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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.. Claims 1-13 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.
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) located below a lower surface of the support part (740) below the battery cell stack, the insulating member (labeled) extending from below the lower surface of the support part (740) 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 has been amended to be in independent form and is allowed. Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 13 can be found in the final rejection of 01/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are premised on the assertion that “In Yang, the rectangular wall 740 is not located below the lower surface of the support parts 130s below the battery stack,” and states that the office action “alleges that the rectangular wall 740 extends from a lower surface of the support parts 130s…” However, there is no such assertion in any action, as there is no part 130s in Yang. Further, the rectangular wall 740 was used be the examiner to read on the support part, so it is not clear to the examiner the purpose of the argument which essentially states the support part is not located below the lower surface of the support part in the prior art. Examiner believes the prior art reads on an insulation part extending from below a lower surface of the support part, as the labeled insulation part is attached to a bottom of the support part (see rejection of claim 1). Further, the limitation “towards an outside of the support part” does not distinguish any direction of the extension, so long as it is “outside” the support part. To better reflect the figure of the application referenced in the arguments, examiner suggests structurally limiting the extension of the insulation part relative to other parts within the battery, such as its contact with the blocking pad 350.
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
Prosecution Insights