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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-16 are as previously presented. Claims 1-16 are currently examined.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection as set forth within the previous office action has been modified as necessitated by the applicants amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0067040), and further in view of Ootsuki (US 2021/0013460).
As to claim 1, Kim disclose a battery module (figure 2 #1, [0063], discussed throughout) comprising: a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells (figure 2 #111, [0063], discussed throughout); a module frame accommodating the battery cell stack (figure 2 #20 or #310 or #40 or #60, [0104], [0071], [0063], discussed throughout); and a flame separation structure between two adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (figure 3 #112, [0084], discussed throughout).
Kim is silent to wherein the flame separation structure between the battery cell stack and the module frame and wherein the flame separation structure includes a first extension portion extending into a first space between the battery cell stack and the module frame and an end portion of the first extension portion in contact with the module frame to separate the space into two spaces.
Ootsuki discloses a battery (figure 7 #11, [0217], discussed throughout) with a resistant laminate (figure 7 #20, [0217], discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the resistant laminate from Ootsuki within Kim because it can provide a fire-resistant laminate that has high fire resistance and can exert high fire-extinguishing performance when ignition occurs ([0064], discussed throughout, Ootsuki) thus increasing safety.
Thus, modified Kim discloses wherein and a flame separation structure between two adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells or between the battery cell stack and the module frame (figure 2 of Kim and figure 7 and [0209] of Ootsuki) and wherein the flame separation structure includes a first extension portion extending into a first space between the battery cell stack and the module frame (figure 2 of Kim and figure 7 and [0209] of Ootsuki; this is because the cell bodies are covered) an end portion of the first extension portion in contact with the module frame to separate the space into two spaces (figures 2 and figure 7 of Kim and figure 7 of Ootuki).
As to claim 2, modified Kim discloses wherein, at least two flame separation structures; and one or more battery cells positioned between two adjacent flame separation structures of the at least two flame separation structures (figure 2 of Kim and figure 7 and [0209] of Ootsuki; this is because the cell bodies are covered).
As to claim 3, modified Kim discloses further comprising a second space formed by the first extension portion, the module frame, and the battery cell stack, wherein the second space is between the two adjacent flame separation structures among the flame separation structures (figure 7 of Ootsuki, as the battery cells are being covered spaces that meet the requirement can be seen in figures 7a-7c of Kim).
As to claim 4, modified Kim discloses wherein, each of the plurality of battery cells includes an electrode lead (figure 7c #111a, [0063], discussed throughout), and wherein the flame separation structure includes a second extension portion extending into a second space corresponding to a region where the electrode lead protrudes (figure 7 of Ootsuki, the cell body are coved; thus see figure 7c of Kim).
As to claim 5, modified Kim discloses wherein, the flame separation structure includes an opening between the first extension portion and the second extension portion (figure 7C if each part of the battery 111b is covered and the part just before 111a is the extension portion, then each battery has an extension portion and thus the space can be seen in figure 7C of Kim).
As to claim 6, modified Kim discloses wherein, the flame separation structure includes at least one of a flame-retardant pad and a flame separation sheet (figure 7 #21 and #22, [0184], Ootsuki).
As to claim 8, modified Kim discloses wherein, the flame separation structure includes the flame-retardant pad, and wherein the flame separation sheet is on a surface of the flame-retardant pad (figure 7 #21 and #22, [0184], Ootsuki).
As to claim 9, modified Kim discloses wherein, the flame separation sheet is positioned corresponding to the first extension portion (figure 7c, Kim, discussed throughout; as the battery would be covered both would be present thus reading on the claim).
As to claim 10, modified Kim discloses wherein, the flame separation sheet is positioned corresponding to the second extension portion (figure 7c, Kim, discussed throughout; as the battery would be covered both would be present thus reading on the claim).
As to claim 11, modified Kim discloses wherein, the flame separation sheet includes at least one of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), mica, glass fiber and mineral fiber composite ([0358], [0149], [0368], discussed throughout Ootsuki).
As to claim 12, modified Kim discloses further comprising: a first end plate covering a front surface of the battery cell stack (figure 2 #60, [0101], either side, discussed throughout, Kim); a second plate covering a rear surface of the battery cell stack (figure 2 #60, [0101], the other side, discussed throughout, Kim); and an insulation cover between the battery cell stack and the first end plate or the second end plate (figure 2 #50, except the bus bars, [0089], discussed throughout; or figure 7A #330, [0104], discussed throughout, Kim), wherein a plurality of partition walls protrude into the battery cell stack from an inner surface of the insulation cover facing the battery cell stack (figures 7A-7C #532, and/or 541, and/or 531 and/or #542, discussed throughout, Kim).
As to claim 13, modified Kim discloses wherein, one partition wall of the plurality of partition walls includes a pair of sub partition walls, wherein first one of the pair of sub partition walls is positioned on a first side of the flame separation structure, and wherein second one of the pair of subs partition walls is positioned on a second side of the flame separation structure (figures 6-7C #532, and/or 541, and/or 531 and/or #542, discussed throughout, Kim).
As to claim 14, modified Kim discloses wherein, the insulation cover includes a first vent hole between adjacent partition walls of the plurality of partition walls (figures 6 and 7B shows the hole and thus can be a vent hole).
As to claim 15, modified Kim is silent to wherein, wherein the end plate includes a second vent hole positioned corresponding to the first vent hole. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to add a hole within the end plate of modified Kim as a mere change in shape or aesthetic design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 I and/or IV B).
As to claim 16, modified Kim discloses a battery pack comprising the battery module of claim 1 ([0068], discussed throughout; Kim).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tianjin (WO 2022 126841 see attached translation).
As to claim 7, modified Kim is silent to wherein, the flame-retardant pad includes a silicon foam pad. Tianjin discloses a lithium ion battery module (abstract) wherein silicon foam is used as a flame retardant (page 4 and page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the silicon pad from Tianjin in place of or with the flame retardant pad in modified Kim as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the Kim (US 2020/0067040), in view of Ootsuki (US 2021/0013460) is silent to the amended claim limitation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The resistant laminate from Ootuki covers the outside of the battery can be seen in figure 7 #20 and throughout Ootuki. Thus, in figures 7A and 7C of Kim would read on the instant claimed invention. Note that either 330 can be considered part of the frame or the extension portion will be in thermal contact with the frame while still meeting the claimed requirements. Therefore the examiner maintains the rejection.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724