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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2021/0028517, previously made of record).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches an elastic pad (buffer pad, 0066) with a synthetic resin film (blocking member, 0017, which can be made of any material having ductility, 0015, for example, a gel-type heat insulating material on a film, 0020, or a rubber material with expandable graphite, 0021, both of which can be considered a synthetic resin and be in the form of a film), which together can be called a compression pad, and which is on the outside of a cell stack for use in a battery module (0009). The synthetic resin film (80 in figure 7) extends beyond the elastic pad and bends to cover a top portion of the cell stack. Choi further teaches that there are multiple instances of a buffer pad (elastic pad) and a blocking member (synthetic resin film). While Choi exemplifies that the blocking member is one connected piece, it can be said that the different instances of the buffer pad with the blocking member can be considered separate in the same way as a pair of pants and therefore meets the limitation of the claim as the separate portions can be considered a pair and are present on the outside of the stack and have the blocking member folding over and towards the middle of the top portion of the adjacent cell (fig. 7 shows the zigzag blocking member, 80, with the buffer pads, 5, on the outside). The length extension portion is the portion folded over the top of the first and last cells respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the cells are pouch-type cells (0041) and have a sealing portion (0052) which is covered by the folding over portion of the synthetic resin film on each side (2022 in fig. 7)
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 4 as described above and further teaches that the separate portions do not overlap (fig. 7 shows that the first and second bend of the blocking member, 80, on the left side of the cell stack does not touch the first and second bend of the blocking member on the right side of the cell stack).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the frame for the module is sufficiently U shaped and has an open top (50 in fig. 2) alongside a top plate. (40 in fig. 2), where the bottom surface of the cell stack is mounted to the bottom of the U-shaped frame via a heat transfer member (0086, 0093, and fig. 2 shows the U shape)
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 7 as described above and further teaches that there is a vertical distance of at least of the thickness of the synthetic resin film plus the thickness of the heat transfer member (fig. 4 shows the gap).
Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there are additional compression pads are between multiple cells in the stack (0017, and fig. 4 shows the pads between each cell).
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 11 as described above and further teaches that the compression pads can be between predetermined cell groups instead of between each cell (fig. 9 shows the compression pads between each group of 3 cells).
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 1 as described above regarding claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a battery pack using the module. However, a battery pack is essentially a plurality of battery modules and duplicity is obvious and known in the art, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 14, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 1 as described above regarding claim 1 but does not explicitly say what the purpose of inventive battery module is. Choi does explain, however, that, in general, secondary batteries can be used in hybrid vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the battery module which contains secondary battery cells would be capable of use in a vehicle.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Rhee et al. (US 20220069377 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 1 as described above regarding claim 1 and further teaches that the buffer pad can be polyurethane foam (0066). Choi does not teach that the blocking member is specifically PET.
Rhee teaches that there is a pad layer that prevents swelling (0065) which is attached to a rigid mechanical layer that can be PET (0053). Rhee further has an additional mica sheet on either side of the pad/rigid layer stack with the whole composite being called a thermal barrier (0013, 0065, fig. 4(b), heat resistance layer of mica, 32, on both sides of the rigid mechanical layer, 34, and pad layer, 35) and is allowed by the claim language due to the use of “comprising” in claim 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery module of choi and replace the blocking member and buffer pad with the thermal barrier of Rhee so as to prevent thermal runaway in one cell from cascading to another cell, while still keeping the extension portion of the rigid mechanical layer made of PET which can connect continuously to the next thermal barrier later down the cell stack and further separate cells from each other.
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 1 as described above regarding claim 1 but does not teach the buffer pad on the inner portion of the blocking member.
Rhee teaches that there is a pad layer that prevents swelling which is attached to a rigid mechanical layer and further has an additional mica sheet on either side of the pad/rigid layer stack with the whole composite being called a thermal barrier (0013, 0065, fig. 4(b), heat resistance layer of mica, 32, on both sides of the rigid mechanical layer, 34, and pad layer, 35) and is allowed by the claim language due to the use of “comprising” in claim 1. In this case, as the pad layer is on both sides of the rigid mechanical layer it would meet the limitation of the claim as is any scenario where the thermal barrier is attached there would be a buffer portion on the inner part of the cell stack in reference to the rigid mechanical layer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery module of choi and replace the blocking member and buffer pad with the thermal barrier of Rhee so as to prevent thermal runaway in one cell from cascading to another cell, while still keeping the extension portion of the rigid mechanical layer which can connect continuously to the next thermal barrier later down the cell stack and further separate cells from each other.
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches the battery module of claim 1 as described above regarding claim 1 but does not teach an adhesive to attach the buffer pad and blocking member to the battery stack.
Rhee effectively teaches that all portions of the thermal barrier can have an adhesive which connects the parts together including the outermost portion of the thermal barrier which is in contact with the cell stack (0059). While Rhee has an extra mica layer on the outside of the pad layer preventing direct contact with cell stack, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the mica layer provides substantial utility in preventing a thermal runaway cascading to other cells (0070), and if the layer were to be removed for some reason the adhesive on the pad would still be capable of attaching to the battery stack directly as the adhesive used is the same throughout the thermal barrier.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery module of choi and replace the blocking member and buffer pad with the thermal barrier Rhee, which is attached by an adhesive, so as to prevent thermal runaway in one cell from cascading to another cell, while still keeping the extension portion of the rigid mechanical layer which can connect continuously to the next thermal barrier later down the cell stack and further separate cells from each other. Alongside this, since Rhee teaches that the adhesive can be on the rigid mechanical layer, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further connect the extension portion of the rigid mechanical layer to the top of the cell via the same adhesive as doing so helps prevent relative flow between cells (Rhee, 0059).
Regarding claim 10, Choi in view of Rhee teaches the battery module of claim 9 as described above and Rhee further teaches that the adhesive can be placed as a band, strip or layer (fig. 4(a), an example of the adhesive, 33, can be seen placed along a longitudinal direction and can be reasonably considered a band).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the blocking member is not configured as separate members disposed on both sides of the cell stack, the argument is unpersuasive due to a lack of evidence or an argument regarding the validity of the initial reason for rejection. As stated regarding amended claim 1, while Choi exemplifies that the blocking member is one connected piece, it can be said that the different instances of the buffer pad with the blocking member can be considered separate in the same way as a pair of pants and therefore meets the limitation of the claim as the separate portions can be considered a pair and are present on the outside of the stack and have the blocking member folding over and towards the middle of the top portion of the adjacent cell. The claim language does not require the members to be physically separated or not contacting each other, or preclude them being integrally formed.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the blocking member of Choi does not protect the upper surface of the cell stack, the argument is unpersuasive as even if Choi does not directly cover every single cell of the cell stack, the limitation of the claims is to protect the upper edges of the cell stack as a whole and the upper folding layers still protect the cell stack as any top plate is unable to interact with the edges of the stack due to sitting on top of the blocking member.
Regarding applicants’ argument about the method of making the cell stack, the argument is unpersuasive as a method of making is not a claimed limitation and the argument is moot. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
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 SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights