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 .
This office action addresses pending claims 1-16. Claims 6-12 were previously withdrawn. Claims 15-16 were added and arguments were presented in the reply filed 2/6/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2021/221299, see English language equivalent US 2022/0231367).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Lee discloses a battery module 100 including a battery cell stack 200 in which a plurality of battery cells 110 are stacked (abstract). A module frame 300 houses the cell stack and includes a U-shaped frame 320 [case] including a bottom portion 321 and a side portion 322, and is covered by an upper plate 310 [cover configured to cover the open upper part of the case] ([0043], Fig 4). A partition wall portion 500 is located between the battery cell stack 200 and the module frame, wherein the partition wall portion 500 includes a first partition wall member 510 located between an upper portion of the battery cell stack and the module frame, and includes at least one second partition wall member 520 extending in a vertical direction from the first partition wall member 510 (abstract, [0047], Fig 4). As seen in Figures 4-5, the first wall portion 510 and second partition wall members 520 have a U-shape, and divides the cell stack 200 into first stacks 111 and second stacks 113 and etc. [battery modules] ([0058]). The partition wall portion 500 has resistance to flames and venting gases ([0059]), and therefore is disposed between the cover and the plurality of battery modules, and configured to block a flame generated in any one of the plurality of battery modules from spreading to other adjacent battery modules.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee teaches the second partition wall portions 520 as extending downward from a bottom surface of the cover toward upper surfaces of the plurality of battery modules (see Fig 4 and 7).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishino et al. (US 2010/0330404).
Regarding claim 14, Nishino discloses a battery housing tray 100,1000,1150,1400,1600 that houses a plurality of battery cells 1130 [plurality of battery modules] (abstract, [0120], Figs 9A-15). In an embodiment, the housing has a lid 1650 [cover] that covers an open upper part of the tray 1625 [case] ([0156], Fig 15). It is noted that a single battery cell can be considered a battery module; therefore, each battery cell 1130 of Nishino is considered and reads on a battery module.
The lid 1650 includes second barrier rib members [partition wall between the cover and the battery modules] formed on the bottom surface of the lid and further discloses second barrier rib members on the bottom surfaces of the trays (see second barrier rib members in Fig 15 in view of second barrier rib members 1122 in Fig 9B, [0119]-[0120] and [0156]).
Nishino further teaches that the battery housing tray is excellent in safety, and prevents flame from spreading to the surrounding batteries or abnormally overheating in advance ([0014], [0067], [0158]). Therefore, Nishino discloses that the partition wall is configured to block a flame generated in any one of the plurality of battery modules from spreading to other adjacent battery modules.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2010/0330404) in view of Utley et al. (US 2013/0143083).
Regarding claim 1, Nishino discloses a battery housing tray 100,1000,1150,1400,1600 that houses a plurality of battery cells 1130 [plurality of battery modules] (abstract, [0120], Figs 9A-15). In an embodiment, the housing has a lid 1650 [cover] that covers an open upper part of the tray 1625 [case] ([0156], Fig 15). It is noted that a single battery cell can be considered a battery module; therefore, each battery cell 1130 of Nishino is considered and reads on a battery module.
The lid 1650 includes second barrier rib members [partition wall between the cover and the battery modules] formed on the bottom surface of the lid and further discloses second barrier rib members on the bottom surfaces of the trays (see second barrier rib members in Fig 15 in view of second barrier rib members 1122 in Fig 9B, [0119]-[0120] and [0156]).
Nishino further teaches that the battery housing tray is excellent in safety, and prevents flame from spreading to the surrounding batteries or abnormally overheating in advance ([0014], [0067], [0158]). Therefore, Nishino discloses that the partition wall is configured to block a flame generated in any one of the plurality of battery modules from spreading to other adjacent battery modules.
However, Nishino does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery modules are fixed in the case.
Utley discloses a battery pack comprising first and second arrays 20a,20b of cells disposed adjacent one another, and a housing comprising a base 10 and cover 12 that enclose the two arrays (abstract). Spacers 26 and/or mounting brackets are used to retain cells 22 in position ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine spacers and/or mounting brackets that retain cells of Utley with the battery cells of Nishino for the purpose of holding and fixing the cells.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nishino discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishino discloses the second barrier rib members 1322 as extending downward from a bottom surface of the cover/lid 1650 toward upper surfaces of the battery modules (Figs 9A-B, Fig 15).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nishino discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishino further discloses that the second barrier rib members 1122 have a lattice-shaped structure corresponding to an arrangement of the plurality of battery modules arranged in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, and is disposed in a closed-loop shaped corresponding to a periphery of an upper surface edge of a corresponding battery module, on an upper part of each battery module of the plurality of battery modules (see Fig 9A-B, wherein the second barrier rib members 1122 have the same arrangement as the first barrier rib members 1120 which have a lattice shape corresponding to the horizontal and vertical arrangement of the battery cells 1130 and the periphery thereof 1130).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nishino discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishino further teaches that a gap can be formed between the trays 1000A and 1000B ([0147], [0171] which has a gap of 5 mm between first and second barrier rib members), and therefore the first and second barrier rib members are not in contact and therefore have a gap between the bottom surface of the partition wall and the upper surfaces of the battery modules ([0171]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2010/0330404) in view of Utley et al. (US 2013/0143083), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kurita (US 2013/0149583).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nishino discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Nishino discloses second barrier rib members can be integrated with the tray 1000/housing member 1110 and formed on the bottom surface of the cover/lid 1650 ([0119], [0156], Fig 15), modified Nishino does not explicitly disclose wherein the partition wall is insert-molded on the bottom surface of the cover to be provided in an integrated structure.
Kurita discloses a battery system 1 comprising a plurality of battery cells 2 accommodated inside a battery accommodation casing 3 (abstract). A protrusion portion 14 protrudes toward the accommodation portion 9 from the bottom of the cover portion 10 of the casing 3 ([0058], [0067], Figs 2a and 3a-b). The protrusion 14 can be integrally formed with the cover portion 10 where the protrusion portion is formed by injection molding [insert-molding] ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the integrally formed by injection molding [insert-molding] of a protrusion on a bottom of a battery cover as taught by Kurita with second barrier rib members extending downward from a bottom surface of a cover as taught by Nishino for the purpose of having the second barrier rib members integrally formed with the cover.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2010/0330404) in view of Utley et al. (US 2013/0143083), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Widener (US 2018/0309107).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nishino discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Nishino teaches that the barrier rib members can comprise polypropylene resin or glass epoxy resin and further comprises fillers such as carbon fiber and glass fiber ([0065]), of which the instant application discloses the flame-retardant plastic contains for the char amount (paragraph [0058]), modified Nishino does not explicitly disclose wherein the partition wall comprises a flame-retardant plastic having a char (bubble-shaped carbide) production amount of 10 to 40%.
Widener discloses an inorganic platelet composition 16 for use as thermal and/or electrical insulation and fire protection for electrochemical cells such as lithium ion cells (abstract). The inorganic platelet composition 16,26,36,46 may be located on individual battery cells 12,22,32,42, within interstitial spaces of adjacent battery cells and/or between modules of battery cells in a larger battery pack (abstract, [0035]-[0038], Figs 1-4). The inorganic platelet composition can comprises about 20% to less than about 100% weight of inorganic platelet with the rest a polymer binder ([0055],[0060]-[0061]), and are carried on a support layer that can comprise a polymer film, a paper, a woven fabric, a non-woven fabric, or combinations thereof ([0067]-[0068]). The support layer can further include glass fibers ([0072]-[0073],[0088]-[0089]). The composition can further include a flame retardant ([0093]). That is, Widener teaches a variety of materials and composition to optimize the thermal and electrical insulation and fire protection, including the properties of thickness, weight, temperature resistance, dielectric strength, burst strength, puncture structure ([0109]-[0116]) which would affect the char production amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the relative amount of retardant plastic to glass fibers (including an amount of that is within the range of 10-40% char production amount) as taught by Widener with the second barrier rib members having polymer/plastic and glass fiber of Nishino for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between properties of thickness, weight, temperature resistance, dielectric strength, burst strength, puncture structure.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021/221299, see English language equivalent US 2022/0231367), as applied to claim 1 or 14 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2012/0082875).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Lee discloses a battery module including battery cell stacks 200 (abstract) and teaches the second partition wall portions 520 as extending downward from a bottom surface of the cover toward upper surfaces of the plurality of battery modules (see Fig 4 and 7), Lee does not explicitly disclose (claim 15) wherein the partition wall is also disposed between in a space between the bottom surface of the cover and a module cover of each of the plurality of battery modules, or (claim 16) wherein each battery module comprises a plurality of battery cells and a module cover configured to house the plurality of battery cells.
Watanabe discloses a battery pack P comprising a plurality of battery cell modules 3 and a packaging case 2 that accommodates the plurality of electric cells 1 ([0066], Fig 1), wherein each cell module 3 includes a plurality of cells 1, a cell holder 30, and a cell cover 31 [module cover] that covers the top surfaces of the electric cells 1 ([0083], Fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cell cover [module cover] of the cell modules of Watanabe with the cell stacks of Lee for the purpose of covering the cells.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2010/0330404) in view of Utley et al. (US 2013/0143083), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2012/0082875).
Regarding claim 15, Nishino discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Nishino discloses the second barrier rib members 1322 as extending downward from a bottom surface of the cover/lid 1650 toward upper surfaces of the battery modules (Figs 9A-B, Fig 15), Nishino does not explicitly disclose wherein the partition wall is also disposed between in a space between the bottom surface of the cover and a module cover of each of the plurality of battery modules.
Watanabe discloses a battery pack P comprising a plurality of battery cell modules 3 and a packaging case 2 that accommodates the plurality of electric cells 1 ([0066], Fig 1), wherein each cell module 3 includes a plurality of cells 1, a cell holder 30, and a cell cover 31 [module cover] that covers the top surfaces of the electric cells 1 ([0083], Fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cell module having a plurality of cells with a cell cover as taught by Watanabe for the individual cells of Nishino for the purpose of increasing the number of cells, with a cover/housing, and thereby increasing the amount of power and/or energy.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2010/0330404), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2012/0082875).
Regarding claim 16, Nishino discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Nishino discloses the second barrier rib members 1322 as extending downward from a bottom surface of the cover/lid 1650 toward upper surfaces of the battery modules (Figs 9A-B, Fig 15), Nishino does not explicitly disclose wherein each battery module comprises a plurality of battery cells and a module cover configured to house the plurality of battery cells.
Watanabe discloses a battery pack P comprising a plurality of battery cell modules 3 and a packaging case 2 that accommodates the plurality of electric cells 1 ([0066], Fig 1), wherein each cell module 3 includes a plurality of cells 1, a cell holder 30, and a cell cover 31 [module cover] that covers the top surfaces of the electric cells 1 ([0083], Fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cell module having a plurality of cells with a cell cover as taught by Watanabe for the individual cells of Nishino for the purpose of increasing the number of cells, with a cover/housing, and thereby increasing the amount of power and/or energy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regards to the 102 rejections of Lee and Nishino, that the prior art does not disclose the claimed partition wall disposed between the cover and the plurality of battery modules, and that the “specification explicitly defines a battery module 10 as an integrated assembly comprising a stacked 100, end plates 110, and a module cover 120”, citing the paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and Fig 2.
This is not considered persuasive. Original specification at paragraph [0041] states “battery modules 10 may include a stacked structure 100 formed by stacking a plurality of pouch-type battery cells 101…, and end plates 101…”. The recitation of “may include” is far from an “explicit definition” or a requirement for the claim. It is further interpreted that the language in the specification is not a special definition for a battery module.
The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. See MPEP 2111 and 2111.01.
Therefore, “an integrated assembly comprising a stacked 100, end plates 110, and a module cover 120” is not interpreted as a requirement for a battery module, and these limitations are also not claimed.
With further regards for the 102 rejections, Applicant argues the partition wall is spatially located in the interstitial region between the housing cover and the battery modules, and is not a sidewall, tray rib, enclosure divided, or pack-level structural member.
This is not considered persuasive. The claims merely require “a partition wall between the cover and the plurality of battery modules”. Both the partition wall portion 500 of Lee and the lid 1650 including secondary barrier rib members of Nishino meet this limitation (Lee at Fig 4, Nishino at Fig 15 in view of Fig 9B).
With further regards for the 102 rejections, Applicant argues the claimed partition wall is configured to individually intervene at the module-to-cover interface (i.e, at the very region through which flame propagation occurs after a module cover is breached), and the cited references lack any disclosure of a structure occupying this region, let alone one disposed above each module to interrupt flame spread between adjacent modules via the cover gap.
This is not considered persuasive. There is no claim limitation of any “cover gap”. Therefore, Applicant is arguing limitations which are not being claimed.
With regards to the configuration of the partition wall, the claim merely requires that the partition wall is “configured to block a flame generated in any one of the plurality of battery modules from spreading to other adjacent battery modules”. Both the partition wall portion 500 of Lee and the lid 1650 including secondary barrier rib members of Nishino meet this limitation (Lee at Fig 4 and [0059]; Nishino at Fig 15 in view of Fig 9B and [0014], [0067], [0158]).
Applicant argues, with regards to the 102 rejection with Lee, that Lee discloses a partition wall 500 that is an internal component of a single module housing, and in contrast, independent claims requires a partition wall extending from the system cover to a plurality of distinct modules. Further arguing that Lee does not disclose a system-level firewall disposed in the headspace between a main cover and independent modular units.
This is not considered persuasive. There is no claim limitation of any “partition wall extending from the system cover to a plurality of distinct modules”. Therefore, Applicant is arguing limitations which are not being claimed.
Again, the claims merely require “a partition wall between the cover and the plurality of battery modules” and “configured to block a flame generated in any one of the plurality of battery modules”. The partition wall portion 500 of Lee meets this limitation (Lee at Fig 4).
Applicant argues, with regards to the 102 rejection with Nishino, that Nishino discloses “barrier ribs” used to separate individual cells, but Nishino lacks a partition wall configured to block flame spread between self-contained modules.
This is not considered persuasive. As set forth in the previous action and above, a single battery cell can be considered a battery module; therefore, each battery cell 1130 of Nishino is considered and reads on a battery module.
The lid 1650 includes second barrier rib members [partition wall between the cover and the battery modules] formed on the bottom surface of the lid and further discloses second barrier rib members on the bottom surfaces of the trays (see second barrier rib members in Fig 15 in view of second barrier rib members 1122 in Fig 9B, [0119]-[0120] and [0156]). The second barrier rib members block and prevent the spread of flame/fire to the surrounding/neighboring batteries ([0014], [0067], [0158]).
Therefore, Nishino discloses that the partition wall is configured to block a flame generated in any one of the plurality of battery modules from spreading to other adjacent battery modules.
With regards to the 103 rejection of Nishino in view of Utley, Applicant argues the combination is improper because Utley is directed to mechanical retention, and Nishino is directed to cell-level spacing. Further arguing there is no motivation in the cited art to modify the system-level cover to include an integrated, lattice-shaped partition wall designed specifically to surround the peripheries of independent modules for fire containment.
This is not considered persuasive. Both Nishino and Utley are concerned with arranging batteries within a tray or housing (Nishino at [0015],[0185]; Utley at abstract). Therefore, both Nishino and Utley are directed to battery housings with batteries contained therein.
Because Utley teaches spacers 26 and/or mounting brackets are used to retain cells 22 in position ([0015]) wherein the cells are within the housing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spacers and/or mounting brackets of Utley with the battery cells and tray/housing of Nishino for the purpose of holding and fixing the cells within the tray/housing.
With regards to arguments directed toward “modify a system-level cover to include an integrated, lattice-shaped partition wall designed to specifically surround the peripheries of independent modules for fire containment”, the claim limitation only requires “a partition wall disposed between the cover and the plurality of battery modules” and “configured to block a flame generated in any one of the plurality of battery modules from spread to other adjacent battery modules”. There is no requirement of that the partition wall is integrated, or lattice-shaped, or specifically surrounds the peripheries of modules. Therefore, Applicant appears to be arguing limitations which are not claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., integrated, lattice-shaped; surround the peripheries) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights