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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 have been amended and new claims 14-15 have been added. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (CN 212485434U, presented in IDS submitted 09/18/2024, Espacenet translation used for reference).
With respect to claim 1, Liang discloses a battery pack (Fig/ 1, [0030]) comprising:
battery modules (batteries on either side of first supporting plate 61) including a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1); and
a pack frame (10 – battery frame) for housing the battery modules (Fig. 1),
wherein within the pack frame (10), the battery modules are arranged in a multiple row and single layer structure (Fig. 1),
wherein at least two of the battery modules (separated by first supporting plate 61) are arranged in a row along a first direction (labeled) to form a battery module group (labeled - first battery module group), and the battery pack including a plurality of battery module groups (first, second, third, fourth) (Fig. 1 – above),
wherein a partition wall member (12 – cross beams) is located between any one battery module group (first through fourth) and another battery module group (first through fourth) (Fig. 1 - above and 2), and
wherein the partition wall member (12) extends along the first direction (labeled) from the pack frame so that each of the one and the another battery module groups (labeled) is spatially separated by the partition wall member (12) within the pack frame (10) (Fig. 1 – above), and
wherein a space gap (122 - groove) is provided on one end side of the partition wall member (12) (Fig. 2).
The limitation which states “to prevent propagation of heat and venting gas,” is a recitation of an intended use. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (MPEP [7.37.09]). In the instant case, there are no claimed structural differences between the claimed battery pack and partition wall member compared to the prior art, therefore the recitation of intended use does not patentably distinguish the claimed battery pack over the prior art.
With respect to claim 2, Liang discloses the plurality of battery cells are stacked along the first direction while one surface of a cell body of a battery cell among the plurality of battery cells stands upright so as to be perpendicular to one surface bottom part (13 – bottom plate) of the pack frame (10) (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Liang discloses each battery cell is a pouch-type battery cell (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 4, Liang discloses a connection member (not shown, via groove 122 in partition member 12) that connects the one battery module group (first through fourth) and another battery module group (first through fourth) among the plurality of battery module groups (first through fourth) (Fig. 5, [0053]).
With respect to claim 5, Liang discloses the connection member (not shown) is located is provided on the one end side or on opposite end sides of the partition wall member (12) (Fig. 2 and 5), and
a sealing member (1221 – insulating sheath) is arranged in the space gap (122) where in the connection member is located (Fig. 7, [0053]).
With respect to claim 6, Liang discloses the plurality of battery module groups comprise a first battery module group (labeled), a second battery module group (labeled), and a third battery module group (labeled) (Fig. 1 – above), and
within each of the first battery module group (labeled), the second battery module group (labeled), and the third battery module group (labeled), the battery modules (separated by first supporting plate 61) are arranged in a row along the first direction (labeled) (Fig. 1 – above).
With respect to claim 7, Liang discloses within the pack frame (10), the first battery module group (labeled), the second battery module group (labeled), and the third battery module group (labeled) are arranged along a second direction (labeled) perpendicular to the first direction (labeled) (Fig. 1 – above).
With respect to claim 8, Liang discloses the partition wall member (12) is provided in plural (Fig. 2), and the plurality of partition wall members (12) comprise a first partition wall member (labeled) and a second partition wall member (labeled) (Fig. 2 – below),
wherein the first partition wall member (labeled) is located between the first battery module group (labeled) and the second battery module group (labeled) (Fig. 1 – above and Fig. 2 – below), and
the second partition wall member (labeled) is located between the second battery module group (labeled) and the third battery module group (labeled) (Fig. 1 – above and Fig. 2 - below.)
PNG
media_image2.png
527
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Liang discloses a first opening (122 – labeled first opening) for connecting a space (20) of the first battery module group (labeled) and a space (20) of the second battery module group (labeled) is formed on one end side of the first partition wall member (labeled) (Figs. 1 and 2 – above), and
a second opening (122 – labeled second opening) for connecting the space (20) of the second battery module group (labeled) and a space of the third battery module group (labeled) is formed on one end side of the second partition wall member (labeled) (Figs. 1 and 2 – above).
With respect to claim 10, Liang discloses the first opening (122 – labeled) and the second opening (122 – labeled) are located on opposite sides to each other with respect to the first direction (labeled) (Figs. 1 and 2 – above).
With respect to claim 11, Liang discloses that due to the partition member (12), any one battery module (separated by first supporting plate 61) faces one or two battery modules among the battery modules (Fig. 1- above).
With respect to claim 12, Liang discloses a device (vehicle) comprising the battery pack of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 13, Liang discloses the partition wall member (12) has a solid includes at least one of a heat insulator (123 – insulating sheath) and a metal plate (entirety of box 10 made of metal) (Figs. 1 and 11; [0052]).
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) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 20180138561).
With respect to claim 14, Liang discloses battery modules disposed on either side of a lateral surface of a partition member (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose a separation gap exists between the battery modules and the lateral side of the partition wall.
Lee disclose a battery pack (10) comprising partition members (240 and 250 – coolant pipes) separating adjacent battery modules (200) (Figs. 4 and 7) and teaches that a separation gap (filled by R – coolant) exists between the battery modules (200) and the partition members (240 and 250) (Fig. 4 and 7). Lee further teaches that this separation gap allows for the improved cooling surrounding the battery modules (Fig. 4, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a separation gap as taught by Lee between the battery modules and lateral sides of the partition members in order to allow for improved cooling surrounding the battery modules.
With respect to claim 15, Liang discloses a battery pack (Fig/ 1, [0030]) comprising:
battery modules (batteries on either side of first supporting plate 61) including a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1); and
a pack frame (10 – battery frame) for housing the battery modules (Fig. 1),
wherein within the pack frame (10), the battery modules are arranged in a multiple row and single layer structure (Fig. 1),
wherein at least two of the battery modules (separated by first supporting plate 61) are arranged in a row along a first direction (labeled) to form a battery module group (labeled - first battery module group), and the battery pack including a plurality of battery module groups (first, second, third, fourth) (Fig. 1 – above),
wherein a partition wall member (12 – cross beams) is located between any one battery module group (first through fourth) and another battery module group (first through fourth) (Fig. 1 - above and 2), and
wherein the partition wall member (12) extends along the first direction (labeled) from the pack frame so that each of the one and the another battery module groups (labeled) is spatially separated by the partition wall member (12) within the pack frame (10) (Fig. 1 – above), and
wherein a space gap (122 - groove) is provided on one end side of the partition wall member (12) (Fig. 2).
Liang does not disclose that the one end side of the partition wall is separated from the pack frame.
Lee disclose a battery pack (10) comprising partition members (240 and 250 – coolant pipes) separating adjacent battery modules (200) (Figs. 4 and 7) and teaches the partition wall (240 and 250) is separated from the pack frame (100) (Fig. 4). Lee further teaches that this allows for a cooling flow path (denoted by R – coolant) throughout the battery pack in order to cool the battery modules (Fig. 4, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to separate one end of the partition wall disclosed by Liang from the pack frame as taught by Lee in order to form a cooling flow path throughout the battery pack to cool the modules.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11 of response, filed01/29/2026, with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are premised on the assertion that the new limitations, (I) “to prevent propagation of heat and venting gas,” and (II) “a space gap is provided on one end side of the partition wall member,” overcomes the prior art of record. However, amendment (I) is merely a recitation of intended use and does not differentiate the instant invention from the prior art (see above rejection of claim 1 for further details). Additionally, it is the examiner’s opinion that amendment (II) does not distinctly limit the empty space on the extending end of the partition wall that applicant argues. The addition of the words “space” and “end” do not structurally limit to applicant’s arguments, which are directed to the free end of the partition wall. Further, new claim 15 does successfully limit the free end of the partition wall in accordance with the applicant’s arguments, and new prior art Lee et al. has been used to read on the limitation (see above rejection of claim 15 for further details). Lee has also been used to read on new claim 14 regarding a space between lateral sides of the partition wall and adjacent battery modules.
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