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 action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 04/13/2026. Claims 6 and 10-13 are currently pending for examination on the merits, with claims 1-5 and 7-9 withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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.
Claims 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180112630 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ohta et al. (US 2020/0328428) (Ohta) (of record) and Pauli (DE 102012018048 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses a battery module (title) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (110) (see Fig. 2; [0039]); a retraining member (100) configured to retrain the plurality of battery cells (110) in a state where the plurality of battery cells (110) are arranged in a manner of being not in contact with one another in a laminate direction (see Fig. 2; [0039]); and an elastic member (120) formed of a foamable material and filled between the battery cells (110) among the plurality of battery cells (110) arranged in the laminate direction (see Fig. 2; [0039]), wherein the restraining member (100) includes a binding bar provided with at least one filling port (101) communicating with a respective space between adjacent ones of the plurality of battery cells (110) (see Fig. 2; [0039]; [0012]; [0032]), encompassing the claimed scenario of a plurality of filling ports. Lee further discloses that the elastic member (120) is a foamed body formed by foaming a foamable material filled through the filling port (101) into the respective spaces between adjacent ones of the plurality of battery cells (110) (see Fig. 2; [0032]; [0039]), and after the foaming process is completed, the filling port (101) is sealed and closed ([0032]; [0039]), suggesting the claimed sealing member sealing the filling port. Lee fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the battery cells (110) are solid-state battery cells.
However, it is known in the art to configure battery cells as solid-state batteries. For instance, Ohta teaches a battery cell (1A) which uses lithium-ion technology (see Fig. 6; [0043]; [0063]-[0066]; [0072]-[0077]; [0081]; [0085]). Ohta further teaches that the battery cell (1A) is a solid-state battery (title; abstract; [0085]) which has improved yield, initial performance, deterioration characteristics, and energy density ([0008]; [0029]; [0096]; [0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the battery cells disclosed by Lee to be solid-state battery cells, as taught by Ohta, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to an improvement in the battery’s yield, initial performance, deterioration characteristics, and energy density.
Modified Lee still fails to disclose, however, that the restraining member (Lee: 100) includes a fixing portion configured to fix each of the battery cells (Lee: 110).
However, this configuration is common in the art for battery modules. For instance, Pauli teaches a similar battery module (1) (title; abstract) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (3) (see Figs. 2, 3, and 5; [0024]) and a retraining member (2) which includes a fixing portion (9) configured to fix each of the battery cells (3) and to retrain the plurality of battery cells (3) in a state where the plurality of battery cells (3) are arranged in a manner of being not in contact with one another in a laminate direction (see Figs. 3 and 5; [0024]). Pauli further teaches that the fixing portion (9) aids in retaining the battery cells (3) in the retaining member (2) and are able to accommodate welded areas (7) of the battery cells (3) ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the retaining member disclosed by modified Lee to include the claimed fixing portion, as taught by Pauli, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would aid in retaining the battery cells in the retaining member and allow for accommodation of welded areas in the battery cells. Thus, modified Lee satisfies all of the limitations in claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Modified Lee further discloses that the elastic member (Lee: 120) is filled in a first region including a space between the battery cells (Lee: 110) among the plurality of battery cells (Lee: 110) arranged in the laminate direction (Lee: see Fig. 2; [0039]), and the battery module further comprises a potting material (Lee: 102) filled in a second region adjacent to the first region and having thermal conductivity (Lee: see Fig. 2; [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Modified Lee further discloses that the battery cell (Lee: 110) includes a laminated film (pouch case) serving as an exterior member (Lee: [0026]), and wherein the laminated film (pouch case) is formed by an inner resin layer in contact with an electricity storage body of the battery cell (Lee: 110) and a metal layer configured to cover the inner resin layer (Lee: [0026]-[0027]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180112630 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ohta et al. (US 2020/0328428) (Ohta) (of record) and Pauli (DE 102012018048 with English Machine Translation) (of record) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Phlegm et al. (US 2020/0161727) (Phlegm).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Modified Lee further discloses that the elastic member (Lee: 120) is made of a silica aerogel foam (Lee: [0039]), which tends to be open-celled. Thus, modified Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the elastic member (Lee: 120) has a closed-cell structure.
However, open-cell foams and closed-cell foams are known alternatives in the art. For instance, Phlegm teaches a similar battery module (20) (see Fig. 2; [0037]), comprising a plurality of battery cells (20-1, 20-2) arranged in a manner of being not in contact with one another (see Fig. 2; [0037]), wherein an elastic member (26) formed of a foamable material is filled between the battery cells (20-1, 20-2) (see Fig. 2; [0042]). Phlegm further teaches that the elastic member (26) can have an open-cell or closed-cell structure ([0046]-[0047]; see also Figs. 4A and 4B). Phlegm further teaches that this elastic member (26) has high heat-resistance and is also lightweight and conformable ([0043]; [0046]-[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elastic member disclosed by modified Lee to have a closed-cell structure, as taught by Phlegm, because they would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a high heat-resistant, lightweight, and conformable elastic member.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180112630 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ohta et al. (US 2020/0328428) (Ohta) (of record) and Pauli (DE 102012018048 with English Machine Translation) (of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0387538) (Kim).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Modified Lee further discloses that the first region containing the elastic member (Lee: 120) is located between the battery cells (Lee: 110), and the second region containing the potting material (Lee: 102) is located at a bottom surface of the battery cells (Lee: 120) and the restraining member (Lee: 100) (Lee: see Fig. 2; [0039]-[0040]). Modified Lee fails to disclose, however, a separator configured to partition the first region and the second region.
Kim teaches a similar battery module (title), comprising a plurality of battery cells (110), a restraining member (120) configured to restrain the plurality of battery cells (110) in a manner of being not in contact with one another (see Fig. 4; [0045]-[0046]; [0054]-[0055]), and an elastic member (130) formed of a foamable material and filled between the battery cells (110) (see Fig. 4; [0045]; [0056]-[0057]). Kim further teaches that the battery module comprises a separator (141) that partitions a first region between the battery cells (110) where the elastic member (130) is located and a second region including a bottom surface of the battery cells (110) and the restraining member (120) (see Fig. 4; [0055]). Kim further teaches that this separator (141) helps to guide the battery cells (110) to be arranged at certain intervals, thereby improving the manufacturing efficiency of the battery module, and helps to reduce a deviation of surface pressure applied by the elastic member (130), thereby improving a lifespan of the battery module ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module disclosed by modified Lee to include the separator taught by Kim because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the manufacturing efficiency of the battery module and improve the lifespan of the battery module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As such, claims 6 and 10-13 stand rejected.
Conclusion
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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights