DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 08/14/2026:
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled.
The previous and new prior art has been applied. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment.
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 1, 3, 4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2021/0384566 to Jung et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0114993 to Park et al.
With respect to claim 1, Jung et al. teach a battery module comprising: a battery cell stack 400 including at least one battery cell; a bus bar frame 500 covering an upper surface of the battery cell stack 400 and a side surface of the battery cell stack 400, wherein a lead of the at least one battery cell protrudes from the side surface; a housing 200 for accommodating a coupled body comprising the battery cell stack 400 and the bus bar frame 500; and a pair of end plates 300 coupled to surfaces at opposite ends of the housing 200, respectively, wherein a lead of the at least one battery cell is disposed at the surfaces at opposite ends of the housing (Jung et al.: Sections [0035]-[0038]; Figs. 1-2).
Jung et al. do not specifically teach a battery module, wherein a plurality of gas inducing holes are formed in both an upper part of the bus bar frame and in an upper surface of the housing.
However, Park et al. teach a battery module comprising a plurality of openings 58 (gas inducing holes) and a valve member 40 are formed in both an upper part of the bus bar frame 50 and in an upper surface of the cover 143 (the housing) (Park et al.: Sections [0040]-[0044]; Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Jung et al. with the teaching above from Park et al. with the motivation of having a means such the opening or valve improve the safety of the battery pack.
With respect to claim 3, Jung et al. in view of Park et al. do not specifically teach the battery module, wherein: the valve member 40 (the plurality of gas inducing holes) formed in the upper surface of the cover 143 (the housing) are arranged to form a plurality of columns along a length direction of the upper surface of the battery cell stack.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the plurality of gas inducing holes formed in the upper surface of the housing are arranged to form a plurality of columns along a length direction of the upper surface of the battery cell stack, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
With respect to claim 4, Jung et al. in view of Park et al. do not specifically teach the battery module, wherein: at least one of the plurality of columns is disposed adjacent to an edge of the upper surface of the housing.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have at least one of the plurality of columns is disposed adjacent to an edge of the upper surface of the housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 6, Jung et al. in view of Park et al. teach the battery module, wherein: the plurality of opening 58 (gas inducing holes) of Park et al. formed in the upper part of the bus bar frame 50 are arranged to form a plurality of columns along a length direction of the upper surface of the battery cell stack (Park et al.: Sections [0040]-[0044]; Figs. 3 and 4).
With respect to claim 7, Jung et al. in view of Park et al. teach the battery module, wherein: at least one of the plurality of columns is disposed adjacent to an edge of the upper part of the bus bar frame 50 (Park et al.: Sections [0040]-[0044]; Figs. 3 and 4).
With respect to claim 8, Jung et al. in view of Park et al. does not specifically teach the battery module, wherein: the plurality of opening 58 (gas inducing holes) of Park et al. are formed in the upper part of the bus bar frame and at least one of the pair of end plates.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the plurality of opening 58 (gas inducing holes) of Park et al. are formed in the upper part of the bus bar frame and at least one of the pair of end plates, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 9, Jung et al. in view of Park et al. do not specifically teach the battery module, wherein: the plurality of opening 58 (gas inducing holes) of Park et al. are formed in the upper part of the bus bar frame and on both of the pair of end plates.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the plurality of opening 58 (gas inducing holes) of Park et al. are formed in the upper part of the bus bar frame and on both of the pair of end plates, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
With respect to claim 10, Jung et al. in view of Park et al. do not specifically teach the battery module, wherein: the plurality of opening 58 (gas inducing holes) of Park et al. formed on both of the pair of end plates include at least three holes disposed in a central portion of each of the pair of end plates and arranged in a line along a height direction of each of the pair of end plates.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the plurality of opening 58 (gas inducing holes) of Park et al. formed on both of the pair of end plates include at least three holes disposed in a central portion of each of the pair of end plates and arranged in a line along a height direction of each of the pair of end plates, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 11, Jung et al. teach a battery pack including at least one battery module (Jung et al.: Sections [0035]-[0038]; Figs. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights