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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed March 10, 2026. The following rejections are overcome:
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 & 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525.
Claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of Kim et al. US 8980457.
Claim(s) 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of Kim KR 20170011349.
Claim(s) 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of LLOYD US PUB 2020/0328389.
Claim(s) 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of Li CN 203690444.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525.
Claims 1-17 and newly added claims 18-20 are rejected as necessitated by amendment as follows:
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.
Claim(s) ) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 & 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of GOLUBKOV US-20190379030-A1.
With respect to claim 1, Lim teaches a battery module (Fig. 2, Abstract), comprising: a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked in a first direction (battery stack 150; Fig. 2); a module frame that houses the battery cell stack (frame 112, 113, 140; Fig. 2); a bottom portion (113; Fig. 2) two side surface portions (111; Fig. 2) and an upper cover (121; Fig. 2); and a venting hole is formed in at least one of the module frame, the first end plate or the second end plate (frame 140, includes vent holes 142), wherein a venting cover for guiding a discharge path of gas or flame discharged from the venting hole is located on a first surface of the module frame (venting cover 120 located on a first surface of the module frame 140; Fig. 2) , and wherein the venting cover is mounted to cover the venting hole (venting cover 120 fits over frame 140; Fig. 5) ,_and wherein the two side surface portions (111; Fig. 2) extend from the bottom portion (113; Fig. 2) to the upper cover (121; Fig. 2)to completely surround the battery cell stack(Examiner’s Note: the tow side surface portions, bottom portion and upper cover completely surround the stack to the extent that said configuration can and the limitation does not require side portions to connect or surround the battery. Therefore completely surround is considered covering the front and back; Fig. 2)..
PNG
media_image1.png
767
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, an internal passage of the venting-cover is connected to the venting hole (vent hole 142 is fluidly connected to the internal passage formed at 122; Fig. 2), and an outlet port connected with the internal passage is formed on one side of the venting cover (gas exhaust port 125 is fluidly connected to the internal passage formed at 122; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 3, the venting cover is a frame (140; Fig. 2) and a side facing the module frame is opened (frame 140 is open. Examiners note: 140 is a frame as it opposes frame 113; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 4, the venting cover extends along the first surface of the module frame from the first end plate to the second end plate (venting cover 120 extends to first end plate to the second end plate, pair of plates 111; Fig. 1). With respect to claim 6, within the venting cover, the discharge path of gas or flame extends while being bent at a plurality of portions ( the discharge path exits from 142 in the Z direction and bent to exit at 125; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 7, the venting cover (125; Fig. 2) includes at least one partition portion forming the discharge path of gas or flame (130; Fig. 2), and a surface of the at least one partition portion is perpendicular to a surface of the venting cover (surface at 130a is perpendicular to a surface of the venting cover; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 9, the venting cover includes an outlet port for discharging the gas or flame to the outside (125; Fig. 2), the venting hole and the outlet port are located in opposite directions with respect to a center of the module frame (125 is opposite 142; Fig. 2), and the center of the module frame is a point that is spaced apart from the first end plate and the second end plate by a same distance (125 & 142 on equally opposite ends; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 10, the ventingclaim 17, battery pack comprising the battery module (a battery pack can be configured by electrically connecting such a plurality of battery modules to one another; [0005]).
With respect to claim 18, the venting cover includes at least one partition portion forming the discharge path having at least one change of direction (130; Fig. 2), and a surface of the at least one partition portion is perpendicular to a surface of the venting cover (132; 130a; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 19, the at least one partition portion is a plurality of partition portions spaced along a length of the venting cover (132;Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 20, the at least one partition portion extends vertically (130a; Fig. 2).
Although Lim teaches a bottom portion (113; Fig. 2) two side surface portions (111; Fig. 2) and an upper cover (121; Fig. 2); the reference does not teach or suggest: module frame having a bottom portion two side surface portions (claim 1); a first end plate and a second end plate covering a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell stack (claim 1).
GOLUBKOV teaches that it is well known in the art to employ a first end plate and a second end plate covering a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell stack (end plates 702a & 702b; Fig. 8; battery system housing 70 further includes pressure plates 702 that are disposed adjacent to the aligned front and end surfaces, respectively, of the battery modules 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d; [0102]; claim 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
741
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lim and GOLUBKOV are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating battery packs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the first end plate and a second end plate covering a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell stack of GOLUBKOV, in the battery pack of Lim, in order to provide consistent compression to the batteries to prevent internal swelling, minimize capacity loss and enhance cycle life.
With respect to the module frame having a bottom portion two side surface portions (claim 1); it would have been obvious to in the battery pack of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV, to improve structural integrity of the venting system. Lim teaches a bottom portion (113; Fig. 2) two side surface portions (111; Fig. 2) and an upper cover (121; Fig. 2); and it has been held that making integral essential working parts of a device, in the case the vents, upper cover, bottom portion and two side surfacers, is prima facie obvious. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of GOLUBKOV US-20190379030-A, and further in view of Kim et al. US 8980457.
Lim in view of GOLUBKOV teach a battery module as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lim does not teach or suggest: the venting hole is formed in both the first end plate and the second end plate, and an internal passage of the venting- cover is connected with both the venting hole of the first end plate and the venting hole of the second end plate (claim 5).
Kim teaches that it is well known in the art to employ the venting hole is formed in an end plate (end plate is provided with a exhaust hole; Col. 4, lines 10-30; claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a venting hole formed in an end plate of Kim, in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV, to improve stacking variability. Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to both the first end plate and the second end plate comprising a venting hole, it would have been obvious in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV and Kim , as duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to an internal passage of the venting- cover is connected with both the venting hole of the first end plate and the venting hole of the second end plate; it would have been obvious in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV and Kim, as change in size of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of GOLUBKOV US-20190379030-A, and further in view of Kim KR 20170011349.
Lim in view of GOLUBKOV teach a battery module as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lim does not teach or suggest: each of the plurality of battery cells include electrode leads, a first electrode lead of the electrode leads protrudes toward the first end plate, and a second electrode lead of the electrode leads protrudes toward the second end plate (claim 8).
Kim teaches that it is well known in the art to employ each of the plurality of battery cells include electrode leads, a first electrode lead of the electrode leads protrudes toward the first end plate (100; below; claim 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
786
771
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ each of a plurality of battery cells including electrode leads, a first electrode lead of the electrode leads protruding toward the first end plate of Kim, in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV, to improve stacking variability. Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to a second electrode lead of the electrode leads protruding toward the second end plate; it would have been obvious in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV and Kim, to improve stacking variability. Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of GOLUBKOV US-20190379030-A, and further in view of LLOYD US PUB 2020/0328389.
Lim in view of GOLUBKOV teach a battery module as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lim does not teach or suggest: a filter is arranged inside the venting cover (claim 11); the venting cover includes a first filter and a second filter located therein, the first filter and the second filter are disposed at intervals on the discharge path guided by an internal passage of the venting- cover, and a pore size of the first filter and a pore size of the second filter are different from each other (claim 12).
LLOYD teaches that it is well known in the art to employ a filter is arranged inside the venting cover (filter 42, on vent 44; claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the filter is arranged inside the venting cover of LLOYD, in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV, to minimize environmental impact.
Further concerning claim 12, the first filter and the second filter are disposed at intervals on the discharge path guided by an internal passage of the venting- cover, and a pore size of the first filter and a pore size of the second filter are different from each other; it would have been obvious in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV and LLOYD, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Furthermore, change in size of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further concerning claim 12, the venting cover includes a first filter and a second filter located therein; it would have been obvious in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV and LLOYD, as duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of GOLUBKOV US-20190379030-A, and further in view of Li CN 203690444.
Lim in view of GOLUBKOV teach a battery module as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lim does not teach or suggest: the venting cover is coupled to the module frame in a sliding manner (claim 13);the module frame includes a slot connected to the venting-cover, the slot is formed extending along a longitudinal direction of the module frame, and the venting cover is slidable along the slot (claim 14); the venting unit cover includes a protrusion coupled with the slot (claim 15).
Li teaches that it is well known in the art to employ the venting cover is coupled to the module frame in a sliding manner (cover slidably connected to frame; Fig. 1; claim 13); the module frame includes a slot connected to the venting-cover (slot 8 on the frame; Fig. 1), the slot is formed extending along a longitudinal direction of the module frame (slot 8 on the frame; Fig. 1), and the venting cover is slidable along the slot (3 slides along the slot; Fig. 1; claim 14); the venting unit cover includes a protrusion coupled with the slot (protrusion for groove in order to slide; claim 15).
PNG
media_image4.png
369
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the venting cover coupled to the module frame in a sliding manner of Li, in the battery module of Lim in view of GOLUBKOV, to facilitate coupling of the vent to the battery module.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525 in view of GOLUBKOV US-20190379030-A.
Lim in view of GOLUBKOV teach a battery module as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lim does not teach or suggest: the ventingclaim 16).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the venting-cover including a first venting-cover and a second venting-cover, and the discharge path guided by the first venting cover and the discharge path guided by the second ventingIn re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that the instant claims are not obvious over Lim US Pub. 2015/0214525, because the reference is silent to the newly recited the module frame having a bottom portion, two side surface portions and an upper cover, wherein the two side surface portions extend from the bottom portion to the upper cover to completely surround the battery cell stack as well as a first end plate and a second end plate covering a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell stack. This argument is persuasive and all previously pending rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. TONONISHI et al., CN-105322110-B teaches a battery module with attachable frame. See Figure 4.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights