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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-2 have been amended and new claim 13 has been added. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 11/05/2025 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (U.S. 20190131596).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Battery cells)][AltContent: textbox (Cell stack)]
PNG
media_image1.png
493
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Yang discloses a battery module (10) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a battery cell stack (labeled) in which a plurality of battery cells (labeled) are stacked (Fig. 4 – above);
a busbar frame (140, 142 – interconnect assemblies) connected to each of a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell stack (labeled) (Fig. 4 – above), the busbar frame (140, 142) having a support part (740 – rectangular wall) that extends below an end part of each of the plurality of battery cells (labeled) (Fig. 16 and 19 – below) ;
a module frame (120, 150, 160) that houses the battery cell stack (labeled) on which the busbar frame (140, 142) is mounted (Fig. 4); and
an insulating member (labeled, made of plastic) extended from a lower surface of the support part (740) below the battery cell stack toward an outside of the support part (740) ([0065], Fig. 16 – below).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
831
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
437
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Yang discloses the end part of each battery cell (labeled) comprises a protrusion part (labeled) formed in a width direction of the battery cell (Fig. 17 – below),
the protrusion part (labeled) is located on the support part (740) (Fig. 17 – below), and
PNG
media_image4.png
520
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the support part (labeled) is located between the protrusion part (labeled) and a stepped part (labeled) formed at one end part of the module frame (Fig. 19 – above and Fig. 17 – below).
With respect to claim 3, Yang discloses a first part (labeled) of the insulating member is located between the support part (labeled) and the stepped part (labeled) (Fig. 19 – above), and
a second part (labeled) of the insulating member is located between the battery cell stack (labeled) and the lower surface of the module frame (labeled) (Fig. 19 – above).
With respect to claim 4, Yang discloses the insulating member (labeled) covers a boundary line between a central part of the lower surface of the module frame (labeled) and the stepped out part (labeled) (Fig. 19 – above).
With respect to claim 5, Yang discloses the insulating member (labeled) is extended along a longitudinal direction of the stepped part (labeled) (Fig. 19 – above).
With respect to claim 6, Yang discloses a blocking pad (labeled, 1120 and 1122) is located on the lower surface of the module frame (labeled), and
the blocking pad (labeled) is located adjacent to the stepped part (labeled, 1120 and 1122) (Fig. 19 – above, Fig. 25).
With respect to claim 7, Yang discloses the second part of the insulating member (labeled) is located between the battery cell stack (labeled) and the blocking pad (labeled) (Fig. 19 – above).
With respect to claim 9, Yang discloses the blocking pad (labeled, 1120/1122) to be made of plastic, as they are a part of module frame (160) (Fig. 25, [0095]), and it is known that plastic is a type of resin.
With respect to claim 11, Yang discloses the module frame (120, 150, 160) comprises a lower frame (120) that covers a lower surface and side surfaces of the batter cell stack (Fig. 4 – above), and an upper plate (150) that covers an upper surface of the battery cell stack (labeled) (Fig. 4 – above).
With respect to claim 12, Yang discloses a battery pack (battery system) comprising the battery module (10) of claim 1 ([0004], see rejection of claim 1).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 8, Yang discloses a blocking pad (labeled, Fig. 19; 1120, 1122 Fig. 25), but does not disclose it extends along a width direction of the module frame (120, 160). Instead, Yang discloses a plurality of blocking pads (1120, 1122) that are non-continuous which extend in the width direction (Fig. 25). Applicant is reminded that that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (U.S. 20160301050).
With respect to claim 10, Yang discloses that the insulating member (labeled) is made of plastic, as the insulating member (labeled) is part of plate (660) (Fig. 16, [0064]), but does not disclose it is made of PET, PC, PI, or PA materials.
Peng discloses an insulation member (10 – spacer) ([0083]) and teaches the insulation member can be made of a plastic, such as PET or PC ([0083]). Peng further teaches that these materials are desirable because that have high strength, high corrosion resistance, weather fastness, fire resistance, and high insulation properties ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the plastic used for the insulating member disclosed by Yang was made of PET or PC as taught by Peng as these materials are desirable because that have high strength, high corrosion resistance, weather fastness, fire resistance, and high insulation properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 13 limits the insulation part to being a film, which differentiates the insulation part from the rest of the bus bar frame. As the prior art only depicts an insulation part that is the same construction as the frame, i.e. solid plastic, it cannot read on claim 13. After further search and consideration, no prior art was found that reads on claim 13. Therefore, it contains allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are premised on the assertion that “no portion of the interconnect assembly extends below the batteries,” and cites fig. 11 of Yang as evidence. This argument is not persuasive, as examiner has cited Figs. 17 and 19 throughout the rejection as evidence of the interconnect assembly under the batteries. Applicant further argues that because there is no clear reference numeral provided by Yang for the insulation part, “there is no feature of Yang corresponding to the claimed insulating member.” However, examiner again cites the above rejection of claim 1 and the subsequent annotated figures which clearly label an insulating member in the claimed orientation. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
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.
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
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727