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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim 1 and added new claim 21; claim 2 was previously cancelled. Thus, claims 1, and 3-21 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The 112 rejection is withdrawn with the understanding that “buffer spaces” may, but do not require, literal empty, unfilled spaces as shown in instant Fig. 2. The buffer spaces are understood as an area/location; the area may include literal spaces (Fig. 2) or physical elements filling the area (e.g., stopper 600, Fig. 6).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art are not persuasive; thus, the 103 rejections of the claims are maintained over the same art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Welke disclosure of the location of the buffer spaces is incidental, not intentional, and Welk fails to disclose any intentional, functionally meaning purpose of the buffer spaces. Thus, Applicant concludes Welke fails to suggest the claimed configured to language related to “reducing mechanical stress or enhancing safety during swelling”. Applicant applies the same argument to Shin. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The configured to language is related to a property/function/ability of the buffer space based on its structure/location. Instant Figs. 2 and 4 show that a buffer space 500 that exist under the cells 100 allows a cell to expand therein, thereby relieving the tensile force. In other words, the buffer space, by way of its existence under the cells, provides a space for which the cell can expand, thereby relieving tensile force. Regardless of whether the presence of the buffer space in Welke (or Shin) is incidental, the buffer spaces are still explicitly shown and exist, and the location thereof is the same as that claimed (e.g., under the outermost cell, in view of Fig. 15 of Welke and in view of Kimura as described on pages 8-9/15 of the last Office action; in view of Fig. 3 of Shin and in view of Kimura as described on pages 4-5/15 of the last Office action). The configured to language would be expected provided the buffer spaces of the prior art exist, and in the same location as that claimed, thereby offering an area to which swelling cells may expand, hence enabling the tensile force to be relieved.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to modify Welke with Kimura because Kimura never suggests removing thermal material of forming an empty region below any specific cell. Similar arguments are applied to Shin and Kimura. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, the claimed structure is the result of the combination of reference, not necessarily the express suggestion in any one or all the references. Welke (or Shin) already discloses a thermal resin and its location, as well as the buffer spaces on each side thereof; Kimura provides motivation to control the length of the thermal resin of Welke (of Shin). In modifying the length of the thermal resin of Welke (or Shin) based on Kimura’s suggestion (i.e., reducing the length of the thermal resin), the buffer spaces that are already present in Welke (or Shin) become larger and the configured to language would be expected provided the buffer space exists, and are located in the same location as that claimed, thereby offering an area to which swelling cells may expand which enables relief of a tensile force.
Applicant argues the modification of Shin with Lee contradicts Shin’s primary objective of providing a structure that is easy to recycle, reuse, or rework. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because applicant has not described what in particular about using thermal resin in Shin would make it unsuitable for reuse.
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, 3-6, 8, 12, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (WO 2019/143029, translated by US 2020/0411815) in view of Kimura (US 2009/0035648) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0343604), hereinafter Shin, Kimura, and Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Shin suggests a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells; a module case (100, 200, 300, 400) in which the plurality of battery cells (20) are accommodated (Fig. 3); a thermal transfer pad (700) provided inside the module case, and configured to cool the plurality of battery cells ([0050]); and buffer spaces provided inside the module case and facing each other (see Fig. 3), the thermal transfer pad (700) being between the buffer spaces, wherein the thermal transfer pad (700) is located under the plurality of battery cells except for (at least portions of) outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells, and wherein the buffer spaces are located in a predetermined region including under the outermost battery cells inside the module case. The configured to language related to the relief of tensile force would be expected provided the buffer spaces of Shin exist, and in the same location as that claimed, thereby offering an area to which swelling cells may expand, hence enabling the tensile force to be relieved.
Moreover, the length of the thermal transfer pad (700), hence size/area of the buffer spaces, is an obvious matter of design choice for the following reasons. Kimura suggests cells in the center of the stack are more likely to keep heat therein since they are arranged at a position far from the outer shell of the stack hence have a low cooling efficiency, thereby necessitate more active cooling; in contrast cells positioned close to the outer shell of the stack (i.e., outermost cells) are more likely to release heat and have higher cooling efficiency, thereby necessitate less active cooling. In view of the different cooling efficiencies of the cells in the stack, Kimura varies the thickness of the heat exchange sheets in association with the outermost cells and innermost cells; specifically, the heat exchange sheets in association with the cell in the outermost position are thinner than the heat exchange sheets associated with cells located in the innermost position, thereby preventing a temperature difference between the cells of the stack. In recognizing the innermost cells need more active cooling, while the outermost cells already having high cooling efficiency since they are close to the outer shell of the stack, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the length of the thermal transfer pad such that only the innermost cells are located under the thermal transfer pad (while the outermost cells are not located under the thermal transfer pad since they already have high efficiency) and there would be an expectation of preventing a temperature difference between the plurality of cells (i.e., expectation of a uniform temperature of the cells), as suggested by Kimura. In view of the foregoing, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the thermal transfer pad (700) of Shin is made shorter such that it is located under the plurality of battery cells except for outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (provided these cells already have high cooling efficiency), thereby making the area of the battery spaces larger such that the buffer spaces are located under the outermost battery cells inside the module case, with the expectation of preventing a temperature difference between the plurality of cells (i.e., providing a uniform temperature between the cells), as suggested by Kimura. In modifying (shortening) the length of the thermal transfer pad, the area of the buffer spaces of Shin increase; the configured to language would be expected provided the buffer space exists, and are located in the same location as that claimed, thereby offering an area to which swelling cells may expand which enables relief of a tensile force.
Shin suggests the thermal transfer pad can be any material so long as it has a property capable of promoting thermal conductivity; a thermal resin is not disclosed. However, Lee suggests a heat transfer member 90 made of high thermal conductivity resin in contact with the cells to transfer heat away from the cells, [0082-0083]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the thermal transfer pad of Shin is a thermal resin with the expectation of transferring heat generated by the cells, as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claims 3-4, Shin suggests buffer pads (600) provided on inner walls (300, 400) of the module case, and contacting outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells, see Fig. 3; the buffer spaces are provided between lower end portions of the buffer pads (600) and an inner bottom surface of the module case, see Fig. 3.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “thermal resin is applied … when the battery module is manufactured” and “the thermal resin is injected into the module case through an injector from outside of the module case when the battery module is manufactured”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim appears to require thermal resin on an inner bottom surface of the module case and the thermal resin inside the module case. Shin, as modified by Lee, suggests the thermal resin inside the module case on an inner bottom surface of the module case, see Fig. 3 of Shin and [0050], and Fig. 4 of Lee.
Regarding Claim 8, Shin suggests the buffer spaces are filled with air (see Figs.).
Regarding Claim 12, Shin suggests the buffer spaces are located directly under outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells, see Fig. 3; see also the rejection of claim 1 in view of Kimura.
Regarding Claim 16, Shin suggests the buffer spaces are empty spaces directly under the outermost battery cells (see e.g., Fig. 3); see also the rejection of claim 1 in view of Kimura.
Regarding Claim 20, the modification of Shin with Lee suggests the thermal resin directly contacts the plurality of battery cells, see e.g., pad 700 of Shin in Fig. 3 and thermal resin 90 in Fig. 4 of Lee.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, Kimura, and Lee (cited above) in view of Thurmeier (US 201903414593), hereinafter Thurmeier.
Regarding Claims 9-10, Shin suggests the battery module in an electric vehicle (e.g., [0078]) but does not suggest a battery pack comprising the battery module and a pack case for packaging the battery module. However, Thurmeier suggest battery modules (2) are packaged and arranged/delimited in a pack case (e.g., tray, housing, 200, Fig. 1, [0002, 0014-0015]), thereby enabling electrical energy to be provided to the vehicle. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art an electric vehicle includes multiple battery modules in a pack case with the expectation of arranging/delimiting battery modules and providing electrical energy to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welke (DE 102013021205, of record, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kimura (US 2009/0035648), hereinafter Welke and Kimura.
Regarding Claim 1, Welke suggests a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells (i.e., 2, see e.g., Fig. 15); a module case (e.g., 3, 4, 5, 8) in which the plurality of battery cells are accommodated; a thermal resin (e.g., 10 and/or 11/13, i.e., silicone gel [0066] and/or thermoplastic [0045], the heat conducting elements are intended for temperature control of the cells, see abstract, [0006]) provided inside the module case, and configured to cool the plurality of battery cells (see e.g., abstract, claim 1, etc.); and buffer spaces (see spaces adjacent recess 3.1 in Figs. 7, 13-15) provided inside the module case and facing each other (Fig.14), the thermal resin being between the buffer spaces (Figs. 13, 15). Further, Welke suggests the thermal resin (10 and/or 11/13) being between the buffer spaces, wherein the thermal resin (e.g., 10) is located under the plurality of battery cells except for (at least portions of) outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 15), and wherein the buffer spaces are located in a predetermined region including under the outermost battery cells inside the module case (see Fig. 15). The configured to language related to the relief of tensile force would be expected provided the buffer spaces exist, and in the same location as that claimed, thereby offering an area to which swelling cells may expand, hence enabling the tensile force to be relieved.
Moreover, the length of the thermal resin, hence the size/area of the buffer spaces, would be an obvious matter of design choice for the following reasons. Kimura suggests cells in the center of the stack are more likely to keep heat therein since they are arranged at a position far from the outer shell of the stack hence have a low cooling efficiency, thereby necessitate more active cooling; in contrast cells positioned close to the outer shell of the stack (i.e., outermost cells) are more likely to release heat and have higher cooling efficiency, thereby necessitate less active cooling. In view of the different cooling efficiencies of the cells in the stack, Kimura varies the thickness of the heat exchange sheets in association with the outermost cells and innermost cells; specifically, the heat exchange sheets in association with the cell in the outermost position are thinner than the heat exchange sheets associated with cells located in the innermost position, thereby preventing a temperature difference between the cells of the stack. In recognizing the innermost cells need more active cooling, while the outermost cells already having high cooling efficiency since they are close to the outer shell of the stack, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the length of the thermal resin such that only the innermost cells are located under the thermal resin (while the outermost cells are not located under the thermal resin since they already have high cooling efficiency) and there would be an expectation of preventing a temperature difference between the plurality of cells (i.e., an expectation of uniform temperature of the cells), as suggested by Kimura. In view of the foregoing, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the thermal resin of Welke is located under the plurality of battery cells except for outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (provided these cells already have high cooling efficiency), thereby increasing the area of the buffer spaces such that the buffer spaces are located under the outermost battery cells inside the module case, with the expectation of preventing a temperature difference between the plurality of cells, as suggested by Kimura. In modifying (shortening) the length of the thermal resin, the buffer space area increases; the configured to language would be expected provided the buffer spaces exists, and are located in the same location as that claimed, thereby offering an area to which swelling cells may expand which enables relief of a tensile force.
Regarding Claim 3, Welke suggests buffer pads (3) provided on inner walls of the module case, and contacting outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells, see Figs. 1-3.
Regarding Claim 4, Welke suggests the buffer spaces are provided between lower end portions of the buffer pads and an inner bottom surface of the module case, see Fig. 15.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “thermal resin is applied to an inner bottom surface of the module case when the battery module is manufactured”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, claim is interpreted such that the thermal resin is located on an inner bottom surface of the module case, as implied by the process recited in the claim. Welke suggests the thermal resin is located on an inner bottom surface of the module case.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “the thermal resin is injected into the module case through an injector from outside of the module case when the battery module is manufactured”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, the process recited in claim 6 appears to suggest the thermal resin in the module case; Welke suggests the thermal resin in the module case, see e.g., Fig. 15.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “when the thermal resin is injected through the injector”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, the features recited in claim 7 suggests the thermal resin is delimited by resin stoppers. Welke suggests the buffer spaces comprise resin stoppers (e.g., edges of film 13), thereby delimiting the thermal resin (10), hence the structural features suggested by the process limitation are met. It is further noted, the structure suggested by Welke (i.e., edges of film 13) is configured to prevent introduction of the thermal resin (i.e., 10) when the thermal resin is injected through the injection unit.
Regarding Claim 8, Welke suggests the buffer spaces are filled with air, see figs.
Regarding Claim 11, Welke suggests resin stoppers (e.g., e.g., ends of film 11/13) between the thermal resin (e.g., 10) and sidewalls (e.g., 3.1) of the module case, see Figs. 13-14.
Regarding Claim 12, Welke suggests the buffer spaces are located directly under outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells, see Figs. 14-15, see also the rejection of claim 1 in view of Kimura.
Regarding Claim 13, Welke suggests the thermal resin (10) is on an inner bottom surface of the module case, and the resin stoppers (e.g., ends of 11/13) are between the thermal resin (10) and sidewalls (3.1) of the module case, see Figs. 13-14.
Regarding Claim 14-16, Welke suggests buffer pads (i.e., 3) provided on the sidewalls of the module case and contacting outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells (see Figs. 1-3, 15), wherein the buffer spaces are provided between lower end portions of the buffer pads and the inner bottom surface of the module case, see e.g., Figs. 14-15. Welke suggests the buffer spaces comprise empty spaces directly under lower end portions of the buffer pads (i.e., 3, Fig. 15), and wherein the resin stoppers (i.e., ends of film 11/13) are directly under the outermost battery cells (Fig. 14-15, see also rejection of claim 1 in view of Kimura), and the buffer spaces are empty spaces directly under the outermost battery cells (see Fig. 15, see also rejection of claim 1 in view of Kimura).
Regarding Claim 17, Welke suggests the module case includes a top wall (4), a bottom wall (8), and side walls (3, 5) and the resin stoppers (i.e., ends of 11/13) are spaced from the side walls (3, see space S between 11 and 3.1 in Fig. 7, see also space between 5 and edge of film 11/13 in Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 18, Welke suggests a height of the inner wall of each resin stopper (e.g., edge of film 13) is less than a height of the outer wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Welke does not explicitly suggests a width of the resin stoppers (edges of film 13) is equal to the width of the outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells. However, the width of the resin stoppers (i.e., edges of film 13) would be an obvious matter of design choice for the following reason. Welke suggests the edges of film 13 (interpreted as the resin stoppers) are used to glue film 13 to the control device 8 thereby holding thermal resin 10 therein. It would be understood that increasing the surface area (hence the width) of the glued edge of film 13 would increase the attachment strength of the film 13, thereby more securely holding the thermal resin 10 therein. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the width of the edges of film 13 are varied to ensure sufficient gluing of the film 13 to plate 8, thereby securing the location of the thermal resin 10 to the cells in need of cooling.
Regarding Claim 21, Welke suggests resin stoppers (i.e., edges of film 13) are formed of flexible casing 11 ([0045]), thereby suggesting the resin stoppers are formed from elastic material. Further, each resin stopper has a top surface, a bottom surface, an outer surface, and an inner surface directly contacting the thermal resin 10, see annotated Fig. 13 which shows the interpretation of the prior art for each claimed surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
894
972
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welke and Kimura, in view of Thurmeier (US 201903414593), hereinafter Thurmeier.
Regarding Claims 9-10, Welke suggests a vehicle (e.g., electric vehicle, [0037]) comprising a battery pack comprising the battery module detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Welke does not suggest a pack case for packaging the battery module. However, Thurmeier suggest battery modules (2) are packaged and arranged/delimited in a pack case (e.g., tray, housing, 200, Fig. 1, [0002, 0014-0015]), thereby enabling electrical energy to be provided to the vehicle. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art an electric vehicle includes battery modules in a pack case with the expectation of arranging/delimiting battery modules and providing electrical energy to the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729