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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended; support for claims 1 and 13 are found in original claim 10, [0048] and Figures 3-4.
Claims 10 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee et al. (US 2023/0268581 A1-having priority date of 01/14/2022) in view of Park et al (US 2023/0282919 A1-having priority date of 8/5/2020).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Rhee discloses an electronic device ([0005] battery pack for use in a vehicle) comprising a battery module, comprising;
A frame (Figure 1; battery module 1000 with upper cover 1130, lower cover 1120 and housing frame 1110);
A plurality of cells stacked in the frame in parallel (Figure 2; cells 100);
A plurality of buffer members respectively disposed between the adjacent cells and/or between the cell and the frame (Figure 4; thermal barrier assembly 1300 having the compression members 1320 used to absorb and buffer expansion pressure caused by the swelling of the battery cells 1200; [0068] the fixing member 1330 fixes the heat resistant member 1310 and compression member 1320 to each other and thus the heat resistant member and the compression member are coupled to each other),
wherein each of the plurality of buffer members comprises an outer frame portion and a buffer portion surrounded by the outer frame portion and a hardness of the outer frame portion is greater than a hardness of the buffer portion (Figure 4; [0050] heat resistant member 1310 is read as a frame portion wherein the compression member 1320 is read as the buffer portion as the heat resistant member is coupled to the covers as seen in Figure 7 and the heat resistant member shown in Figure 4 extends past the compression member and thus surrounds the compression member in the x-axis direction and discloses wherein the compression member and heat resistant member are fixed to each other by the fixing member [0068]; [0073] discloses wherein the compression member can be made of a polyurethane material, which can have a low hardness; [0071] while the heat resistant member can be made of alumina which has a high hardness and thus would read wherein the frame has a greater hardness than the buffer portion).
While Rhee discloses of a heat resistant member that is placed between battery cells as can act as a partition wall (Figure 4; 1310, 1311), Rhee is explicitly silent with respect to the position limiting member being a part of the frame.
Park discloses a battery module that is designed to have a structure capable of absorbing cell swelling and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries and related to swelling battery cells. Park discloses a module housing 200 having a lower and upper housing and partition walls 300 provided adjacent to the battery cells and coupled to the housing to divide and space out the battery module and absorb swelling of the battery cells ([0047-0049]). The partition wall is also provided to secure a space for accommodating the volume of the unit stack ([0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the partition wall of Park between adjacent battery cells of Rhee in order to provide structural support and a set space for accommodating the partitions as well as to aid in the absorption of the cells when they swell as taught by Park. The resulting modification can include placing the partition wall between adjacent battery cells such as between the heat resistant member 1310 such that the heat resistant member 1310 and compression member 1320 are provided on both sides of the partition member to provide the battery module with the benefits and advantages of the compression member and heat resistant member to each side of the partition. Thus through the modification, all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 13 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Rhee discloses all the claim limitation 1. Modified Rhee further discloses comprising an energy absorbing member (Rhee Heat resistant member 1310), wherein the energy absorbing member is disposed at a position adjacent to the at least one position limiting member (through the modification of claim 1 the partition member is provided between heat resistant members; [0013]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rhee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Modified Rhee further discloses wherein the energy absorbing member is provided with a plurality of energy absorbing portions, and the plurality of the energy absorbing portion are arranged at intervals on the energy absorbing member in the same shape (Figure 4 Heat resistant member is made plate wherein multiple points along the plate can be energy absorbing portions).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rhee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 3. Rhee further discloses a fixing member 1330 that is provided to fix the compression member and the heat resistant member ( Figure 4; [0068]). Through the combination of claim 1, the partition member of Park is provided such that the heat resistant member is provided on both sides of the partition member. The modification of claim 1 is silent with respect to a positioning member further being used to fix the heat resistant member to the partition, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to apply the same teaching of Rhee of a fixing member 1330 being provided between elements to fix the elements together. Thus, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to apply an additional fixing member 1330 between the heat resistant member and the partition according to the modification of claim 1 in order to fix the components together.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9, modified Rhee discloses all the claim limitations of claims 2-3 and 5. Modified Rhee further discloses wherein both sides of the at least one position-limiting member are provided with the energy absorbing members, and the two energy absorbing members provided on the both sides of the position-limiting members are symmetrical with respect to the at least one position-limiting member (see modification of claim 1, the partition of Park is provided between the battery cells, specifically such that the heat resistant member can be applied to both sides of the partition member and thus would read on the two energy absorbing members being symmetrical and provided on both sides of the partition).
Regarding claim 11, modified Rhee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Rhee further discloses wherein the frame comprises a bottom plate and an upper cover (Figure 2; upper cover 1130; lower cover 1120), and at least one of the bottom plate and the upper cover is provided with a positioning groove for at least a part of the at least one positioning member to be embedded and positioned (Figure 6; 1120 has a groove 1121 in which the thermal barrier assembly is inserted in and can be disclosed on the upper cover or the lower cover; [0090]; thus through the combination of claim 1 the partition can be provided and inserted into the grooves).
Regarding claim 12, modified Rhee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Rhee further discloses wherein each of the plurality of spaces divided by the at least one position-limiting member has 3-9 of the cells respectively (Figure 7; shows an example of 4 cells being between the thermal barrier assemblies).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee et al. (US 2023/0268581 A1-having priority date of 01/14/2022) in view of Park et al (US 2023/0282919 A1-having priority date of 8/5/2020) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 8,039,141 B2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rhee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 3. Modified Rhee discloses wherein the energy absorbing member is provided, however, is silent with respect to wherein the absorbing portions has a protruding shape and wherein the adjacent energy absorbing portions protrude in opposite directions.
Jeon discloses a battery module having cel barriers adjacent to the battery modules and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Jeon further discloses wherein the cell barriers are provided for physical restraint against distortion of the unit battery cells and can have a corrugated structure and/or protrusions that extend from the base (Figures 3-4 Col. 5 lines 55- Col. 6 lines 55; Col. 3 lines 58-Col. 4 line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to change the shape of the energy absorbing member to have a corrugated shape as taught by Jeon that has adjacent protrusion portions extending in opposite directions as taught by Jeon as a simple change in shape a swell prevention element within a battery cell. The resulting modification would read on the energy absorbing portions having a protruding shape and wherein the adjacent absorbing portions protrude in opposite directions. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, modified Rhee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Modified Rhee further discloses wherein both sides of the at least one position-limiting member are provided with the energy absorbing members, and the two energy absorbing members provided on the both sides of the position-limiting members are symmetrical with respect to the at least one position-limiting member (see modification of claims 1 and 4, the partition of Park is provided between the battery cells, specifically such that the heat resistant member can be applied to both sides of the partition member and through the change in shape of claim 4 would read on the two energy absorbing members being symmetrical and provided on both sides of the partition).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record, specifically that the Heat resistant member 1310 cannot be reasonably interpreted as a part of the compression member and that the heat resistant member is a plate like structure rather than a frame structure as it does not surround either of the two compression members and instead is clamped between the two compression members 1320. This argument is noted, however, is not found to be persuasive as applicant is arguing more specific than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Examiner notes that that the buffer member shown in Figure 3 of the instant invention appears to disclose wherein a buffer portion is provided on the outer frame 41 and appears to have a plate like structure. Applicant argues that the heat resistant member does not surround the compression members, however, the limitation of “surrounding” is not clearly defined. Examiner notes that figure 4 of Rhee discloses wherein the heat resistant member 1310 extends past the sides of the compression member and thus appear to read on the “buffer portion surrounded by the outer frame portion in the x-axis direction of Rhee, see Figure 4 of Rhee. Examiner further notes that the fixing member 1330 fixes to heat resistant member and the compression member to each other and thus are coupled together. Thus this argument is not persuasive as applicant is arguing more specific than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2011/0318623 A1)-discloses a battery cartridge and battery module. Lee discloses wherein frames 200 are provided between battery cells and wherein the outsides of the frames are provided with elastic pressing members 210 configured to press the edge of the battery cell ([0053], Figure 5).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728