second battery cells to each other, wherein the support member 230 includes the first venting member 236h at a position corresponding to the internal busbar 272 (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, Shin teaches wherein the first venting member 236h includes a first venting hole formed on the flame barrier 236 (“external wall”).
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches wherein the first venting hole 236h is connected to each of the plurality of installation spaces (see figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 7, Shin teaches wherein the panel member (selecting frame 276) includes a through-hole through which an electrode lead (111, or 112) of a battery cell 100 disposed in the internal space and adjacent to the panel member is exposed (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 8, Shin teaches wherein each battery cell of the plurality of first battery cells and the plurality of second battery cells includes [first and second] electrode leads (111 or 112) (P47-48), and wherein for each respective battery cell: its corresponding first lead is disposed on one end of the battery cell, and its corresponding second lead is disposed on another end of the battery cell. It is noted that this is a compact prosecution rejection of what is supported by the instant application.
Regarding claim 9, Shin teaches wherein the panel member includes a second venting member for discharging gas from the internal space (i.e., the same hole for the lead or any of the other holes) (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Shin teaches wherein the second venting member includes a second venting hole formed on the panel member (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Shin teaches wherein the upper cover 220 (“cover member”) has a U-shaped cross- section (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Shin teaches a battery rack 300 (“a battery cell assembly”) (Figs. 9-10), comprising:
a plurality of battery cell modules 200 (“bundles”) to accommodate a plurality of battery cells 110 in the plurality of battery cell modules 200 (“bundles”); and
a flame retardant cover 320 (“blocking member”) disposed between at least a portion of adjacent battery cell bundles 200 to prevent heat or flames generated in one of the adjacent battery cell bundles from spreading to another of the adjacent battery cell bundles;
wherein at least one of the battery cell bundles includes:
[the features of claim 1; the rejection of which is entirely incorporated into the instant rejection].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2021/002626) (using US 2022/0115737 as a family member and translation thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2021-0077416) (machine translation provide; drawings provided by Applicant) is maintained.
Regarding claim 11, Shin’s support member does not have a T-shaped cross-section; however, the use of an analogous means 170/155 by which to divided the cell groupings is taught by Lee as shown below having a T-shaped cross section:
PNG
media_image2.png
629
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the support member of Shin with the upper plate portion 170 Of Lee such that it has a T-shaped cross section on the basis of design choice given these entities are performing the same function in the same environment, and further to provide the predictable results of additional protection by way of 170 extending across the top of the cell groupings.
10. The rejection of claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2021/002626) (using US 2022/0115737 as a family member and translation thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above is maintained.
Regarding claim 12, Shin does not teach that the support member includes a plurality of barrier walls connected to the external [[side]] wall; however, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 14, Shin teaches wherein a thickness of the external wall (236) has a value equal or greater than a value of a thickness of the at least one barrier wall (see Fig. 2); it is noted that the selected “thickness” for one entity could be in a different direction relative to the selected “thickness” for the another entity.
Shin does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the cover member 220 has a value smaller than a value of the thickness of the at least onebarrier wall as claimed. The feature is considered an obvious matter of design choice for which no objective evidence in the record exists of new or unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the appropriate dimensions including thickness of all entities utilized including the cover member and the at least one barrier wall in order to provide the predictable results of achieving a construct in which the at least one barrier wall is sufficient to support the cells placed thereon, and the cover member is suitable to protect the internal entities from the exterior.
Regarding claim 15, Shin is silent as to the thickness of the cover member 220; however, the feature is considered an obvious matter of design choice for which no objective evidence in the record exists of new or unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the appropriate dimensions including thickness of all entities utilized including the cover member in order to achieve a construct in which the interior entities are suitably protected from the elements and the exterior.
Regarding claim 16, Shin does not teach that the cover member 220 is bonded to the external [[side]] wall and the panel member 270; however, the goal of Shin is to provide the assembly of components as shown, wherein bonding entities to one another to secure them in place for safety and such that they do not move about is considered well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to implement bonding of these components to one another, the implementation of bonding being well known and within the ambit of ordinary skill in the art in order to achieve the predictable result of securing the components to one another for safety and such that the components do not move about.
11. The rejetion of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2021/002626) (using US 2022/0115737 as a family member and translation thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0365956) and Mochuizuki et al. (US 2021/0257696) is maintained.
Regarding claim 17, Shin teaches pouch-type batteries which intrinsically require sealing to surround the electrode assembly electrolyte held therein (P48-55); see P50 describing the inner adhesive layers of the pouch material that adheres to each other to form a sealing portion (P50). Shin does not explicitly teach how many sides are sealed; however, pouch-type batteries intrinsically require sealing of either three sides (when one layer of material is utilized and folded in half) of four sides (when two separate layers are used to form the pouch). The construct of sealing four sides versus three sides (i.e., folding the pouch in half such that the folded seam does not require sealing) is a well-known technique taught by Mochizuki which teaches the functional equivalency thereof (P194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a three-sealed side pouch versus a four-side seal pouch as a matter of design choice given Mochuizuki teaches the functional equivalency of these options for a pouch housing of a battery (P194).
12. The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2021/002626) (using US 2022/0115737 as a family member and translation thereof) in view of Mochuizuki et al. (US 2021/0257696) as applied to at least claim 17 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0365956) is maintained.
Regarding claim 18, Shin fails to disclose a heat transfer member between the cover member and an unsealed surface of each battery cell. The implementation of a heat transfer member 59 between an analogous the cover member (50 included “cover member”) and (any) surface of a battery cell (Fig. 8) is well known in the prior art as taught by Jeon to thereby provide the predictable result of moving heat away from the battery such that thermal runaway does not occur.
Therefore, it is considered an obvious expedient to provide a heat transfer member 59 to any side of each battery cell, including the “unsealed surface” of each battery cell (i.e., where the material is simply folded versus sealed) in order to provide the predictable result of moving heat away from the battery such that thermal runaway does not occur.
13. The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2021/002626) (using US 2022/0115737 as a family member and translation thereof) as applied to at least claim 19 above, and further in view of Yoneyama (US 2020/0411816) is maintained.
Regarding claim 20, Shin fails to disclose the flame retardant cover 320 (“blocking member”) has a stack structure including the limitations found in the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoneyama teaches analogous art of a battery pack and plurality of modules disposed adjacent to each other, wherein it is a known means to include a insulating sheet 52 coupled with a compressible side frame 30 (P31-34) (“a blocking member”) between adjacent modules (Figs. 4-6) in order to achieve a means by which modules may be assembled securely into a pack (P5) and achieves a weight reduction compared to other assembly means (P37). Yoneyama teaches wherein the blocking member has a stack structure (Figs. 4-6) including a heat insulating member 52 and a compressible, elastic side frame 30 (“compression member”), wherein the heat insulating member includes a heat insulating material (P40), and the compression member is attached to the heat insulating member and compressively deformable (P31-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the flame retardant cover 320 (“blocking member”) with the construct of Yoneyama’s blocking member including the stacked structure as outlined above given the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), the implementation thereof also providing the predictable result of compression allowed between modules due to the compression member.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered. With respect to the maintained rejection of the hypothetical, supported claim construct (proposed/re-written by the Examiner in the prior Office Action and implemented in the claim amendments presently filed), Applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
224
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
405
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response: It appears the foundation of the argument is that the Y-direction cannot be labeled as “a length direction.” The labeling or designation of a given direction is entirely arbitrary as evidenced by the following prior art references, and as would be immediately understood by one having ordinary skill in the art with emphasis added below:
Abeeluck (US 2019/0245319):
[0064] In an embodiment of the present invention, a laser system/device 10a,10b, in accordance with the present invention, may have a length in the range of approximately between and including 8 mm and 20 mm, a width in the range of approximately between and including 2 mm and 6 mm, a height in the range of approximately between and including 2 mm and 6 mm, and a mass in the range of approximately between and including 0.1 g and 1 g. In an embodiment of the present invention, a laser system/device 10a has a length of approximately 10.6 mm, a width of approximately 3.9 mm, a height of approximately 3.8 mm, and a mass of approximately 0.5 g. It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the height, width, and length labels for the dimensions of components of the laser system and/or device system 10a,10b, in accordance with the present invention, may be interchanged (e.g., a dimension labeled as a width may be relabeled as the height for a particular component).
Bower et al. (US 2017/0310299):
[0207] Referring to FIG. 13, a filter element 30 in a piezoelectric bulk acoustic wave filter can have a rectangular cross section in each of three dimensions and can have six sides, a top side 30T and an opposing bottom side 30M, a front side 30F and an opposing back side 30K, and a left side 30L and an opposing right side 30R. The top and bottom sides 30T, 30M are on opposite sides of the filter element 30, the front and back sides 30F, 30K are on opposite sides of the filter element 30, and the left and right sides 30L, 30R are on opposite sides of the filter element 30, for example as on opposite sides of a cube. Adjacent sides can be, but are not necessarily, orthogonal and opposing sides can be, but are not necessarily, parallel. The length of the filter element 30 is designated as L, the width is designated as W, and the height (depth, thickness) as H. It will be readily appreciated that the designations top, bottom, left, right, front, and back, as well as length, width, and height are arbitrary and can be reversed or exchanged or alternative descriptors used for the different opposing sides or dimensions of the filter element 30. In FIG. 13, the upper graphic is a perspective view of the filter element 30 from above (showing the top side 30T and right side 30R) and the lower graphic is a perspective view of the filter element 30 from below (showing the bottom side 30M and left side 30L).
Kurth et al. (US 2016/0274057):
[0063] An expansion of one or several layers along the thickness direction 24 will subsequently be referred to as thickness of the respective layer, wherein the usage of the term “thickness” is not to be limiting in any sense. It is obvious that, based on any arbitrary spatial disposal of the structure, any other designations (such as length, height or width) can be used for designating the extension of the respective layer.
Sharp (US 2016/0039560):
[0026] All creases are identified on the figures with broken lines, and all notches or cuts are identified with bold/solid lines. Although specific creases and specific notches are identified with element numbers 122A-122N, 126A-126B, and 124A-124H, respectively, when a reference is made to a crease or a notch generally, such crease or a notch is identified with respective element number 122, 126, or 124. Additionally, some flaps are designated as “top” flaps and are identified with a letter “A” following the flap element number; other flaps are designated as “bottom” flaps and are identified with a letter “B” following the flap element number. The “top” and “bottom” designations are arbitrary and made for descriptive purposes only. Accordingly, a described “top flap” may be considered a “bottom flap,” a “top surface” may be considered a “bottom surface” or a side surface, and vice versa. Similarly, the terms “length,” “width,” and “height” are chosen arbitrarily. Thus, a described “length” may be considered a width or a height, a described “width” may be considered a length or a height, and a described “height” may be considered a length or a width. Such designations are not intended to represent or connote any specific orientation or location of the box template, its components, or a box formed therewith.
Accordingly, there is no defining feature in the claim set that sets apart the claimed limitations from the Shin reference given the designation/labeling of a given direction is entirely arbitrary, such that the anticipation rejection previously applied is maintained.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
365
619
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In response: Applicant is directed to the analysis above; the arbitrarily labeled/designated “length direction” is the Y-direction, as relied upon in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive, and all of the claimed limitations are met.
Additional Examiner Comments: To rely upon Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423) and change the components relied upon would result in a new grounds of rejection which is not done; however it is highly recommended Applicant review not only Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423), but also the other prior references applied as primary references in the first Non-Final Office Action to Ju et al. (US 2018/0183119) and Jeon et al. (US 2020/0365956) that were previously withdrawn due to the prior-unsupported limitations (now removed from the claims). For example, the following was noted in the prior Office Action, and Applicant makes no comments as to how the claims distinguish over this potential combination, or the other prior art previously applied to when the claims recited supported features. From the prior Office Action:
In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that the majority of the withdrawals of the prior art are due to the non-supported limitation in the claim set. For example, with respect to the (hypothetical, supported) claim, the arguments made against the Ju et al. (US 2018/0183119) reference are rendered moot, and the (hypothetical, supported) claim could be met by way of a 103 rejection of Ju et al. (US 2018/0183119) in view of a teaching reference that it is known to provide a first venting member adjacent the ends of cells on frame member 30 (i.e., see at least Lee (US 2012/0015218). Accordingly, once a supported claimed construct is presented, Applicant should review all prior art previously applied in the Non-Final rejection and evaluate whether there are limitations that distinguish the amended claims over all references previously applied. The Examiner had not made the Ju in view of Lee 103 rejection at the current time given the time allotted for examination has been exhausted at this point by way of the claims as presented requiring multiple rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/ first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph, in addition to prior art analysis applied to the claim as presented and a hypothetical, supported claim prior art analysis. The comments are made for clarity of the record, and such that Applicant may proceed with presenting amendments to the claims that distinguish over the prior art of record, including prior art applied in the Non-Final Rejection.
It is also highly recommened Applicant review the prior art cited below.
Conclusion
15. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is reproduced here:
Lee et al. (US 2018/0048033):
PNG
media_image6.png
438
510
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Jeon et al. (US 2021/0391609):
PNG
media_image7.png
665
520
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. (US 2021/0249733):
PNG
media_image8.png
522
514
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Kong et al. (US 2016/0268658):
PNG
media_image9.png
306
487
media_image9.png
Greyscale
See also: Tada et al. (US 2020/0358063) and Mauroka et al. (US 2015/0228945) (see insulation member 340 which is an insulation member between adjacent modules).
16. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BILLIET whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula C Tavares-Crockett can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BILLIET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 This was previously referenced as the “supported (hypothetical) claims” that the Examiner proposed in the compact prosecution section of the prior Office Action that Applicant adopted in the presently filed claim set.
Prosecution Insights