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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/226 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 02/06/2026 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Joye et al. (WO 2011134828, Espacenet machine translation provided for reference) in view of De Paoli et al. (U.S. 20130122341) and Cho et al. (U.S. 20170179542).
With respect to claim 1, Joye discloses a battery pack (1) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a pack housing (2 – external casing) structured to enclose an internal space (3 – reception chamber) (Fig. 1 and 2);
at least one cell stack body (43 – battery packs) accommodated in the internal space (3) of the pack housing (2) (Fig. 3);
at least one electronic component (67 – electrical devices) accommodated in the internal space (3) of the pack housing (2) (Fig. 3, [0075]);
a connecting member (68 – electrical connection cables and wires) electrically connected to at least one of the at least one cell stack body (43) and the at least one electronic component (67) (Fig. 3, [0095]); and
a partition wall (33 – partitioning) partitioning the internal space (3) and accommodating at least a portion of the connecting member (68) disposed along a length direction of the partition wall (33) (Fig. 3 and 6, [0095]).
Joyce does not disclose that at least a portion of the electrical connectors extends within the partition wall in the length direction of the partition wall, instead disclosing the connectors extend along a width of the wall.
De Paoli discloses a partition wall (450 - holders) which separate adjacent cell stacks (S1-S4 - segments) (Fig. 1) and teaches the partition wall (450) accommodates at least a portion of connecting members (105 – wire) along a length direction of the partition wall (450) (Fig. 13). De Paoli further teaches that this arrangement allows for the connection of the connecting member (105) to electrical components within the battery pack (1) ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the connecting members disclosed by Joye could extend in a length direction of the partition wall as taught by De Paoli in order to allow for the connection of the connecting member to electrical components within the battery pack.
Neither Joy nor De Paoli teach the presence of a member disposed between a partition wall and the connecting member configured to mount the connecting member to the partition wall.
Cho discloses connecting members (50 – wires) within a battery module (10) and teaches securing the connecting members (50) using a member (60 - adhesive) ([0010]). Cho further teaches that the member (60) fixes the connecting members (50) into place ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the member (adhesive) taught by Cho to the connecting members disclosed by modified Joye in order to help fix the connecting members into place.
It is noted by the examiner that the use of the adhesive in Cho is taught in the background of the invention, while the purpose of the invention is to improve upon the wires in order to improve the aesthetic appearance of the battery ([0012]). However, applicant is reminded that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). In this instance, though it is deemed a nonpreferred embodiment due to aesthetics, the use of the adhesive in order to secure wires is still sufficiently taught.
With respect to claim 2, Joye discloses the partition wall (33) includes a void (labeled, internal space formed by wedging lugs 48) in the partition wall (33) (Fig. 6 - below), and the connecting member (68) is accommodated in the void (formed by 48) (Fig. 6, [0095]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Void (internal space formed by 48) )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower frame)][AltContent: textbox (Upper frame)]
PNG
media_image1.png
405
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Joye disclose the partition wall (33) includes a lower frame (labeled) and an upper frame (labeled) coupled to the lower frame (labeled) (Fig. 6 – below), and the void (formed by 48) is formed between the lower frame (labeled) and upper frame (labeled) (Fig. 6 – below).
With respect to claim 4, Joye discloses the partition wall (33) includes a recess (41 – notches) in a (upper) side surface (Fig. 6), and the connecting member (68) is accommodated in the recess (Fig. 6, [0095]).
With respect to claim 5, Joye discloses the connecting member (68) includes a conductive member and an insulating member surrounding the conductive member (insulated electrical cable) ([0076]).
With respect to claim 7, Joye discloses the at least one electrical component (67) is a battery management system (device for managing the battery) ([0075]), and the connecting member is a low voltage harness (electrical voltage measuring wires) connected to the battery management system (67) ([0082]).
It is noted that applicant’s definition of “low voltage harness” is wires which “obtain information on a plurality of battery modules included in the pack,” ([0005]). Based on this definition, Joye’s description of the cables (68) being electrical voltage measuring wires which connect the batteries (43) to the BMS (67) reads on “low voltage harness.”
With respect to claim 8, Joye discloses the partition wall (33) includes a void (labeled, formed by 48) and a recess (41) (Fig. 6- above), each accommodating the connection member (68) ([0095]), and the void (formed by 48) and the recess (41) are spatially separated from each other (Fig. 6- above).
With respect to claim 9, Joye discloses a battery pack (1) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (2) structured to enclose an internal space (3) (Fig. 1 and 2);
partition walls (36) located in the internal space (3) of the housing (2) and engaged to the housing (2) to separate the internal space (3) into an array of separate accommodation spaces (34 – secondary compartment) (Fig. 2);
a plurality of battery modules (43) disposed inside the separate accommodation spaces (34) (Fig. 2), respectively, one battery module (43) per accommodating space (34) (Fig. 2), each battery module (43) including one or more battery cells (electrical accumulator assemblies) ([0061]);
one or more electronic components (67) located in the internal space (3) of the housing (3) (Fig. 3); and
electrical connectors (68) electrically coupled to provide electrical connections to the battery modules (43) and the one or more electronic components (67) (Fig. 3 and 6, [0079]),
wherein one or more partition walls (33) are structured to accommodate at least a portion of one or more of the electrical connectors (68) disposed along a length direction of the partition wall (33) (Fig. 3 and 6, [0095]).
Joyce does not disclose that at least a portion of the electrical connectors extends within the partition wall in the length direction of the partition wall, instead disclosing the connectors extend along a width of the wall.
De Paoli discloses a partition wall (450 - holders) which separate adjacent cell stacks (S1-S4 - segments) (Fig. 1) and teaches the partition wall (450) accommodates at least a portion of connecting members (105 – wire) along a length direction of the partition wall (450) (Fig. 13). De Paoli further teaches that this arrangement allows for the connection of the connecting member (105) to electrical components within the battery pack (1) ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the connecting members disclosed by Joye could extend in a length direction of the partition wall as taught by De Paoli in order to allow for the connection of the connecting member to electrical components within the battery pack.
With respect to claim 10, Joye discloses the partition wall (33) includes a void (labeled, internal space formed by wedging lugs 48) in which the one or more electrical connectors (68) is located (Fig. 6 - above, [0095]).
With respect to claim 11, Joye discloses at least one of the partition walls (33) includes a lower frame (labeled) and an upper frame (labeled) coupled to the lower frame (labeled) to form a void (formed by 48) is formed between the lower frame (labeled) and upper frame (labeled) for accommodating a portion of one or more of the electrical connectors (68) (Fig. 6 – above, [0095]).
With respect to claim 12, Joye discloses the partition wall (33) includes a recess (41 – notches) in a (upper) side surface (Fig. 6), and the portion of the one or more of the electrical connectors (68) is accommodated in the recess (Fig. 6, [0095]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joye et al. in view of De Paoli et al. and Cho et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 20190181405).
With respect to claim 6, Joye discloses the connecting member is an insulated electrical wire, not a bus bar.
Kim discloses a partition wall (180 - partition block) separating adjacent battery modules (110) (Fig. 2) and teaches that the partition wall (180) can be configured to allow a cable for electrical connection or a bus bar to pass therethrough ([0059]). Kim further teaches that both the cable and bus bar allow for power connection between the modules (110) ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively files to use either cables or a bus bar as taught by Kim to pass through the partition of Joye in order to electrically connect adjacent modules.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-11 of response, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of Joye and De Paoli of claims 1 and 9 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. All arguments were made with respect to the new limitation requiring an [adhesive] member to connect the connecting members and partition wall. New prior art of Cho was used to read on this new limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights