DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A-2 and B-1 (Claims 1-6 and 14-17) in the reply filed on February 10th, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species A-1 and B-2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0124085, filed on September 16th, 2021.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Prior Art
Previously cited Johnson US PG Publication 2011/0262785 (“Johnson”)
Murata US PG Publication 2010/0178553 (“Murata”)
Goldin US Patent 10,950,913 (“Goldin”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson US PG Publication 2011/0262785.
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses a battery module (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a battery cell stack in the form of a block in which a plurality of prismatic battery cells 10 are stacked in a first direction (Fig. 1, [0013], [0017]);
a container 60 (module frame) that houses the plurality of cells 10 within the battery cell stack (Fig. 1, [0013], [0017]); and
a damping element 40 (damper) that is coupled to an inside wall 32 of the end plate 30 of the module frame 60 (which meets the claim limitation of included in the module frame or located adjacent to the module frame) (Figs. 1A-1B, [0013]),
wherein the module frame 60 comprises an upper cover that wraps an upper surface of the battery cell stack and a bottom part that wraps a lower surface of the battery cell stack (Fig. 1, [0017]-[0020]), and
wherein the damper 40 exhibits viscoelastic properties (which meets the claim limitation of comprises a viscous damper or a viscoelastic damper) ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 1, and Johnson discloses wherein the damper 40 is provided inside the inside wall 32 of the end plate 30 of the module frame 60 (Fig. 1, [0013], [0017]).
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 2, and Johnson discloses wherein the first direction is parallel to the upper cover and bottom part (see Annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
843
1182
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Johnson
Regarding Claim 14, Johnson teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 1, and Johnson discloses wherein the damper 40 forms a side surface part of the module frame 60 with mount 80 and end plate 30 (Fig. 4, [0018]).
Regarding Claim 17, Johnson discloses a battery pack 100 comprising the battery module as described in the rejection of Claim 1 ([0013]-[0017]).
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata US PG Publication 2010/0178553.
Regarding Claim 1, Murata discloses a battery unit 1 (battery module) (Abstract, [0039], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a bipolar type battery 2 (battery cell stack) in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked in a first direction (Fig. 2, [0039]);
a battery case 3 (module frame) that houses the battery cell stack 2 (Fig. 2, [0039]); and
an elastic member (damper) included in the module frame 3 (which meets the claim limitation of in the module frame or located adjacent to the module frame) ([0009]-[0012]),
wherein the module frame comprises an upper wall portion 3c (upper cover) that warps an upper surface of the battery cell stack 2 and a lower wall portion 3d (bottom part) that wraps a lower surface of the battery cell stack 2 (Fig. 2, [0051]), and
wherein the damper comprises an elastic rubber damper (which meets the claim limitation of a viscous damper or a viscoelastic damper) ([0039]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an elastic rubber damper is a viscoelastic damper, as evidenced by Applicant’s own PG Publication paragraphs [0072]-[0074].
Regarding Claim 2, Murata teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 1, and Murata discloses wherein the damper is provided inside the module frame 3 ([0009]-[0012], [0039]).
Regarding Claim 5, Murata teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 2, and Murata discloses wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the upper cover 3c and bottom part 3d (Annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
791
1139
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Murata
Regarding Claim 6, Murata teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 5, and Murata discloses wherein the damper is provided inside a side surface part side wall portion 3e of the module frame 3 (Fig. 2, Fig. 4, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 14, Murata teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 1, and Murata discloses wherein the damper forms a side wall portion 3e (side surface part) of the module frame 3 (Fig. 2, Fig. 4, [0009]-[0012], [0051]).
Regarding Claim 16, Murata teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 14, and Murata discloses wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the upper cover 3c and the bottom part 3d (Annotated Fig. 2), and
the damper forms the upper cover 3c and the side surface part 3e of the module frame 3 (Fig. 2, Fig. 4, [0009]-[0012], [0051]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson US PG Publication 2011/0262785, as applied to Claim 3, further in view of Goldin US Patent 10,950,913.
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 3.
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the damper is provided inside the bottom part and inside the upper cover.
However, Goldin discloses a battery system comprising a plurality of battery cells (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon).
Goldin teaches installing a visco-elastic shock-absorbing member between an upper portion 114 and a lower portion 116 of each of the battery cells, in addition to a centrally located shock-absorbing member, to absorb or damper any shock and/or vibrational loading to the cells located within a cell housing 160 while also providing electrical insulation for the electrical contacts (Side 2 line 5-25, Side 6 lines 15-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of Johnson such that a damper is provided in both the bottom part and the upper cover in addition to the centrally located damper inside the inside wall of the module frame, such that the damper can absorb or damper any shock and/or vibrational loading to the cells located within the cell housing while also providing electrical insulation for the electrical contacts, as taught by Goldin.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson US PG Publication 2011/0262785, as applied to Claim 14, further in view of Goldin US Patent 10,950,913.
Regarding Claim 15, Johnson teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 14, and Johnson discloses wherein the first direction is parallel to the upper cover and the bottom part (Annotated Figure 4).
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the damper forms the upper cover and the bottom part.
However, Goldin discloses a battery system comprising a plurality of battery cells (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon).
Goldin teaches installing a visco-elastic shock-absorbing member between an upper portion 114 and a lower portion 116 of each of the battery cells, in addition to a centrally located shock-absorbing member, to absorb or damper any shock and/or vibrational loading to the cells located within a cell housing 160 while also providing electrical insulation for the electrical contacts (Side 2 line 5-25, Side 6 lines 15-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of Johnson such that a damper is provided in the module frame to form both the bottom part and the upper cover in addition to the centrally located damper inside the inside wall of the module frame, such that the damper can absorb or damper any shock and/or vibrational loading to the cells located within the cell housing while also providing electrical insulation for the electrical contacts, as taught by Goldin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729