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 and Claim Status
The amendment filed 5 February 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 10 November 2025. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claim 13 has been added. Claims 1–6 and 8–13 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: L19–20 “a plurality of slits respectively extend inward from” should instead read “a plurality of slits respectively extending inward from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2015/0287964 A1; art already of record), as evidenced by Koh (US 2010/0143788 A1; art already of record), in view of Ryu et al. (KR 2019/0112551 A1; corresponding application US 2021/0043907 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes; art already of record), and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2018/0118920 A; see machine translation included with previous office action; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a battery pack (see battery pack 600, [0042], FIG. 1) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (see cylindrical battery cells, 200, [0042], FIG. 1) each including electrode terminals (see electrode terminals 210, [0047], FIG. 1) on both end portions thereof (FIG. 1);
at least two connection plates (see metal plates 300, [0042], FIG. 1, which include A-type metal plates 301, B-type metal plates 302, and C-type metal plates 303, [0056], FIG. 1 and 4–7) that are electrically conductive and configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells ([0042]); and
a cell frame (see battery pack case 100, [0043]–[0044], FIG. 1 and 2) having a plurality of hollow holes surrounding at least a portion of each of the battery cells ([0045], FIG. 1 and 2), and configured to allow the connection plates to be mounted outside the cell frame ([0054], FIG. 1 and 4), the cell frame comprising at least two first fixing protrusions (see protrusions 160, [0050], FIG. 3 and 4–7) protruding outward to respectively pass through at least two through-holes (see grooves 360, [0055], FIG. 4–7) of the connection plates,
a battery management system (BMS) module (see combination of protection circuit unit 500 and FPCB 400, [0042], FIG. 1, 8, and 9) including a circuit board (see flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) 400, [0042], FIG. 1, 8, and 9),
wherein the cell frame comprises a BMS mounting portion (see upward facing side and forward facing side of cell frame (100) as shown in FIG. 3, 4, 8, and 9).
Park does not explicitly disclose the BMS module being configured to control charging and discharging of the plurality of battery cells. However, Park discloses that the BMS module detects the voltage of the plurality of battery cells ([0050]) and controls the plurality of battery cells ([0042]); furthermore, it is well-known in the field of battery pack design and safety that a primary purpose of protection circuit units is to control the charging and discharging of battery cells, as evidenced by Koh ([0059]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the BMS module of modified Park will necessarily be configured for this purpose.
Park does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the at least two connection plates comprise at least two through-holes. However, Park does disclose ([0065]) that the purpose of the through-holes and corresponding protrusions is to mount the connection plates to the cell frame; one of ordinary skill in the art can therefore understand that more through-holes and corresponding protrusions would result in more secure mounting of the connection plates to the cell frame. Note that Park is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of battery pack safety and design.
In addition, duplication of parts is considered to only require ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Park such that each of the connection plates comprise at least two through-holes, as duplication of parts is considered to only require ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered an obvious matter of design choice, and further because additional through-holes would provide more coupling points with corresponding protrusions, resulting in more secure mounting of the connection plates to the cell frame.
Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the through-holes are spaced apart from one another in a current flowing direction.
Ryu teaches connection plates (see bus bar 30, [0027], FIG. 2–5) that are electrically conductive ([0028]) and configured to electrically connect battery modules (see battery modules 10, [0026], FIG. 1), and which have through-holes (see through-holes 33, [0029], FIG. 2–5) formed therein. Ryu teaches ([0033]) that increasing the spacing between through-holes increases the mechanical stability of the connection plate. Note that Ryu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of battery pack safety and design.
KSR Rationale E (MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. In the instant case, there are three possible solutions for the directions in which the through-holes are spaced apart:
the through-holes are spaced apart from one another in a current flowing direction, but are not spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the current flowing direction,
the through-holes are spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the current flowing direction, but are not spaced apart from one another in a current flowing direction,
the through-holes are spaced apart from one another in both a current flowing direction and a direction perpendicular to the current flowing direction.
One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the spacing between the through-holes can be largest when the through-holes are spaced apart from one another in both a current flowing direction and a direction perpendicular to the current flowing direction. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select solution (3) above such that the through-holes are spaced apart from one another in a current flowing direction and a direction perpendicular to the current flowing direction in the battery pack of modified Park, as it is considered obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, and solution (3) results in the largest spacing between through-holes which results in increased mechanical stability of the connection plate, as taught by Ryu.
Park does not disclose the BMS mounting portion including a plurality of fixing tabs protruding outward where each fixing tab has an inward surface in contact with edges of the circuit board to support the edges of the circuit board of the BMS module, and a binding rib is disposed in a vertical direction on each fixing to tab to project from the inward surface of each fixing tab,
wherein the circuit board of the BMS module includes a plurality of slits which respectively extend inward from the edges of the circuit board of the BMS module, and
wherein each binding rib is inserted into a respective one of the slits.
Lee teaches a battery pack (see battery module 200, [0050], FIG. 1 and 2) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (see cylindrical battery cell 10, [0051], FIG. 1 and 2) each including electrode terminals on both end portions thereof (see electrode terminals of the battery cells (10), [0053]); at least two connection plates (see terminal plate 140, [0054], FIG. 1) that are electrically conductive and configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells ([0056]); and a cell frame (see first and second cell frames 121 and 122, [0050], FIG. 1); the battery pack further comprising a BMS module (see BMS 130, [0050], FIG. 1) configured to control charging and discharging of the plurality of battery cells ([0006]). Lee further teaches a BMS mounting portion (see upward facing portion of cell frame (121, 122) as shown in FIG. 1) including a plurality of fixing tabs (see elements on central upper sides of the cell frame (121, 122) directly adjacent sides of the BMS module (130) which are labeled in annotated FIG. 1 of Lee below) protruding outward where each fixing tab has an inward surface in contact with edges of the circuit board to support the edges of the circuit board of the BMS module, and a binding rib is disposed in a vertical direction on each fixing tab to project from the inward surface of each fixing tab (see binding rib which extends from the fixing tabs labeled in annotated FIG. 1 below), wherein the circuit board of the BMS module includes a plurality of slits respectively extending inward from the edges of the circuit board of the BMS module (see removed portions of the BMS module (130) which accommodate the fixing tabs, labeled as slits in annotated FIG. 1 below), and wherein each binding rib is inserted into a respective one of the slits (FIG. 1). While Lee does not explicitly disclose the purpose of the fixing tabs, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand from the context of Lee that they are meant to support the sides of the BMS module and, specifically by insertion of the binding ribs of the fixing tabs into the slits of the circuit board, prevent movement of the circuit board by external forces. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that while the fixing tabs as taught by Lee support side portions of a BMS module which is not explicitly disclosed to comprise a circuit board and which is mounted on only one surface of the cell frame, such fixing tabs could be used to support the various side portions of a BMS module which does comprise a circuit board and is mounted on multiple surfaces of the cell frame as in Park. Note that Lee is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of battery safety and design.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of Lee with annotations added by the Examiner
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of modified Park such that (1) the BMS mounting portion comprises a plurality of fixing tabs protruding outward where each tab has an inward surface in contact with edges of the circuit board to support the edges of the circuit board of the BMS module, (2) the fixing tabs each have a binding rib disposed in a vertical direction to project from the inward surface of each fixing tab, and (3) the circuit board of the BMS module includes a plurality of slits which respectively extend inward from the edges of the circuit board, wherein each binding rib is inserted into a respective one of the slits, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of supporting the sides of the BMS module and prevent movement of the BMS module by external forces.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein each of the two connection plates comprises:
a connection terminal portion contacting the electrode terminal of each of the plurality of battery cells (see terminal contact parts 310, [0055], FIG. 4–7); and
a connection extending portion extending from the connection terminal portion to be connected to the BMS module (see external input and output terminal parts 330 and 350, [0055], [0060], FIG. 5–9).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the BMS mounting portion further includes a seating rib (see second hooks 180, [0049], FIG. 3, 8, and 9) protruding toward the BMS module to support a top surface and a bottom surface of the BMS module ([0049], [0062], FIG. 3, 8, and 9).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the cell frame comprises:
a ventilation hole (see plurality of ventilation openings 120, [0043], FIG. 2) disposed through a portion of the cell frame so that air flows between the plurality of battery cells ([0044]); and
a reinforcing rib (see portions of the cell frame (100) which separate individual ventilation openings 120, FIG. 2) extending to cross an inside of the ventilation hole.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Regarding the limitation wherein the at least two through-holes spaced apart from one another in the current flowing direction are disposed in the connection plate at an end of current flow among the at least two connection plates, it is first set forth that Park discloses a connection plate at an end of current flow among the at least two connection plates (see A-type metal plates 301, [0056], FIG. 4, 5, 8, and 9, disclosed in [0060] to comprise input and output terminal parts 350 which serve as the external input and output terminals of the battery pack, and therefore one of the A-type metal plates 301 will constitute the end of current flow among the connection plates of Park). Furthermore, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, modified Park discloses that each of the connection plates comprise at least two through-holes which are spaced apart from one another in both a current flowing direction and a direction perpendicular to the current flowing direction. Given the above, it will therefore necessarily be the case for the battery pack of modified Park that the at least two through-holes spaced apart from one another in the current flowing direction are disposed in the connection plate at an end of current flow among the at least two connection plates.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above. As set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 9 above, modified Park further discloses wherein a pair of adjacent through-holes among the at least two through-holes are spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the current flowing direction.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Modified Park further discloses a vehicle (see hybrid electric vehicles, Park [0023]) comprising at least one battery pack according to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Modified Park further discloses an electronic device (see power tools, Park [0023]) comprising at least one battery pack according to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Modified Park further discloses wherein the fixing tabs, the binding ribs, and the slits are respectively provided in pairs at respective portions of opposing edges of the circuit board (Lee FIG. 1 shows one of each component is present on the front and back edges of the circuit board, forming pairs).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2015/0287964 A1; art already of record), as evidenced by Koh (US 2010/0143788 A1; art already of record), in view of Ryu et al. (KR 2019/0112551 A1; corresponding application US 2021/0043907 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes; art already of record), and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2018/0118920 A; see machine translation included with previous office action; art already of record), as applied to Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8–13 above, further in view of Sato et al. (US 2011/0293998 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the cell frame further comprises at least two second fixing protrusions protruding outward from an outer surface of the cell frame and configured to respectively support both end portions of the connection extending portion.
Sato teaches a battery pack (see battery unit 1, [0097], FIG. 1) comprising a plurality of battery cells (see plurality of batteries 21, [0103], FIG. 4A and 4B) each including electrode terminals on both end portions thereof (see positive terminal portions 21a and negative pole terminal portions 21b, [0104], FIG. 4B); at least two connection plates (see positive pole metallic plate 23a and negative pole metallic plate 23b, [0103], FIG. 4A and 4B) that are electrically conductive and configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells ([0105]); and a cell frame (see battery block restriction portion 4, [0120], FIG. 12A–12C); and wherein each of the at least two connection plates comprises: a connection terminal portion contacting the electrode terminal of each of the plurality of battery cells (see terminal connection portions 41a and 41b, [0114]–[0115], FIG. 9B and 9C); and a connection extending portion extending from the connection terminal portion (see connection portions 46a and 46b, [0114]–[0115], FIG. 9B and 9C). Sato further teaches wherein the cell frame further comprises fixing protrusions (see protrusion portions 52a, [0124], FIG. 12A and 12B) protruding outward from an outer surface of the cell frame and configured to support an end portion of the connection extending portion and fixing the connection plate to the cell frame ([0124], FIG. 12A and 12B); one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that while the fixing protrusions as taught by Sato support one end portion of a connection extending portion, the same or greater benefit could be realized by configuring such fixing protrusions to support multiple end portions of a connection extending portion. Note that Sato is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of battery pack safety and design.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of modified Park such that the cell frame further comprises at least two second fixing protrusions protruding outward from an outer surface of the cell frame and configured to respectively support both end portions of the connection extending portion as well as fix the connection plate to the cell frame, as taught by Sato.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2015/0287964 A1; art already of record), as evidenced by Koh (US 2010/0143788 A1; art already of record), in view of Ryu et al. (KR 2019/0112551 A1; corresponding application US 2021/0043907 A1 used herein for translation and citation purposes; art already of record), and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2018/0118920 A; see machine translation included with previous office action; art already of record), as applied to Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8–13 above, as further evidenced by Cho (US 2019/0267601 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the first fixing protrusion obliquely extends outward. However, utilizing fixing protrusions that extend obliquely outward is a well-known practice in the field of battery pack safety and design, as evidenced by Cho (see fixing portion 34, [0036], FIG. 3A–3C).
Furthermore, a change in the shape of a part is considered to only require ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of modified Park such that the first fixing protrusion obliquely extends outward, as a change in the shape of a part is considered to only require ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered an obvious matter of design choice, and further because Cho evidences that utilizing fixing protrusions that extend obliquely outward is a well-known practice in the field.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Park discloses the battery pack as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein an outwardly protruding end portion of the first fixing protrusion is bent at a certain angle. However, utilizing fixing protrusions with outwardly protruding end portions that are bent at a certain angle is a well-known practice in the field of battery pack safety and design, as evidenced by Cho (see combination of second bent portion 17 and latching portion 18, [0037]–[0038], FIG. 3A–3C).
Furthermore, a change in the shape of a part is considered to only require ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of modified Park such that an outwardly protruding end portion of the first fixing protrusion is bent at a certain angle, as a change in the shape of a part is considered to only require ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered an obvious matter of design choice, and further because Cho evidences that utilizing fixing protrusions with outwardly protruding end portions that are bent at a certain angle is a well-known practice in the field.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 5 February 2026 with respect to independent Claim 1 as amended have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied art, taken singly or combined, does not render obvious the arrangement of BMS module and circuit board, slits, fixing tabs, and binding ribs as claimed, because the solid arrows in the annotated FIG. 1 of Lee et al. at page 12 of the previous office action which identify the alleged slits of Lee do not “extend inward from edges” of a circuit board, as claimed, and further, that the tabs inserted into the alleged slits in Lee et al. are not on each fixing tab to project from an inward surface of each fixing tab.
This argument is not persuasive. Neither this office action nor the previous office action mailed 10 November 2025 map any claim elements to the components pointed to by the solid arrows in Lee FIG. 1. In fact, these solid arrows are part of the original disclosure of Lee and are not referred to by the Examiner in either the previous or the current office action, i.e. they are simply part of the original figure. It is respectfully submitted that Applicant may have misinterpreted the solid arrows as referring to the “slits” claim element, however neither the annotated Lee FIG. 1 nor the body of the rejection of Claim 1 in the previous office action label/map the claimed slits to the components pointed to by the solid arrows in Lee FIG. 1. The annotated Lee FIG. 1 provided by the Examiner in the previous office action was labeled with hashed arrows to identify the claimed “fixing tabs” described in the rejection of Claim 1. A further annotated Lee FIG. 1 is provided by the Examiner in the current office action which further labels the slits formed in the circuit board as claimed to make clear which component of Lee the “slits” of the circuit board are being mapped to. It can be observed from the slits labeled in the currently annotated Lee FIG. 1 as set forth above that the slits do indeed extend inward from the edges of the circuit board as claimed. In light of the above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights