DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 5 June 2026. Claims 1, 8, 12, 13 and 18 are currently amended. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-21 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the claims and the specification are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10 March 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities.
The claim recites the limitation “towards an outside a cell stack” (line 2). The limitation should be edited to read “towards an outside of a cell stack”.
The claim further recites the limitation “the outer blocking member have a lower compression ratio” (line 5). The limitation should be edited to read “the outer blocking member has a lower compression ratio”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the heat transfer preventing unit" (line 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the heat transfer preventing layer" (line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0367934, hereinafter Kim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0268581, hereinafter Rhee’581 and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0343495, hereinafter Kritzer.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a battery module. The battery module comprises a plurality of battery cells (10) stacked in one direction (paragraph [0044] and figures 1 and 6).
A housing member (20, “module case”) has an inner space and is configured to accommodate the plurality of battery cells (10) (paragraphs [0044, 0050] and figure 1).
A multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) is interposed between adjacent battery cells (10) (paragraph [0044] and figures 1 and 6).
The multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) includes a heat transfer prevention portion (32) configured to prevent heat transfer between the adjacent battery cells (10) (paragraphs [0063, 0092]).
The multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) further includes a fireproof portion (31) provided on an inner side of the heat transfer prevention portion (32) and configured to block a flame spreading between the adjacent battery cells (10) (paragraphs [0080, 0114] and figure 6).
The heat transfer prevention portion (32) forms an outermost layer of the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) (paragraph [0114] and figure 6).
The heat transfer prevention portion (32) is made of a silicone-based material and preferably has a thermal conductivity of less than 0.3 W/(m·K) (paragraphs [0090, 0094, 0095, 0117]).
In an embodiment, Kim provides the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) with an elastic layer to absorb the pressing force caused by swelling of the battery cells (10) (paragraph [0121]).
Kim fails to teach that the silicone-based heat transfer prevention portion (32) is elastic.
The Rhee’581 reference is commonly owned with and shares inventors with Kim. Rhee’581 teaches a thermal barrier assembly (1300) positioned between battery cells (1200) within a battery module (1000) (paragraphs [0047, 0069] and figure 7). The thermal barrier assembly (1300) includes a flame retardant member (1310) sandwiched by compression members (1320) (paragraphs [0071, 0073] and figure 4). The compression members (1320) are elastic and may be formed of silicone (paragraph [0073]). The purpose of the compression members (1320) is to absorb the pressing force caused by swelling of the battery cells (1200) (paragraph [0074]).
Elastic silicone with thermal conductivity of less than 0.1 W/(m·K) is known in the art – see, e.g. Kritzer, who teaches a temperature-resistant elastic material, which is a silicone and is used in a thermally insulative and compressive member (4) to prevent heat transfer between battery cells (3) and to absorb swelling of the battery cells (3) (paragraphs [0023, 0024, 0039] and figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Kim’s silicone-based heat transfer prevention portion (32) as an elastic member for the purpose of being able to absorb the pressing force caused by swelling of the battery cells (10).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches that the heat transfer prevention portion (32) includes a material having a lower thermal conductivity than the fireproof portion (31) (paragraph [0114]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches that the fireproof portion (31) has a higher melting point than the heat transfer prevention portion (32) (paragraphs [0070, 0071]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches that the fireproof portion (31) has a higher melting point than the heat transfer prevention portion (32) (paragraphs [0070, 0071]). The heat transfer prevention portion (32) forms an outermost layer of the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) and is located adjacent to a battery cell (10) (paragraph [0114] and figure 6).
Therefore, it is understood that the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) is configured to expose the fireproof portion (31) to the adjacent battery cell (10) when the heat transfer prevention portion (32) is melted.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches that the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) is configured in a sheet form (figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches that the fireproof portion (31) is configured in a sheet form as a flame transfer preventing sheet (paragraphs [0080, 0114] and figures 1 and 6).
The heat transfer prevention portion (32) is configured in a sheet form as a heat transfer preventing sheet (paragraphs [0063, 0092] and figure 1).
The multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) is configured such that the flame transfer preventing sheet (31) is interposed inside the heat transfer prevention sheet (32) (paragraph [0116] and figure 6).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kim as modified by Rhee‘581 and Kritzer teaches that the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) is configured to deform in a direction of the swelling of an adjacent battery cell by an amount corresponding to a swelling of the adjacent battery cell to absorb the swelling (paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches that the heat transfer prevention portion (32) has a central portion having a greater thickness that that of an end portion of the heat transfer prevention portion (32) (paragraphs [0101, 0102]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches that the fireproof portion (31) has a smaller thickness in a central portion thereof (paragraphs [0105, 0106]) – as such there is a groove formed in a concave shape in a central portion thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches that each of the battery cells (10) is a pouch-type battery cell having an accommodation portion and a sealing portion (paragraph [0048]). The sealing portion is located at an outer side portion of the battery cell (10) (figures 1-8). The accommodation portion is in a central portion of the battery cell (10) (figures 1-8).
Kim teaches that the fireproof portion (31) has a greater thickness in a region facing the outer side portion of the battery cell (10) that in a region facing the central portion of the battery cell (10) (paragraphs [0107, 0108]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kim teaches a plurality of “blocking members” arranged along a stacking direction of the battery cells (10) (figure 2).
The multilayer member (30) is a “blocking member” configured to block flames and heat from propagating and is disposed in an inside of the battery cell (10) stack. As such, the multilayer member (30) is an “inner blocking member”.
The side walls (22) of the housing (20, “module case”) are “blocking members” configured to block ingress into the housing and are disposed towards the outside of the battery cell (10) stack. As, such each of the side walls (22) is an “outer blocking member”.
Kim teaches that the side walls (22, “outer blocking members”) are made of a thermally conductive material (paragraph [0056]), but does not specify the material of the side walls (22, “outer blocking members”).
Kim does not specify the relative compression ratios of the multilayer member (30, “inner blocking member”) and the side walls (22, “outer blocking members”).
It is well-known in the art to form battery module housing walls of rigid metal material for the purpose of protecting the battery cells located within the housing walls – see, e.g. Rhee’581 (paragraph [0046]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Kim’s side walls (22, “outer blocking members”) of rigid metal material for the purpose of protecting the battery cells (10).
In the combination of Kim, Rhee’581 and Kritzer the compression ratio of the rigid metal side walls (22, “outer blocking members”) would be less than the compression ratio of the multilayer member (30, “inner blocking member”).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches that the battery cells (10) are electrically connected (paragraph [0004]). Any group of two or more cells is a “cell bank”.
As such, there is a multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) interposed between adjacent “cell banks”.
Kim fails to teach that the battery cells (10) are connected in series.
The use of a series electrical connection within battery modules of the type taught by Kim is ubiquitous in the art – see, e.g. Rhee’581 (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect Kim’s battery cells (10) in series for the purpose of achieving a desired voltage in the battery module.
Regarding claim 16, Kim as modified by Rhee’581 and Kritzer teaches the battery module of claim 1.
Kim fails to teach a battery pack.
Combining battery modules into a battery pack is ubiquitous in the art – see, e.g. Rhee’581 (paragraphs [0004, 0005, 0104]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiples of Kim’s battery module into a battery pack for the purpose of achieving a desired battery output.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a vehicle comprising the battery module of claim 1 (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches a battery module. The battery module comprises a plurality of battery cells (10) stacked in one direction (paragraph [0044] and figures 1 and 6).
A housing member (20, “module case”) has an inner space and is configured to accommodate the plurality of battery cells (10) (paragraphs [0044, 0050] and figure 1).
A multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) is interposed between adjacent battery cells (10) (paragraph [0044] and figures 1 and 6).
The multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) includes a heat transfer prevention portion (32) and a fireproof portion (31) (paragraphs [0063, 0080, 0092, 0114]).
The heat transfer prevention portion (32) is on the fireproof portion (31) (figure 6).
The heat transfer prevention portion (32) forms an outermost layer of the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) (paragraph [0114] and figure 6).
The fireproof portion (31) has a higher melting point and a higher thermal conductivity than those of the heat transfer prevention portion (32) (paragraphs [0070, 0071, 0114]).
The heat transfer prevention portion (32) is made of a silicone-based material and preferably has a thermal conductivity of less than 0.3 W/(m·K) (paragraphs [0090, 0094, 0095, 0117]).
In an embodiment, Kim provides the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) with an elastic layer to absorb the pressing force caused by swelling of the battery cells (10) (paragraph [0121]).
Kim fails to teach that the silicone-based heat transfer prevention portion (32) is elastic.
Rhee’581 teaches a thermal barrier assembly (1300) positioned between battery cells (1200) within a battery module (1000) (paragraphs [0047, 0069] and figure 7). The thermal barrier assembly (1300) includes a flame retardant member (1310) sandwiched by compression members (1320) (paragraphs [0071, 0073] and figure 4). The compression members (1320) are elastic and may be formed of silicone (paragraph [0073]). The purpose of the compression members (1320) is to absorb the pressing force caused by swelling of the battery cells (1200) (paragraph [0074]).
Elastic silicone with thermal conductivity of less than 0.1 W/(m·K) is known in the art – see, e.g. Kritzer, who teaches a temperature-resistant elastic material, which is a silicone and is used in a thermally insulative and compressive member (4) to prevent heat transfer between battery cells (3) and to absorb swelling of the battery cells (3) (paragraphs [0023, 0024, 0039] and figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Kim’s silicone-based heat transfer prevention portion (32) as an elastic member for the purpose of being able to absorb the pressing force caused by swelling of the battery cells (10).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches that the heat transfer prevention portion (32) covers the fireproof portion (31) on all sides (figure 6).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches that the fireproof portion (31) has a gradually decreasing thickness (paragraph [0111]). As such, two portions separated from each other can be defined which have different thicknesses.
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches that the heat transfer prevention portion (32) includes silicone (paragraphs [0094, 0095, 0117]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0367934, hereinafter Kim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0268581, hereinafter Rhee’581 and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0343495, hereinafter Kritzer as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0255182, hereinafter Kogami.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches that the fireproof portion (31) has a groove in a concave shape in a central portion thereof and the heat transfer prevention portion (32) is positioned within the groove.
Kim’s figures show only cross-sections of the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”) and Kim does not specify whether the groove is open to the outside.
Kim fails to teach that the groove is open to the outside.
Kogami teaches a similar separator (2), which serves to thermally insulate adjacent battery cells (1) and to absorb expansion of adjacent battery cells (1) (paragraph [0053]). The separator (2) includes a central heat insulating layer (5) having a recess (5b, “groove”) with a concave shape in a central portion thereof. An elastic layer (6) is positioned within the recess (5b, “groove”) (paragraph [0066] and figures 5 and 6). A three-dimensional view of the separator (2) shows that the recess (5b, “groove”) is open to the outside, which allows the elastic layer (6) to extend along the whole width of the separator (2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Kim’s groove to be open to the outside so that the heat transfer prevention portion (32) could extend along the whole width of the multilayer member (30, “blocking member”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Kim, Rhee’581 and Kritzer references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights