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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 18/029,690 and in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 12/11/2025.
Claims 1-12 are previously pending, of those claims, claim 1 has been amended, and new claim 13 has been added. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU (US 2020/0161606 A1) in view of PINON (US 2015/0037662 A1).
With respect to claim 1. YU teaches a battery module which includes a top plate 4, bottom plate 5, side plate 1 and 2 which form an accommodation space (paragraph 0065). This accommodation space is taken to be the claimed exterior member. An elastic cushion 8 is sandwiched between the outermost battery unit of the module and a corresponding side plate (paragraph 0084). As seen in Figure 2 the elastic member 8 is in directly contact with the battery cell.
YU does not explicitly teach a sensing block positioned at the front and rear side of the battery cell stack.
PINON teaches a battery module 22 (paragraph 0136). There is a power assembly 84 disposed between top and bottom compression plates 100 and 102 (paragraph 0138). The power assembly 84 includes a stack of battery cell assemblies 114 (paragraph 0138). Thermal gap pads 115 may be disposed between the power assemblies 84 and the top and bottom compression plates 100 and 102 (paragraph 0138) the thermal gap pads 115 may serve as spring elements that enable a uniform pressure provided to each battery cell of the power assembly 84 of the battery module 22 (paragraph 0163). The battery module 22 includes two interconnect assemblies 128 that couple each of the battery cells of the power assembly 84 (paragraph 0140). The interconnect assembly includes a cell interconnect board 130 and a number of sensors 132 (paragraph 0140). The interconnect assemblies 128 are taken to be the claimed sensing block positioned at a front and rear side of the battery cell stack (Figure 7).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the interconnect assembly including the cell interconnect board and sensors of PINON for the battery module of YU as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results. Specifically, YU teaches the use of the conductive connecting pad 7 which electrically connect the terminals (paragraph 0083) and then PINON teaches similar cell interconnect boards provided on both side of the cell stacks and include the sensors (paragraph 0140).
With respect to claim 2-4. YU teaches the top side, and bottom connection plates which form the exterior member (paragraph 0065). This includes the section which covers the elastic cushion 8 (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 5. YU teaches elastic cushion which provides the battery with a swelling space (paragraph 0084) and is in a flat shape (Figure 2) and is therefore taken to be the claimed flat spring.
With respect to claim 6. YU teaches the outer surface of the exterior member is exposed (see Figure 1).
With respect to claim 7. YU teaches that the width of the exterior member is approximately equal to the width of the battery cell stack (see Figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 8. YU teaches that the exterior member is adjacent to a lower portion of the batter cell stack (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 12. YU teaches the battery module as noted above, but does not explicitly teach a battery pack comprising the module. PINON however teaches that the use of battery packs for applications of powering electric vehicles are well known (paragraph 0003). At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the battery module of YU in a battery pack of PINON as this is a known application of a known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
With respect to claim 13. YU teaches the elastic cushion is provided between the outermost battery and the side plate 3, or between two neighboring battery units (paragraph 0084). Therefore YU teaches the embodiment where the elastic cushion is only provided between the outermost cell and the side plates. In such an embodiment the cells are taken to be in direct contact with each other.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU (US 2020/0161606 A1) in view of PINON (US 2015/0037662 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of YOO (US 2020/0388805 A1).
Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of YU and PINON. YU does not explicitly teach the exterior member is made of an elastic material, formed by wrapping the source of a structure, or is a thermal contraction tube.
YOO teaches a battery module that includes a heat-shrinkable tube (abstract). There is a battery module 200 including a heat-shrinkable tube 210 (paragraph 0052). The tube has a tubular shape with a hollow structure (paragraph 0073). The tube is configured to surround a portion of the cell assembly 100 (paragraph 0074). Such heat shrinkable tube allow for efficient heat transfer due to the close contact (paragraph 0090).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the plates forming the accommodating space of YU with the heat shrinkable tube of YOO as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order toa achieve predictable results. Specifically YOO teaches the heat shrinkable tube may form side walls to accommodate the cell assemblies as swell as to protect the assemblies from external impact (paragraph 0075) therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to function similarly and predictably to the sidewalls of YU.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-30 of copending Application No. 18/019,643 in view of YU (US 2020/0161606 A1). Application ‘643 claims a battery module including an exterior member, and sensing blocks on the front and rear side of the cell stack (claim 15).
Application ‘643 does not explicitly claim an elastic member.
YU teaches a battery module which includes a top plate 4, bottom plate 5, side plate 1 and 2 which form an accommodation space (paragraph 0065). This accommodation space is taken to be the claimed exterior member. An elastic cushion 8 is sandwiched between the outermost battery unit of the module and a corresponding side plate (paragraph 0084). As seen in Figure 2 the elastic member 8 is in directly contact with the battery cell.
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the elastic members between the side of the outermost battery unit and the housing of YU for the battery module of Application ‘643 as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of PINON and SCHAEFER have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of YU (US 2020/0161606 A1) in view of PINON.
Applicant argues that PINON and SCHAEFER do not teach the amended limitation where the elastic member directly contacts the exterior member and directly contacts or is bonded to the side of the battery cell stack. In contrast on page 6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Applicant argues that PINON teaches a thermal gap pad 122 and a phase change material 124 between the gap pads and the battery cells. This argument is persuasive. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of YU and PINON. Specifically YU teaches an elastic cushion 8 sandwiched between the outermost battery unit 6 and a corresponding side plate 3 (paragraph 0084 and Figure 2).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under Obviousness-Type Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The obviousness type double patenting rejection in view of copending applications 18/022,555, 18/022,481, and 18/021,542 have been withdrawn. The amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejection of 18/019,643 in view of PINON. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of YU. Specifically YU teaches an elastic cushion 8 sandwiched between the outermost battery unit 6 and a corresponding side plate 3 (paragraph 0084 and Figure 2).
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722