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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/26/2026:
Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 15 is newly added.
The previous prior art-based rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
While a new rejection in view of Persson et al (US 20210288374 A1) has been set forth below, the Examiner notes that previously cited Kim et al (US 20210074972 A1) is still able to be used with previously cited Wynn et al (US 20200152935 A1) to meet the claim 1 as-amended and has been utilized in a rejection towards claim 1 below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s specification on Page 12 states:
PNG
media_image1.png
290
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Fig. 8 can be seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
536
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It appears that the first venting part 1350 and second venting part 1310 are swapped in the description on Applicant’s specification Page 12.
Applicant’s specification states the second venting part 1310 extends up to the bottom surface of the cover part through the center of first venting hole 1215, however, from Fig. 8, it is actually the first venting part 1350 that extends through the center of first venting hole 1215.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-2, 7, 11, and 15, and thus their dependents, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 11, and 15 recite the limitation "the cover". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which “cover” of the “at least one cover” is “the cover”.
Given claims 2-14 ultimately depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 7 recites “wherein: the second venting part extends up to a bottom surface of the cover through a center of the first venting hole”.
Claim 7 depends upon claim 6 which recites “wherein: the vent comprises a first venting part extending along the longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame and a second venting part extending in the width direction of the lower pack frame”.
It is unclear how the second venting part of the vent can extend up to a bottom surface of the cover through a center of the first venting hole, when the second venting part is part of the vent that is arranged to cover the first venting hole (as stated in claim 1). Since the vent “covers” the first venting hole, the vent would be set/over the top surface of the cover, therefore, it is unclear how the second venting part of the vent extends “up to” a bottom surface of the cover.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification on Page 12 states:
PNG
media_image1.png
290
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Figs. 8 can be seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
536
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, it is still unclear from the drawings how the second venting part 1310 extends “up to” the bottom surface of the cover part 1200, because the second venting part does not touch or interact with the bottom surface of the cover part. The second venting part lies on the top of the cover part.
Even if the Examiner interpreted the claim such that it recited the first venting part instead of the second venting part, as seen in Fig. 8 above, the first venting part 1350 does not extend “up to” the bottom surface of the cover part.
Therefore, the subject matter recited in claim 7 is unclear and no prior art will be applied to claim 7 until the indefiniteness issues are resolved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Persson et al (US 20210288374 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Persson discloses a battery pack (battery module 10 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P26) comprising:
a lower pack frame on which a plurality of battery cell arrays are mounted, each battery cell array including a plurality of stacked battery cells (container 12 includes four arrays of three prismatic battery cells 16 in Fig. 1; the battery cells are connected via bus bars 18 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P26-27);
at least one cover located on an upper part of the plurality of battery cell arrays (cover 14 in Figs. 1-3; see entire disclosure and especially P27); and
a vent that is mounted on the cover and extends along a longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame (shield structure 26 in Fig. 3; see entire disclosure and especially P31, 34),
wherein the cover covers the upper part of a pair of battery cell arrays of the plurality of battery cell arrays arranged so as to face each other with respect to a width direction of the lower pack frame (see the annotated Fig. below), and
wherein a first venting hole is formed in the cover, and the vent covers the first venting hole (vent port 24 in Fig. 3; see entire disclosure and especially P31, 34), and
wherein the first venting hole extends in a direction of stacking of the battery cells and is located above facing ends of the pair of battery cell arrays in plan view (as seen in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1, it appears bus bar 18 connects 2 arrays of adjacent battery cells, therefore, the facing ends of the pair of battery cell arrays would be where bus bar 18 is located; as seen in the annotated Fig. below, the stacking direction of the battery cells in the arrays appears to be the same direction in which vent port 24 extends in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
544
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
412
491
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Two Annotated Fig. 1’s of Persson
Regarding claim 6, Persson discloses the vent (shield structure 26) comprises a first venting part extending along the longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame (first planar portion 26a in Fig. 3) and a second venting part extending in the width direction of the lower pack frame (second planar portion 26b in Fig. 3; see entire disclosure and especially P34; as seen in the annotated Fig. below, both planar portions 26a/26b extend in both the longitudinal and width direction of the lower pack frame, therefore, both meet the requirements of the first and second venting parts).
PNG
media_image5.png
447
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Persson
Regarding claim 8, Persson discloses wherein: the lower pack frame comprises a bottom part in contact with a lower surface of the plurality of battery cell arrays (the bottom of container 12 battery cells 16 sit on in Fig. 1, given the container 16 is a “box” structure), and a frame part in contact with at least one side surface of the plurality of battery cell arrays (the side walls of container 12 battery cells 16 sit inside in Fig. 1, given the container 16 is a “box” structure; see entire disclosure and especially P26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al (US 20210288374 A1) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Hermansson et al (US 20110217575 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Persson does not disclose wherein: the frame part is made of a heat insulating member.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hermansson teaches a casing for a battery pack (see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P28-29). Hermansson teaches the casing can comprise connectors for pipes for providing ventilation and cooling of the battery pack (see entire disclosure and especially P21). Hermansson teaches the casing is preferably made of flame retardant material and preferably also being heat insulating (see entire disclosure and especially P19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilize the teaching of Hermansson and selected the material of the lower pack frame and cover of Persson to be a flame retardant heat insulating material, thereby meeting the limitation wherein the frame part is made of a heat insulating member, given Hermansson teaches a battery casing is preferably made of a material such as this and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al (US 20210288374 A1) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Kim et al (US 20210074972 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Persson discloses wherein: the frame part comprises a side surface frame extending from an edge of the bottom part of the lower pack frame toward the upper part of the plurality of battery cell arrays (the side walls of container 12 that extend up from the bottom part of container 12 that the battery cells sit on in Fig. 1, given the container 16 is a “box” structure; see entire disclosure and especially P26). Persson does not disclose an inner frame located inside the side surface frame, and the plurality of battery cell arrays are divided from each other by the side surface frame and the inner frame.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches a lower pack frame on which a plurality of battery cell arrays are mounted (cover member 210 with battery cells 120 in Figs. 15-18; P107; see Fig. 18 wherein there are 4 battery cell arrays of 2 battery cells each). Kim teaches insulation spacers (230 in Fig. 18) positioned between each pair of battery cell arrays (see Fig. 18; P107, 109). Kim teaches the insulation spacers may protect the battery cells from external impacts (P109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim and provided an inner frame located inside the side surface frame of Persson, such as providing insulation spacers as taught by Kim located inside the side surface frame, given Kim teaches the insulation spacers may protect the battery cells from external impacts.
Due to this modification, modified Persson would meet the limitation “the plurality of battery cell arrays are divided from each other by the side surface frame and the inner frame”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al (US 20210288374 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20210074972 A1) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Eberleh et al (US 20160359206 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Persson discloses a first end of the vent (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image6.png
412
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Persson Fig. 1
However, modified Persson does not meet the limitation wherein: at least one rupture part is formed on an outer surface of the side surface frame, and the rupture part is located adjacent to the first end of the vent.
In a similar field of endeavor, Eberleh teaches a housing for a cooling module has at least one pre-defined weakened region (see entire disclosure and especially P34, 135). Eberleh teaches this region opens up by way of material breakage at an overpressure present in a battery module and enables an out-gassing in the predefined region (see entire disclosure and especially P135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Eberleh and provided to modified Persson to include rupture parts, such as providing a weakened region, formed on all outer surfaces of the side surface frame, such that modified Persson would meet the limitation wherein: at least one rupture part is formed on an outer surface of the side surface frame, and the rupture part is located adjacent to the first end of the vent, given Eberleh teaches this can enable out-gassing at the weakened region if overpressure occurs and this would allow gas to escape out and away from the battery cells (16) of Persson in the chance that external debris or an external impact closes the holes provided on Persson’s cover (14).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al (US 20210288374 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kim et al (US 20110151312 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘312).
Regarding claim 14, Persson does not disclose wherein the battery pack is used within a device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim ‘312 teaches a battery module is an element of a high-capacity power supply unit formed of a plurality of batteries connected to each other and may be used as a power source for, for example, electric vehicles (P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilize the teaching of Kim ‘312 and chosen the battery pack of Persson (battery module 10) to be used as a power source for an electric vehicle, given Kim ‘312 teaches battery modules can be used to power electric vehicles.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210074972 A1) in view of Wynn et al (US 20200152935 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a battery pack comprising:
a lower pack frame on which a plurality of battery cell arrays are mounted, each battery cell array including a plurality of tacked battery cells (cover member 210 with battery cells 120 in Figs. 15-18; see entire disclosure and especially P107; see Fig. 18 wherein there are 4 battery cell arrays of 2 battery cells each);
at least one cover located on an upper part of the plurality of battery cell arrays (top cover 260 in Figs. 15-18; see entire disclosure and especially P107); and
wherein the cover covers the upper part of a pair of battery cell arrays of the plurality of battery cell arrays arranged so as to face each other with respect to a width direction of the lower pack frame (see Fig. 18 wherein there are 4 battery cell arrays of 2 battery cells each), and
wherein a first venting hole is formed in the cover (the through-holes 263 in Figs. 15-18 and noted in the annotated Fig. below; see entire disclosure and especially P114-115).
Further, Kim discloses wherein the first venting hole is located above facing ends of the pair of battery cell arrays in plan view (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image7.png
846
608
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 15 and 18 of Kim
Kim discloses wherein the first venting hole extends along a longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame and wherein the first venting hole extends in a direction of stacking of the battery cells, given the holes have dimensions in both the lateral and longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame and in Fig. 18, the battery cells in each array are seen stacked in the longitudinal direction of the battery pack (see the annotated Fig. provided below of the extension in the longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame).
PNG
media_image8.png
230
282
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim Fig. 15
However, Kim does not disclose a vent that is mounted on the cover and extends along a longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame, and the vent covers the first venting hole.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wynn teaches one-way valves can be used to allow evacuation of a liquid from a battery frame without allowing external liquid from entering the battery frame (P31).
Kim teaches the venting hole can be used to exhaust fire extinguishing agent of the extinguisher sheet but is silent to the material of the extinguishing agent (P115). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of utilizing a one-way valve to allow the extinguishing agent to be discharged while prevent external liquid (such as water known to cause short circuits in batteries) from entering the battery pack.
If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize one-way valves to permit discharge of internal liquid while preventing entrance of external liquid), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize one-way valves to permit discharge of internal fire extinguishing agent while preventing entrance of external liquid), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim and provided a vent covers the first venting hole, therefore is mounted on the cover and extends along a longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame (given the venting hole extends in a longitudinal direction), because Wynn teaches this would allow the discharge of internal components in a battery structure (such as the fire extinguishing agent of Kim) while preventing entrance of liquid to a battery structure.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses wherein: the lower pack frame comprises a bottom part in contact with a lower surface of the plurality of battery cell arrays (bottom of cover member 210 with battery cells 120 in Figs. 15-18, see specifically Figs. 17-18; also the Examiner would like to note the battery cells would be in thermal contact with the bottom of cover member 210 as well), and a frame part in contact with at least one side surface of the plurality of battery cell arrays (see four side walls of cover member 210 with battery cells 120 in Figs. 15-18, see specifically Figs. 17-18; also the Examiner would like to note the battery cells would be in thermal contact with the four side walls of cover member 210 as well).
Regarding claim 10, Kim disclose wherein: the frame part comprises a side surface frame extending from an edge of the bottom part of the lower pack frame toward the upper part of the plurality of battery cell arrays (see four side walls of cover member 210 with battery cells 120 in Figs. 15-18, see specifically Figs. 17-18), and an inner frame located inside the side surface frame (insulation spacers 230 in Figs. 15-18; the Examiner notes that lower pack frame’s side surface frames and inner frame are not required to be integral or a single component), and the plurality of battery cell arrays are divided from each other by the side surface frame and the inner frame (see Figs. 17-18).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210074972 A1) in view of Wynn et al (US 20200152935 A1) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Nemoto et al (US 20100032039 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim does not meet the limitation wherein the battery pack further comprises a first fastening member that fixes a part of an edge of the cover to an upper part of the inner frame, and a second fastening member that fixes a part of an edge of the vent to an upper surface of the cover.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nemoto teaches a valve can be fixed to a container, a piping, and/or an external connecter via a thermally adhesive film or adhesive agent (P27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Nemoto and provided a second fastening member, thermally adhesive film or adhesive agent, that fixes a part of an edge of the vent to an upper surface of the cover, given Nemoto teaches a thermally adhesive film or adhesive agent can be used to fix a valve to a container/structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, thus dependent claims 3-5, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein: the cover comprises a first plate, a second plate located below the first plate, and a side surface that connects an edge of the first plate and an edge of the second plate.”
Previously cited Persson discloses at least one cover located on an upper part of the plurality of battery cell arrays (cover 14 in Figs. 1-3; see entire disclosure and especially P27). However, as seen in Fig. 3 of Persson, the cover 14 is a single plate including through-holes. Therefore, the cover 14 of Persson would not meet the limitations of the cover as required by claim 2.
Previously cited Kim discloses at least one cover located on an upper part of the plurality of battery cell arrays (top cover 260 in Figs. 15-18; see entire disclosure and especially P107). However, as seen in Figs. 15 and 17 of Kim, the cover of Kim does not comprise a first plate, a second plate located below the first plate, and a side surface that connects an edge of the first plate and an edge of the second plate as required by claim 2.
Given claims 3-5 depend from claim 2, they are objected to for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “wherein: at least one through part is formed on an inner surface of the side surface frame, and the through part communicates with the first end of the vent.”
Previously cited Persson discloses a first end of the vent and a side surface frame (see the annotated Fig. below), and modified Persson (via Eberleh) includes at least one rupture part is formed on an outer surface of the side surface frame, and the rupture part is located adjacent to the first end of the vent.
PNG
media_image9.png
412
418
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Persson Fig. 1
However, as seen in Fig. 1 of Persson, the battery cells 16 are flush with the side surface frame. Further, the cover of Persson appears to lie flush with the top of the battery cells and the top surface of the side surface frame.
Even if there was a reason to provide at least one through part formed on an inner surface of the side surface frame (which, there has been no reason found in the prior art), the at least one through part would not communicate with the first end of the vent, given the first end of the vent lies flush on the top surface of the side surface frame.
Further, previously cited Kim discloses wherein: the frame part comprises a side surface frame extending from an edge of the bottom part of the lower pack frame toward the upper part of the plurality of battery cell arrays (see four side walls of cover member 210 with battery cells 120 in Figs. 15-18, see specifically Figs. 17-18).
However, there has been no reason found to modify Kim such that it meets the limitations of claim 12, and because the limitations of claim 13 depend from claim 12, Kim would also not meet the limitations of claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome, then claim 15 would be allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of claim 15.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the cover comprises a first plate, a second plate located below the first plate, and a side surface that connects an edge of the first plate and an edge of the second plate, and wherein the first venting hole is formed in a central part of the first plate.”
Previously cited Kamata discloses wherein: the cover comprises a first plate (top part air duct 42 in Fig. 3), a second plate located below the first plate (bottom part of air duct 42 in Fig. 3), and a side surface part that connects an edge of the first plate and an edge of the second plate (side part of air duct 42 connecting the bottom part and top part of air passage 100; see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image10.png
603
528
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kamata Fig. 3
The first venting hole of Kamata is empty space of air passage 100 in Figs. 1-4 wherein air goes through. There is no reason to provide wherein the first venting hole of Kamata is formed in a central part of the first plate, given the first plate is the plate forming the top of the first venting hole.
Previously cited Kim discloses wherein a first venting hole is formed in the cover (through-holes 263 in Figs. 15-18; see entire disclosure and especially P114-115), and wherein the first venting hole extends along a longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame, given the holes have dimensions in both the lateral and longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame (see the annotated Fig. provided below of the extension in the longitudinal direction of the lower pack frame).
PNG
media_image8.png
230
282
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim Fig. 15
However, the cover of Kim does not comprise a first plate, a second plate located below the first plate, and a side surface that connects an edge of the first plate and an edge of the second plate as required by claim 15.
Previously cited Persson discloses wherein a first venting hole is formed in the cover, and the vent covers the first venting hole (vent port 24 in Fig. 3; see entire disclosure and especially P31, 34). However, as seen in Fig. 3 of Persson, the cover 14 is a single plate including through-holes. Therefore, the cover 14 of Persson would not comprise a first plate, a second plate located below the first plate, and a side surface that connects an edge of the first plate and an edge of the second plate as required by claim 15.
Further search and consideration of the art has found no art to remedy the deficiencies of Kamata, Kim, and Persson, and no other art has been found to teach the particulars of claim 15.
Therefore, the references fail to teach or suggest the particulars of independent claim 15 and it’s not obvious to modify these teachings to give the instant claimed invention. Thus none of the prior art of the record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of independent claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights