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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended and claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-12 are currently pending.
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(s) 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (KR 20170050509A; referenced in IDS submitted 10/0/2025; Espacenet translation provided for reference).
With respect to claim 1, Eom discloses a battery module (Fig. 1, [0022]) comprising:
a battery cell stack (10 – cartridge stack) in which a plurality of battery cells (14 – cartridges) are stacked (Figs. 1 and 3); a module frame (70 – upper case) accommodating the battery cell stack (10) and comprising an open side at one side (Fig. 1); and
an end plate (60 – ICB cover) covering the open side of the module frame (70) (Figs. 1 and 12),
wherein the end plate (60) comprises a body portion (61 – cover body), first and second side portions (labeled), an upper side portion (labeled), a lower side portion (64 – cover base), and a mounting portion (62 – engaging rib) extending from a body portion (61) (Fig. 11 - below), and having a mounting hole (65 – guide hole) formed therein (Fig. 11),
wherein the body portion faces (61) the battery cell stack (10) (Figs. 11-12),
wherein the first and second side portions (labeled), the upper side portion (labeled), and the lower side portion (64) are respectively extended in a direction perpendicular to one surface of the body portion (61) from both sides, an upper side, and a lower side of the body portion (61) (Fig. 11 – above),
wherein the mounting hole (65) is opened at a lower surface the lower side portion (64) of the end plate (60) (Fig. 11), and a thread (not shown) is formed on an inside surface of the mounting hole (65) (Fig. 11, [0009]),
wherein the height of the mounting portion (62) is 0.5 times or less than a height of the end plate (60) (Fig. 11), and
wherein an empty space is provided in an upper part of the mounting portion (62) between the end plate (60) and the battery cell stack (10) (Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
534
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eom does not disclose that the mounting portions (62) extend from the first and second side portions (labeled) as claimed, rather that the mounting portions (62) extend from the body potion (61) (Fig. 11 – above). However, the resultant shape of the end plate of the prior art is nearly identical to that of the prior art with respect to the mounting portions being in lower, inside regions of the end plate (compare Fig. 11 of prior art with Fig. 8 of instant application below).
PNG
media_image3.png
320
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, both mounting portions are used to cover hole (65 vs. 400H) that allow fort the end plate to be mounted on plates, specifically the lower case (80) for the prior art vs. pack from (1100) in the instant application. Further, each provides an empty space above the mounting portions for which electrical connectors (ICB for the prior art vs. busbars for the instant application) to be placed. Applicant is reminded that unless the changing the position of a part modifies the operation of the device, a rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). As changing the plane of the end plate from which the mounting portion extends from has no bearing on the operation or substantially identical intended use of the end plate as shown above, it is not a patentable feature.
With respect to claim 4, Eom discloses the mounting hole (65) is opened at a lower surface of the lower side portion (64) of the end plate (60) (Fig. 11), and
the mounting portion (62) is extended along a direction parallel to the one surface of the body portion (61) (Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 6, Eom discloses the module frame (70) further comprises another open side at another side facing the one side (Fig. 1), and
wherein a plurality of end plates (60) cover the open side at the one side and the another open side at the another side of the module frame (70), respectively (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 6, Eom discloses a battery pack (1) (Fig. 13) comprising:
the battery module according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1) ;
a pack frame (40 – plate and 80 – lower case) accommodating the battery module (10) (Fig. 1); and
a bolt (B) that passes through a through hole (48 – second bolt hole) formed at a bottom portion of the pack frame (40 and 80), and is coupled to the mounting hole (65) (Fig. 1, [0075], [0093] – via first bolt hole 27).
With respect to claim 7, Eom discloses the bolt (B) is coupled upwardly to the mounting hole (65) (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 8, Eom discloses the bottom portion of the pack frame (40 and 80) comprises a mounting plate (40) for supporting the battery module (10) (Fig. 1), and a lower plate (80) located under the mounting plate (40) (Fig. 1), and
wherein the through hole (48) is formed in the mounting plate (40) (Fig 6), and the bolt (B) passes through the through hole (48) of the mounting plate (40) and is coupled to the mounting hole (65) (Fig. 1, [0075], [0093] – via first bolt hole 27).
With respect to claim 9, Eom discloses in the lower plate (80), an opening (85 – third bolt hole) is formed in a portion correspond to the through hole (48) (Figs. 1 and 15, [0093]).
With respect to claim 10, Eom discloses the pack frame (40 and 80) further comprises a side surface portion (50 – connector assembly) located on a side surface of the battery module (10) (Fig. 1),
wherein the side surface portion (50) is in contact with each of the mounting plate (40; via housing connection rib 52c) and the lower plate (80; via housing support 52e) (Fig. 17), and
wherein a sealing member (44 – coupling part) is located between the side surface portion (50) and the mounting plate (40) (Fig. 17; 44 is between 42 and 52).
With respect to claim 11, Eom discloses a lower through hole (85) is formed in the lower plate (80) (Fig. 15), and
wherein the bolt (B) passes through the lower through hole (85) of the lower plate (80) and the through hole (48) of the mounting plate (40) to and is coupled to the mounting hole (65) (Fig. 1, [0075], [0093]).
With respect to claim 12, Eom discloses the pack frame (40 and 80) further comprises a side surface portion (50 – connector assembly) located on a side surface of the battery module (10) (Fig. 1),
wherein the side surface portion (50) is in contact with each of the mounting plate (40; via housing connection rib 52c) and the lower plate (80; via housing support 52e) (Fig. 17), and
wherein a sealing member (46 – first protrusion) is located between the side surface portion (50) and the mounting plate (80) (Fig. 17; 46 is between 84 and 52c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9 of response, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically utilizing MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. that a rearrangement of parts in an obvious design choice. See the above rejection of claim 1 for further details. Although it is noted that the criticality of the extension plane was argued in the applicant’s arguments, no exact reason for such criticality was given, the arguments merely stating, “…and critically, a mounting portion that extends from the first and second side portions. This structural arrangement is distinct from Eom's ICB cover structure.” As such, no weight of the criticality of the extension plane has been awarded.
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