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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species ii (telescopic screw) in the reply filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged. As this species was found allowable herein, the search was extended to species i (pantograph), which was also found allowable, and then species iii (intumescent material). All claims were examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-4 and 11 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 2 recites “a sensor configured to monitor the temperature…a controller configured to monitor the temperature of at least one of the plurality of battery cells using the sensor… wherein the sensor is at least one of: a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, a pressure sensor, a strain gauge, an acoustic sensor, or a gas sensor.” It is not understood how sensors other than a temperature sensor could be used to sense (or calculate) the temperature, and this does not appear to be explained in the instant specification. Correction is required.
Claim 11 recites that the series of heat barriers is configured to operate “in a closed configuration or an open configuration.” It us unclear if the closed and open configurations are a reference to the previously defined closed and open configuration of the spacers. Further, it is also unclear what “operate” means in this instance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara et al (US 20200194753). Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to an apparatus comprising a battery pack (8) comprising a front panel (20), a plurality of cells (11) within the battery pack, and a spacer mechanism (spring 30 and elastic members 24, Figs. 3 and 4) that controls the distance between the cells. The spacer mechanism is configured to operate (i.e., is at least capable of operating) in a closed configuration (first distance) and an open configuration (second distance), wherein the first distance is less than the second distance (Figs. 3, 4, [0048]). Regarding claim 9, each pair of batteries has an elastic member 24 (spacer mechanism) therebetween. Regarding claim 10, a series of heat barriers (core material 23 made of resin) extend between the cells when the cells are in an open configuration ([0032]). Regarding claim 11, the heat barriers are configured to operate in a closed or open configuration. Regarding claim 12, the heat barriers comprise a heat insulating (resin) layer. Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
Claims 1 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017139826. Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to an apparatus comprising a battery pack (1) comprising a front panel (one side of housing 2), a plurality of cells (5b) within the battery pack, and a spacer mechanism (intumescent material 6) that controls the distance between the cells. The spacer mechanism is configured to operate in a closed configuration (first distance) and an open configuration (second distance), wherein the first distance is less than the second distance (Fig. 2, page 3 of machine translation). Regarding claim 8, the spacer mechanism is an intumescent material (6). Further, a “fire protection jacket” may surround the intumescent material, thus anticipating the “heat-resistant shell” of claim 8 (bottom of page 3). Regarding claim 9, each pair of batteries has a spacer mechanism therebetween (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 10, a series of heat barriers (“one or more other thermal insulation layers”) extend between the cells when the cells are in an open configuration (bottom of page 3). Regarding claim 11, the heat barriers are configured to operate in a closed or open configuration. Regarding claim 12, the heat barriers comprise a heat insulating layer. Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014047812.
Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to an apparatus comprising a battery pack (100) comprising a plurality of cells (110) within the battery pack, and a spacer mechanism (400) using a piezoelectric motor that controls the distance between the cells. The spacer mechanism is configured to operate in a closed configuration (first distance) and an open configuration (second distance), wherein the first distance is less than the second distance ([0045], [0046]). Regarding claim 7, the spacer mechanism comprises a motor (piezoelectric motor) ([0045]) configured to change the spacer mechanism from the closed to the open configuration. Regarding claim 9, each pair of batteries has a spacer mechanism therebetween (Fig. 1).
WO ‘812 does not expressly teach that the battery pack has a front panel as recited in claim 1.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would understand that the battery pack would have some type of container or enclosure. Such enclosures are well-known in the art, and one surface of the enclosure could be considered a “front panel.” Accordingly, the limitation would be rendered obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) but would be allowable if the rejection was obviated and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 14 recites a method, and dependent claim 2 recites an apparatus with a controller configured to perform the steps of: subsequent to a first temperature value exceeding a first threshold, opening a front panel of a battery pack, and subsequent to a second temperature exceeding a second threshold, changing a spacer mechanism from a closed configuration (first intercell distance) to an open configuration (second intercell distance), the first distance being less than the second distance. CN 113851778 is considered the closest prior art. The reference teaches opening a movable door 3 (front panel) of an enclosure of a battery pack in response to a temperature measurement (page 6 of translation). However, the reference does not teach nor fairly suggest, alone or in combination, the step of changing a distance between cells. It is noted that the battery pack (12) is placed as a unit (supported) inside the enclosure (cavity 2) using springs 7 and rods 17, 18 to improve stability and damping within the enclosure (page 5). There is no suggestion of changing the distance between cells inside the pack (12) itself.
Dependent claim 5 recites that the spacer mechanism comprises a pantograph. The above-applied references do not teach or fairly suggest this limitation.
Dependent claim 6 recites that the spacer mechanism comprises a telescopic screw drive. The above-applied references do not teach or fairly suggest this limitation. Further, CN ‘778 noted above does disclose a telescopic motor (5), but it is used to control the movable door (page 6). CN ‘778 also discloses a threaded transmission rod 17 and a threaded telescopic connecting rod 18 that a worker can adjust (page 5) to properly fit the battery (12) in the enclosure but this is not related to spacing between battery cells inside the battery (12).
Dependent claim 13 recites that the spacer mechanism comprises a filament, cable, or link chain to separate the plurality of cells in the open configuration. The above-applied references also do not teach or fairly suggest this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
January 20, 2026