Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/024,169

BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 01, 2023
Examiner
CHMIELECKI, SCOTT J
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
603 granted / 761 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
790
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 761 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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon (US 2012/0009455 A1) is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The rejection of claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0173064 A1), hereinafter “Lee,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Ju et al. (US 2019/0260099 A1), hereinafter “Ju,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of 木本 進弥 (JP 4440553 B2), hereinafter “‘553.” Regarding claim 1, Yoon discloses a battery module comprising: a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells having electrode leads are stacked, in this case the battery cells arranged in a stack (¶ [0051]; Fig. 1, ref. no. 110) having positive and negative terminals (¶ [0051]; Fig. 1, ref. nos. 113 & 114); an elastic member for covering a front surface, a rear surface, and side surfaces of the battery cell stack, in this case the band made from elastic material (¶ [0052]; Fig. 1, ref. no. 127); a heat sink located under the battery cell stack, in this case the heat dispersion member (¶ [0049]; Fig. 1, ref. no. 125), and having a configuration in which a coolant flows therein, in this case the heat dispersion member may provide a coolant path (¶ [0068]); and a thermal conductive resin layer located between the battery cell stack and the heat sink, in this case the bottom of the housing (¶ [0055]; Fig. 2, ref. no. 121a) that is formed of a material with superior heat conductivity such as a synthetic resin (¶ [0056]); wherein a lower portion of the elastic member is open and a lower surface of the battery cell stack contacts the thermal conductive resin layer (see Fig. 2, ref. nos. 127, 110, & 121a). Yoon does not explicitly state that the thermal conductive resin layer contacts the heat sink. However, Yoon does disclose that “the heat-conductive sheets may be installed through a bottom of the housing” and “the heat radiation part may be bent and brought into close contact or thermal co-operation with an exterior of the bottom of the housing” (¶ [0055], emphasis added and ref. numbers omitted). The word “may” indicates possibility or an option1. In this context, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand the inclusion of the bent portion of the heat radiation part (¶ [0055]; Fig. 2, ref. no. 123b) to be optional. Furthermore, ‘553 teaches a battery module including a battery cell stack, in this case the assembled battery (¶ [0022]; Fig. 9, ref. no. 1), placed on a thermal conductive resin layer, in this case the heat transfer sheet that may be a thermally conductive resin layer (¶ [0024]-[0025]; Fig. 9, ref. no. 12), positioned on a heat sink, in this case the frame-shaped heat transfer member (¶ [0024]; Fig. 9, ref. no. 14}, that is configured to have coolant to flow therein, in this case cooling medium may flow in the heat pipe (¶ [0024]; Fig. 9, ref. no. 15). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that a configuration where the thermal conductive resin layer contacts the heat sink would yield the predictable result of efficiently transferring heat away from the battery cells and to the cooling medium or coolant (see ¶ [0024]), thereby facilitating improved battery module operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have disposed the thermal conductive resin layer in contact with the heat sink in order to have facilitated improved battery module operation and safety. The limitation “formed by applying a thermal conductive resin onto the heat sink” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, the combination of Yoon and ‘553 teaches all of the positively-recited structural limitations necessary to perform the functional limitations. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious. Regarding claim 2, Yoon further discloses that the elastic member is continuous along the front surface, rear surface, and both the side surfaces of the battery cell stack, in this case the band surrounds the battery cells (¶ 0052; Fig. 1, ref. no. 127). Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon and ‘553 as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lee. Regarding claim 3, Yoon further discloses that the heat sink comprises a space in which refrigerant flows, in this case the heat dispersion member may provide a coolant path (¶ [0068]; Fig. 1, ref. no. 125), but does not disclose the upper plate, lower plate, upper extension portions, and lower extension portions. However, Lee teaches a battery pack comprising: a heat sink with an upper plate, in this case the second plate (¶ [0136]; Fig. 5, ref. no. 220b), and a lower plate, in this case the first plate (¶ [0136]; Fig. 5, ref. no. 220a), that form a space in which refrigerant flows, in this case coolant flows in the space between the first and second plates (¶ [0137]); the upper plate comprises upper extension portions extending from opposite sides of the upper plate, in this case the protruding portions that contain the openings (¶ [0139]; Fig. 5, ref. nos. 228a & 228b); and the lower plate comprises lower extension portions extending from opposite sides of the lower plate to a portion where the upper extension portions are located, in this case the channels (¶ [0139]; Figs. 5 & 6, ref. nos. 223a & 223b). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the structure taught by Lee for that of Yoon would have yielded the predictable result of providing temperature control to the battery stack (see Lee ¶ [0135]). See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the structure taught by Lee for the heat dispersion member of Yoon in order to yield the predictable result of providing battery stack heating and cooling (see Lee ¶ [0135]). Regarding claim 5, Yoon does not disclose the lower plate. Lee teaches the lower plate as discussed in the rejection of claim 3, above, and further teaches that the lower plate comprises a base portion joined to the upper plate, in this case the external circumferential portion of the first plate is attached to the second plate (¶ [0136]-[0142]; Fig. 5, ref. nos. 220a & 220b) and a recessed portion that is recessed downward from the base portion to form a refrigerant flow path, in this case the concave portion (¶ [0137]-[0138]; Figs. 5 & 6, ref. no. 224). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the structure taught by Lee for that of Yoon would have yielded the predictable result of providing temperature control to the battery stack (see Lee ¶ [0135]). See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the structure taught by Lee for the heat dispersion member of Yoon in order to yield the predictable result of providing battery stack heating and cooling (see Lee ¶ [0135]). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon and ‘553 as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ju. Regarding claim 6, Yoon discloses that the elastic member is continuous along the entire outer surface of the battery stack (¶ 0052; Fig. 1, ref. no. 127), but does not disclose the first and second sensing blocks. However, Ju teaches a battery module comprising: a first sensing block covering a front surface of the battery cell stack, in this case the front block (¶ [0078]-[0080]; Fig. 2, ref. no. 301) of the sensing block (¶ [0078]; Fig. 2, ref. no. 300), and a second sensing block covering the rear surface of the battery cell stack, in this case the rear block (¶ [0078]-[0080]; Fig. 2, ref. no. 302) of the sensing block (¶ [0078]; Fig. 2, ref. no. 300), from which the electrode leads protrude (¶ [0134]; Fig. 6, ref. nos. 111 & 301); and wherein at least two of the electrode leads pass through a slit of the first sensing block or a slit of the second sensing block, in this case the electrode leads pass through a perforation hole of the sensing block (¶ [0134]; Fig. 6, ref. nos. 111 & 301), and are bent and joined to form an electrode lead joint, in this case the electrode lead may be bent to come into contact with the bus bar (¶ [0136]; Fig. 6, ref. nos. 111 & 310). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such sensing blocks would allow detection and monitoring of voltage or other battery stack operating parameters (see ¶ [0027]) while allowing ease of module assembly and disassembly (see ¶ [0027]-[0030]), thereby facilitating improved module operation and reduced production costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the first and second sensing blocks in order to have facilitated improved module operation and reduced production costs. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 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: none of the cited prior art references disclose that through-holes are formed in both the upper and lower extension portions as required by claim 4. Claims 7-17 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: no prior art reference could be found that fairly teaches or suggests a refrigerant-delivering bolt that fixes the heat sink to the pack frame that has a connection pipe that connects the pack refrigerant pipe and the heat sink formed within as required by claim 7. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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 SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm. 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. /SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/may
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592421
BATTERY PACK, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586838
BATTERY PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573634
SILICON-CONTAINING ELECTRODES AND METHODS FOR PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573641
FUEL CELL STACK INCLUDING A SEPARATOR HAVING A GAS EQUAL DISTRIBUTION STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571109
FUEL CELL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 761 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month