Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/017,996

BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jan 25, 2023
Examiner
APICELLA, KARIE O
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lg Energy Solution, LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
834 granted / 1040 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
1092
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1040 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 2. The Applicant's amendments filed on October 15, 2025, were received. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 12 have been amended. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. None of the Claims have been withdrawn from consideration or added as new. Therefore, Claims 1 and 4-14 are pending in this office action. 3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on July 28, 2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4. The rejection of Claims 1-3 and 7-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2018/0034121 A1), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 4-7 of the Remarks dated October 15, 2025. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Claims 1, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (US 2014/0193685 A1). With regard to Claim 1, Lim discloses in Figures 4-6, a battery module (100) comprising: a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells (10), and at least one barrier layer, called a thermal insulating layer (150, 250, 350), wherein the at least one barrier layer (150, 250, 350) is positioned between adjacent battery cells (10a, 10b) among the plurality of battery cells (10), wherein a thickness of the barrier layer (350) differs depending on a position thereof (See Figures 6A, 6B), wherein the barrier layer (250) comprises a first barrier part, called a base portion (251), that covers a body portion, which is an elongated main section, of one battery cell (10) of the plurality of battery cells (10a, 10b), and a second barrier part, called side portions (252, 253), that extends from the first barrier part (251) and covers a top portion of the one battery cell (10) (See Figure 5), and wherein a thickness of the first barrier layer (350) increases along a direction toward an edge (352) of the body portion of the one battery cell (10) (paragraphs 0035-0060; See Figures). With regard to Claim 9, Lim discloses wherein the barrier layer (150, 250, 350) comprises a flame retardant material (paragraph 0040). With regard to Claim 11, Lim discloses in Figure 5, wherein the battery module (100) comprises at least two or more barrier layers (250a, 250b), and at least two or more battery cells (10a, 10b) located between two adjacent barrier layers (250a, 250b) (paragraphs 0044-0045; See Figure 5). With regard to Claim 12, Lim discloses in Figures 5, 6A, 6B, wherein the barrier layer (350) has an asymmetric structure in which the edge portion (352) is thicker than the recessed central portion (351) (paragraphs 0049-0050; See Figure 6B), the barrier layer (250) covers a first surface of the one battery cell (10) of the plurality of battery cells (10a, 10b) and an extension, called side portions (252, 253), of the barrier layer (250) covers a portion of a second surface of the one battery cell (10), and the second surface is opposite to the first surface (paragraphs 0044-0046). With regard to Claim 13, Lim discloses in Figures 6A and 6B, wherein a direction of gas generated in the one battery cell (10) is controlled by the asymmetric structure, the central recessed portion (351), of the barrier layer (350) (paragraphs 0049-0050). The recitation, “wherein a direction of a flame generated in the one battery cell is controlled by the asymmetric structure of the barrier layer”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113. With regard to Claim14, Lim discloses a battery pack comprising the battery module noted above, including a housing and end plates to form a pack structure (paragraphs 0007, 0018-0019). PNG media_image1.png 373 504 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. The rejection of Claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2018/0034121 A1), as applied to Claims 1-3 and 7-14 above, has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 4-7 of the Remarks dated October 15, 2025. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2014/0193685 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 9 and 11-14 above. With regard to Claim 4, Lim discloses the battery module in paragraph 7 above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the first barrier part is greater than a thickness of the second barrier part. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the battery module to have a thickness of the first barrier part greater than a thickness of the second barrier part, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). With regard to Claim 5, Lim discloses wherein the second barrier part (252, 253) comprises a flexible material of fiber sheet (paragraph 0040). With regard to Claim 6, Lim discloses in Figure 5, wherein the top portion of the one battery cell (10) comprises a first region covered by the second barrier part (252, 253) and a second region not covered by the second barrier part (252, 253) (see annotated figure above; paragraphs 0044-0046). 13. Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2014/0193685 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 9 and 11-14 above, and in further view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0034121 A1). With regard to Claims 7-8, Lim discloses the battery module in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the barrier layer further comprises a third barrier part that covers an end part of the one battery cell and surrounds an electrode lead protruding from the one battery cell, and wherein the third barrier part comprises an opening, and the electrode lead passes through the opening. Kwon et al. disclose in Figures 1-5, a battery module comprising: a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells (200), and at least one barrier layer, called a cartridge (100) which further includes a rest part (130), a lateral part (120) and heat insulating members (110), wherein the at least one barrier layer (100) is positioned between adjacent battery cells (200) among the plurality of battery cells (200) (paragraphs 0082-0094), and wherein the barrier layer (100) further comprises a third barrier part, including the lateral part (120) and heat insulating members (110), that covers an end part of the one battery cell (200) and surrounds an electrode lead protruding from the one battery cell (200), and wherein the third barrier part comprises an opening, and the electrode lead passes through the opening (paragraphs 0082-0094). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module of Lim to include a third barrier part that covers an end part of the one battery cell and surrounds an electrode lead protruding from the one battery cell, and wherein the third barrier part comprises an opening, and the electrode lead passes through the opening, because Kwon et al. teach that this configuration allows for a reduction of heat transfer to the outside from the inner space (paragraph 0083). With regard to Claim 10, Lim discloses the battery module in paragraph 7 above, including the barrier layer (150, 250, 350) comprising a vocalized fiber sheet made of cotton fiber or pulp fiber and cellulose (paragraph 0040), but do not specifically disclose wherein the barrier layer comprises a silicon foam pad or a mica sheet. Kwon et al. disclose in Figures 1-5, wherein the barrier layer (100), including the heat insulating members (110), comprises a flame retardant material, further comprising a silicon foam pad or a mica sheet (paragraphs 0024, 0079). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module of Lim to include a barrier layer comprising a silicon foam pad or a mica sheet, because Kwon et al. teach that these materials provide more secure insulation in an operational temperature range of the battery (paragraph 0079). Response to Arguments 14. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-7, filed October 15, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-3 and 7-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2018/0034121 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lim (US 2014/0193685 A1). Conclusion 15. 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. 16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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. /KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 15, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 27, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603364
Battery Cell, Battery, Electrical Device, and Manufacturing Method and Device for Battery Cell
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603325
ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICES, PLASTIC COMPOSITION, USE AND PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603349
BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597685
VOLTAGE DETECTION DEVICE AND BATTERY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597677
LDH SEPARATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1040 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month