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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted June 9, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-15 are canceled, claims 16, 20, 23, 27, 29, and 30 are amended, and claims 31-32 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 16-30 and 33 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure does not provide support for “a continuous loop encircling” and the elastic member being a “loop”. The scope of “a continuous loop encircling”, as claimed, and “continuously connected”, as recited in the instant specification (specification pg. 4, pg. 12) are not the same.
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.
(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 16-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2022/0085447 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 18, and 22, Lee teaches a battery module (Lee Fig. 3) comprising:
a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked (battery cells are element 110, Lee Fig. 3)
each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells including electrode leads (elements 111a and 111b, Lee Fig. 4) protruding from a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell stack, wherein the electrode leads include a first electrode lead and a second electrode lead that protrude in mutually opposite directions from each battery cell (Lee Fig. 4 depicts electrode leads protruding from opposite sides, thus the leads protrude from a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell stack)
a first sensing block covering the front surface of the battery cell stack and a second sensing block covering the rear surface of the battery cell stack (element 30 located at the front and rear surfaces, Lee Fig. 3)
an elastic member (element 60 located on both front and rear surfaces and element 20 located on side surfaces, Lee Fig. 3) covering surfaces of the first sensing block, the second sensing block, a first side surface of the battery cell stack, and a second side surface of the battery cell. It is noted that Lee teaches that element 20 has an inner plate (element 202) that is in surface contact with the battery cell stack and this inner plate is “an insulation material, such as plastic, which has rigidity lower than the outer plate” (Lee [64]). Referring to element 60 of Lee, all materials have some amount of elasticity. Additionally, the instant specification states “the material of such an elastic member 700 is not particularly limited as long as it has a predetermined elastic force” (instant specification pg. 14).
the first sensing block includes first outer protrusion parts and the second sensing block includes second outer protrusion parts that protrude outwardly, and wherein the first outer protrusion parts protrude outwardly from ends of the first sensing block and the second outer protrusion parts protrude outwardly from ends of the second sensing block (annotated diagram of element 30 of Lee, shown below)
PNG
media_image1.png
546
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Lee further teaches the elastic member surrounding the first outer protrusion parts and the second outer protrusion parts (when module is assembled element 60 surrounds the first and second outer protrusion parts, Lee Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches all features of claim 16 and 18, as described above. Lee further teaches the elastic member being continuous while surrounding the first outer protrusion parts and the second outer protrusion parts (when module is assembled element 60 is continuous and surrounds the first and second outer protrusion parts, Lee Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20 and 33, Lee teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Lee further teaches the elastic member being continuously connected along the first sensing block, the second sensing block, and the first and second side surfaces of the battery cell stack and the elastic member being a continuous loop encircling the first sensing block, the second sensing block, the first side surface of the battery cell stack and the second side surface of the battery cell stack (elements 60 and 20 are connected when the module is assembled, Lee Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Lee further teaches an upper surface (upper surface of battery cell stack exposed to the cover when module is assembled, element 40 Lee Fig. 3) and a lower surface (Lee [69]) of the battery cell stack being exposed. It is noted that the claim does not limit how these surfaces are exposed or what they are exposed to.
Regarding claim 23, Lee teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Lee further teaches at least two of the electrode leads (Lee elements 111a, 111b) being connected to each other to form an electrode lead joined body on a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell stack (leads are connected to each other via the busbars 32, Lee Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Lee further teaches the electrode leads being directly joined to each other and a part thereof is connected to a terminal busbar to form a high voltage connection (Lee Fig. 13, electrode leads are directly joined to each other via the busbar). It is noted that the limitation “the electrode leads are directly joined to each other” does not require the leads to be in direct physical contact, rather the electrode leads are required to be joined to each other in some fashion.
Regarding claim 25, Lee teaches all features of claims 16 and 23, as described above. Lee further teaches a low voltage (LV) sensing assembly located in at least one of the first sensing block and the second sensing block (element 34, Lee Fig. 12), and the LV sensing assembly being connected to the electrode lead joined body (“adapted to monitor voltages of the battery cells”, Lee [79]).
Regarding claim 27, Lee teaches all features of claims 16 and 23, as described above. Lee further teaches slits formed in each of the first sensing block and the second sensing block (slits, Lee [80]), and the electrode leads passing through the slits and being bent to form the electrode lead joined body (Lee [80], Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 28, Lee teaches all features of claims 16, 23, and 27, as described above. Lee further teaches the outer protrusion parts spacing the elastic member from the electrode lead joined body (Lee Fig. 16, when module is assembled the protrusion members space element 60 from the electrode lead joined body).
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.
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.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claims 16, 23, and 25 above, in view of Moon (US 2016/0315356 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Lee teaches all features of claims 16, 23, and 25, as described. Lee teaches an LV sensing assembly that monitors battery cell voltage (“adapted to monitor voltages of the battery cells”, Lee [79]). Lee is silent to the names and functions of the parts that make up the LV sensing assembly.
Moon teaches a voltage assembly for use in battery modules (Moon title), as taught by Lee, that comprises an LV connector (element 130, Moon Fig. 1), a connection member for connecting the LV connector and the electrode leads (element 120, Moon Fig. 1), and a joining plate located at one end of the connection member and joined to electrode leads (element 110, Moon Fig. 1, 110 is connected to the electrode terminals of the battery cell stack).
Since Moon and Lee both teach voltage sensing assemblies for battery modules and Moon teaches that it is known for voltage sensing assemblies to include an LV connector, a connection member for connecting the LV connector and electrode leads, and a joining plate located at one end of the connection member and joined to the electrode leads, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the LV sensing assembly of Lee to have these features taught by Moon in order to achieve the predictable result of a battery module comprising a voltage sensing assembly.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Yoon (US 2012/0009455 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches all features of claim 16, as described above. Lee further teaches the first sensing block and the second sensing block including an inner protrusion part that protrudes inwardly (annotated Lee Fig. 11 shown below). Lee teaches a thermal interface material beneath the battery cells to dissipate heat generated by the battery cells (Lee [100]). Lee does not teach a cooling fin located between the plurality of battery cells.
PNG
media_image2.png
746
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches adding cooling fins (heat conductive sheets, Yoon [53]) between battery cells in a battery module in order to dissipate heat generated by the battery by contacting the wide surfaces of the battery cells (Yoon [53-54]).
Since Yoon teaches that it is known to add cooling fins between battery cells in order to improve heat dissipation, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add cooling fins between the battery cells of Lee, as taught by Yoon, in order to increase the surface area through which heat generated by the battery cells is dissipated and provide improved heat dissipation performance. When the modified battery module of Lee is assembled, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the cooling fin contacts the inner protrusion part (Lee Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 30, Lee in view of Yoon teaches all features of claims 1 and 29, as described above. Lee does not explicitly recite a length of the inner protrusion part or a length of a cell body. However, Fig. 11 of Lee depicts a length of the inner protrusion part (in the z direction, annotated Lee Fig. 11 shown below) being longer than a length of a single battery cell (in the x direction, Lee Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image3.png
840
1133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the battery module of Lee having the relative dimensions as depicted in Fig. 11, thus resulting in the sum of a length of the inner protrusion part and a length of the cooling fin in contact with the inner protrusion part is equal to or greater than a length of a cell body of a battery cell of the plurality of battery cells.
Additionally, there are only three options for the relationship between a length of the inner protrusion part, hereinafter referred to as L, (in the z direction, annotated Lee Fig. 11 shown above) and a length of a cell body, hereinafter referred to as B, (in the x direction, Lee Fig. 11): L = B, L > B, or L < B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose any one of these three options in order to obtain a battery module with a structure suitable for a desired application.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the specification due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to the specification in the response received on June 9, 2026. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 20, 27, and 29 due to informalities are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 20, 27, and 29 in the response received on June 9, 2026. The objections to claims 20, 27, and 29 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 23, 25-28, and 30 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 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 23 and 30 in the response received June 9, 2026. These rejections of claims 23, 25-28, and 30 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the response, Applicant states that “The Office Action alleges that the second and third covers 60 correspond to the claimed elastic member” and that “the second and third covers 60 of Lee do not cover the first and second side surfaces of the battery cell stack”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. On page 5 of the Non-Final Office Action dated March 9, 2026, elements 60 and 20 taken together were indicated to correspond to the claimed elastic member, as shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
781
738
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US 2019/0198952 A1): appears to disclose a battery module comprising a battery cell stack, sensing blocks, electrode leads protruding from front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack, and an elastic member covering surfaces of the sensing blocks and the battery cell stack (Fig. 1).
Son (US 2022/0102798 A1): appears to disclose a battery module comprising a battery cell stack, sensing blocks, electrode leads protruding from front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack, and an elastic member covering surfaces of the sensing blocks and the battery cell stack (Fig. 3).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights