DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 4/9/2026 was received. 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.
Claim Objections
2. The claim objections to claims 1 and 14 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
3. Claim 19 is objected to: the formatting/indenting of claim 19 is inappropriate as the text of the words does not stay together (see at least the circled portions below):
PNG
media_image1.png
122
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
4. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter (see amendments filed to lines 3-8 of claim 1, explained further below in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph). See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Presently, the Examiner does not recommend incorporating the added subject matter from the claims to the specification given this would create an issue of new matter (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph regarding the language added to the claims); however, any future newly added claim language that is supported solely by way of the drawings and lacks antecedent basis in the specification should be added to the appropriate section of the specification with appropriate reference to the figures, directions, and/or corresponding reference numerals to demonstrate where support is being drawn, and such that there exists clear correspondence between the specification and the claimed subject matter (MPEP 608.01(o)).
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: correspondence between claimed entities and the terminology utilized in the specification. The entire specification refers to element 145 of support member 140 as “the external side wall.” Applicant amended (some of) the claims to change this simply to “an external wall.” For continuity between the specification and claims, one single phrase should be utilized throughout the specification and claims. See MPEP 608.01(o):
Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
The Examiner recommends changing “an/the external wall” back to “an/the external side wall” in all locations in the claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The prior Office Action rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-18; claim 19, and thus dependent claim 20; claim 2, and thus dependent claims 3-6 and 11; claim 3, and thus dependent claims 5 and 6; claim 4; claim 8; claim 17, and thus dependent claim 18; and claim 18 are rejected 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 corrections filed.
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 4-18; claim 8; and claim 19, and thus claim 20, are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are address concurrently given they recite the same subject matter.
A) Claim 1 was amended to recite the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
223
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The instant application teaches (P67 of the PGPUB; emphasis added):
PNG
media_image3.png
46
451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
105
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Looking to Fig. 2 of the instant application, the at least one barrier wall 145 extends from an end (the external side wall 145) of the support member 140, the disclosure teaching that the extending feature is in one direction which would be appropriately labeled the “down” direction relative to the orientation of Fig. 2 (or the Examiner-added X6 direction for clarity):
PNG
media_image5.png
563
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 as amended then requires there are a plurality of first battery cells 120 disposed along the support member 140 on the first side of the at least one barrier wall 145, the plurality of battery cells arranged in a row in the first direction. The plurality of first battery cells are not arranged in a row in the X6 direction (“the first direction”). Instead, they can be said to be arranged in a row in either of the X1 or X4 directions. Accordingly, the amendments as filed are not supported.
The same issue exists relative to the plurality of second battery cells disposed along the support member on the second side of the at least one barrier wall 145, wherein the plurality of second battery cells are not arranged in a row the first direction (X6) as claimed. Instead, they can be said to be arranged in a row in either of the X1 or X4 directions. Accordingly, the amendments as filed are not supported.
The issue then compounds later in the claims as emphasized below:
“…wherein the support member further includes a first venting member disposed at a position corresponding to at least one of (i) a position between first battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction or (ii) a position between second battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction…”
It is noted that in Applicant’s explanation of support for the amendments, Fig. 2 is cited and Applicant comments (page 11):
PNG
media_image6.png
195
656
media_image6.png
Greyscale
While it can be said that the at least one barrier wall 141 does extend in the X1 direction, the claim recites and requires the at least one barrier wall to extend from an end of the support member in the claimed direction. The only direction the at least one barrier wall 141 extends from an end (taught as the external wall 145 in the disclosure) of the support member is in the X6 direction, not the X1 direction.
B) Claims 1 and 19 were each amended to recite the following broadening amendment that does not appear contemplated at the effective filing date of the invention:
“…wherein the support member further includes a first venting member disposed at a position corresponding to at least one of (i) a position between first battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction or (ii) a position between second battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction…”
The original disclosure and claims only ever teach and describe the first venting member at a position between adjacent first battery cells and between adjacent second battery cells (see original claim 3; P76). The language as added above does not exist in the written description; nor is there any configuration in which only one of (i) or (ii) is met (encompassed by the newly added limitation of “at least one of…”).
C) Claim 8 as amended requires each of the two electrodes is disposed on each of both ends of each battery cell. The construct is not supported by the instant application. Instead, the disclosure teaches there are two electrode leads provided to each battery cell, one on each end of the respective battery cell. Each electrode lead is thus not taught as being disposed on each of both ends of each battery cell as claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claim 12, claim 16, and Claim 19, and thus claim 20, are rejected 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.
A) Applicant amended claim 1 to include the prior “an external side wall” but changed this to an “external wall.” Applicant did not carry the amendment through the claim set. Accordingly, claims 12 and 16 now each recite, “the external side wall” for which there is insufficient antecedent basis.
B) Claim 19 defines in part that at least one of the battery cell bundles includes the constituent claimed. Claim 19 was amended to recite, “…wherein the first venting member is disposed on the external wall of the support member and exposed to an outside of each battery cell bundle.” The claim fails to invoke proper antecedent basis at this location. Appropriate correction can be made by way of amending the italicized portion to “the at least one of the battery cell bundles.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ju et al. (US 2018/0183119) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed. Any rejections pending therefrom are also withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 12-13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeon et al. (US 2020/0365956) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed. Any rejections pending therefrom are also withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-10, 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 withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed. Any rejections pending therefrom are also withdrawn.
12. 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 maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a battery cell bundle (Figs. 2-11; not limited to entire disclosure), comprising:
a cross beam 13 (“support member”) including at least one side wall 132 (“barrier wall”) including a first side and a second side extending from an end of the cross beam 13 (“support member”) in a first direction (Fig. 7); [alternatively, this could be interpreted as: a cross beam 13 (“support member”) including at least top plate 131 (“at least one barrier wall”) including first and second sides (side plates 132) extending from end of the cross beam 13 (“support member”) in a first direction– hereinafter “Second Interpretation” in the dependent claims]; [alternatively, this could be interpreted as a cross beam 13 (“support member”) including at least one barrier (any of 16, 172, 172, and/or 131) including first and second sides extending from an end of the cross beam 13 (“support member”) in a first direction– hereinafter “Third Interpretation” in the dependent claims];
a first battery group 3 including a plurality of first battery cells 5 (P92) disposed along the cross beam 13 (“support member”) on the first side of the at least one barrier wall 132, the plurality of first battery cells 5 arranged in a row in the first direction (or 131- Second Interpretation; or any of 16, 172, 172, and/or 131 – Third Interpretation) (Figs. 3, 8);
a second battery group 4 including a plurality of second battery cells 5 (P92) disposed along the cross beam 13 (“support member”) on the second side of the at least one barrier wall 132, the plurality of second battery cells arranged in a row in the first direction (or 131- Second Interpretation; or any of 16, 172, 172, and/or 131 – Third Interpretation) (Figs. 3, 8);
a first box body 1 (=frame 12 + base plate 11) (“cover member”) surrounding at least respective outer portions of the plurality of first battery cells and the plurality of second battery cells 5, and coupled to the cross beam 13 (“support member”) (P83) such that the first boxy body 1 (“cover member”) and the cross beam 13 (“support member”) define an internal space for accommodating the plurality of first battery cells 5 and the plurality of second battery cells 5 (Figs. 2-4); and
an upper box cover 2 (“a panel member”) covering an open end of the internal space,
wherein the internal space is divided into a plurality of installation spaces 14 by the at least one barrier wall 132, 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 are disposed in another of the plurality of installation spaces (Fig. 2),
wherein the cross beam 13 (“support member”) further includes top plate 131 (“an external side wall”) extending from at least one end of the at least one barrier wall 132 in a thickness direction of each of the plurality of first battery cells and the plurality of second battery cells [alternatively, in the Second interpretation: the cross beam 13 (“support member”) further includes protective plate 16 (“an external side wall”) extending from at least one end of the at least one barrier wall 132 in a thickness direction of each of the plurality of first battery cells and the plurality of second battery cells; alternatively, in the Third interpretation: the cross beam 13 (“support member”) further includes an external side wall 132 extending from at least one end of the at least one barrier wall (any of 16, 171, 172, 131) in a thickness direction of each of the plurality of first battery cells and the plurality of second battery cells],
wherein the cross beam 13 (“support member”) includes a first venting member (baffle plate 15 – P82-89, 91, 96) at a position corresponding to at least one (i) a position between first battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction or (ii) a position between second battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction [note that both (i) and (ii) are met by Wang], and
wherein the first venting member (baffle plate 15 – P82-89, 91, 96) is disposed on (directly or indirectly) the external wall (all interpretations) of the cross beam 13 (“support member”) and exposed to an outside of the battery cell bundle (i.e., via opening 112 in plate 11 – Figs. 5, 10).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches (third interpretation) teaches the first venting member (baffle plate 15 – P82-89, 91, 96) includes a first venting hole (Fig. 11) formed on the external wall 132.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches wherein the cross beam 13 (“support member”) includes a plurality of barrier walls (132 or 16) connected to the external (side?) wall.
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches wherein the first box body 1 (“cover member”) is (at least indirectly or directly) bonded to the external (side?) wall and the upper box cover 2 (“a panel member”) (P76, 79; Fig. 9).
Hypothetical (Supported) Claim Analysis
13. The claims have been examined thus far in terms of how the claim is supported, including the unsupported amendment. Per MPEP § 2143.03:
When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff’d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
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. In the instance that the following amendment is made, the Wang reference is still applicable, as is at least the Shin reference previously applied, and applied to the supported, hypothetical claim below:
“A battery cell bundle, comprising:
a support member including at least one barrier wall including a first side and a side extending from an end of the support member in a first direction;
a plurality of first battery cells disposed along the support member on the first side of the at least one barrier wall, the plurality of first battery cells arranged in a row ina second direction;
a plurality of second battery cells disposed along the support member on the second side of the at least one barrier wall, the plurality of second battery cells arranged in a row in the second direction…”
[with required amendments needed in the last six lines of the claim to invoke proper antecedent basis to the second direction].
The rejection of [the supported, hypothetical] 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 Z direction or what would be the “down” 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);
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 thickness direction (the X direction) of the battery cell (Fig. 4),
wherein the support member 230 further includes a first venting member 236h at a position corresponding to at least one of (i) a position between adjacent first battery cells adjacent to each other in the [second] direction or (ii) a position between second battery cells adjacent to each other in the [second] direction, and
wherein the first venting member 236h is disposed on the flame barrier 236 (“external 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
14. The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju et al. (US 2018/0183119) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0181405) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed.
The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju et al. (US 2018/0183119) in view of Yoneyama (US 2020/0411816) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed.
15. The rejection of claim 4 (using the claims as filed) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423) as applied to claim 1 above (and prior claim 2, now incorporated into claim 1), and further in view of Omura et al. (US 2020/0212404) is maintained.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the terminals of all the cells facing inward toward the support member, the support member including a first venting member (baffle plate 15 – P82-89, 91, 96) at a position corresponding to the location of the terminals (see Figs. 2, 8-10).
Wang does not teach an internal busbar electrically connecting the plurality of first battery cells to each other or electrically connecting the plurality of second battery cells to each other. It is a well-known technique to connect adjacent battery cells to one another via a busbar 2 in order to form a module, the connection being one of series and/or parallel that increases voltage and/or current as taught by Omura (P2, 4, 38; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide an internal busbar electrically connecting the plurality of first battery cells to each other or the plurality of second battery cells to each other via their respective terminals in order to form a module in order to provide the predictable result of increasing the current and/or voltage thereof to meet the demand of the intended load as taught by Omura (P2, 4, 38; Fig. 1), the applied bus bar being at a position corresponding to the terminals which also corresponds to the location of the venting member (baffle plate 15).
16. Claim 11 (using the hypothetical, supported claim) is 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 (hypothetical, supported) claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2021-0077416) (machine translation provide; drawings provided by Applicant).
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_image7.png
629
376
media_image7.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.
17. Claims 12 and 14-16 (using the hypothetical, supported claim) 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 (hypothetical, supported) claim 1 above.
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.
18. Claim 17 (using the hypothetical supported claim) is 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 (hypothetical, supported) claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0365956) and Mochuizuki et al. (US 2021/0257696).
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).
19. Claim 18 (using the hypothetical supported claim) is 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) 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).
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.
20. Claim 20 (using the hypothetical supported claim) is 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 19 above, and further in view of Yoneyama (US 2020/0411816).
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
21. Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered.
The only prior art rejection maintained with respect to the claims as presented is the rejection using Wang. With respect to the arguments against the prior art applied of Wang with respect to the claims as presented, Applicant argues that Wang does not teach the final six lines of the claim. It is noted that Applicant alleges that the battery cells of Wang are only adjacent to each other in the Y direction; however, Wangs cells are also adjacent to each other in the Z direction given the configuration of the cells (see Fig. 2). Accordingly, Wang’s plurality of first and second battery cells can each be said to be “arranged in a row” in multiple directions, including the Y and Z directions.
With regard to the amended limitations, Wang teaches the cross beam 13 (“support member”) includes a first venting member (baffle plate 15 – P82-89, 91, 96) at1 a position corresponding to at least one (i) a position between first battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction or (ii) a position between second battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction [note that both (i) and (ii) are met by Wang], and
wherein the first venting member (baffle plate 15 – P82-89, 91, 96) is disposed on (directly or indirectly) the external wall (all interpretations) of the cross beam 13 (“support member”) and exposed to an outside of the battery cell bundle (i.e., via opening 112 in plate 11 – Figs. 5, 10).
Accordingly, there does not appear to be anything missing from the Wang reference with respect to that which is claimed such that the arguments are not held persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
As detailed above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph, the claims as presented are not supported. 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.
Conclusion
22. 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_image8.png
438
510
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Jeon et al. (US 2021/0391609):
PNG
media_image9.png
665
520
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. (US 2021/0249733):
PNG
media_image10.png
522
514
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Kong et al. (US 2016/0268658):
PNG
media_image11.png
306
487
media_image11.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).
23. 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.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW 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 Ruddock 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 BARROW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Note that “at” is a broad preposition word meaning in, on, or near.
Prosecution Insights