DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-06-23, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 15, and 19 have been amended; Claims 2, 13-14, 16, and 20 have been canceled; Claims 21-25 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-19 and 21-25 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 15-19, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (WO 2021/060735, the Office cites to English equivalent US 2022/0320628 to Shin et al.) in view of Jeon (US 2023/0231264 to Jeon et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Shin teaches:
a traction battery pack assembly (¶ 0003)
comprising at least one enclosure 200 with an interior area (Fig. 1, ¶ 0033)
at least one cell stack comprising a plurality of cells 100, and a plurality of dividers 510 distributed along a cell stack axis (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0037-0043)
the divider compartmentalizing the interior area into a plurality of compartments, each holding at least one of the battery cells (Figs. 1 and 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
602
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one divider 510 is biased against the battery pack enclosure (Figs. 2 and 7, ¶ 0049)
a cross-member assembly disposed between two or more stacks (Figs. 8-9)
Shin does not explicitly teach:
the cross-member assembly including at least one beam having at least one opening and an interior passageway, wherein the plurality of compartments are configured to vent through the at least one opening into the interior passageway of the cross-member assembly
Jeon, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack comprising a plurality of cell stacks held in a battery pack enclosure, with cross-members 240/260 separating adjacent cell stacks from each other, teaches a cross-member with an interior passageways, wherein the plurality of stack compartments are configured to vent through at least one opening into the interior passageway (Figs. 2 and 4, ¶ 0053-0062, etc.)
PNG
media_image2.png
700
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
720
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide the cell stacks with biased dividers, as in Shin, with the enclosure of Jeon having venting cross-members, with the motivation of improving safety by allowing dangerous gases to vent during such events as cell failure. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Shin teaches:
the divider 510 including an elastic portion 515 biased against an enclosure cover 200/300 (¶ 0046, Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image4.png
604
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Shin teaches:
wherein the at least one divider is adhered to the battery pack enclosure 530 via adhesion member 550 (Fig. 4, ¶ 0041)
Regarding Claim 5, Shin teaches:
wherein the divider 510 is metal (¶ 0043)
Regarding Claim 6, Shin teaches:
a fin portion 515 that projects outward from the cell stack axis past the battery cells (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding Claim 7, Shin teaches:
a first section bent toward an axial end of the cell stack 517 and a second section bent away from the axial end 519 of the cell stack (Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 8, Shin teaches:
the fin portion 515 projects vertically upwards past the plurality of cells (Figs. 2 and 4)
Regarding Claim 12, Shin teaches:
the compartments being fluidly isolated from each other, the fin intervening between compartments, at least within the broadest reasonably interpretation of the phrase (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding Claim 15, Shin teaches:
a method of establishing a vent path within a battery pack comprising using at least one divider 510 of a cell stack to compartmentalize an interior area of the battery pack enclosure 200 into a plurality of compartments, each compartment housing at least one battery cell of the cell stack
biasing the at least one divider against a portion of the battery pack enclosure (Fig. 2)
Shin does not explicitly teach:
venting gas through a cross-member assembly disposed between first and second cell stacks, and including at least one beam having at least one opening and an interior passageway, wherein the plurality of compartments are configured to vent through the at least one opening into the interior passageway of the cross-member assembly
Jeon, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack comprising a plurality of cell stacks held in a battery pack enclosure, with cross-members 240/260 separating adjacent cell stacks from each other, teaches a cross-member with an interior passageways, wherein the plurality of stack compartments are configured to vent through at least one opening into the interior passageway (Figs. 2 and 4, ¶ 0053-0062, etc.). It would have been obvious to provide the cell stacks with biased dividers in Shin with the enclosure of Jeon having venting cross-members, with the motivation of improving safety by allowing dangerous gases to vent during such events as cell failure. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 17, Shin teaches:
the divider 510 including an elastic portion 515 biased against an enclosure cover 200/300 (¶ 0046, Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 18, Shin teaches:
flexing the divider 515 when biasing against the cover (¶ 0049-0050)
Regarding Claim 19, Shin teaches:
the fin portion 515 projects vertically upwards past the plurality of cells (Figs. 2 and 4)
a first section bent toward an axial end of the cell stack 517 and a second section bent away from the axial end 519 of the cell stack (Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 22, Shin teaches:
a traction battery pack assembly (¶ 0003)
comprising at least one enclosure 200 with an interior area and a cover (Fig. 1, ¶ 0033)
two or more cell stacks within interior areas stacked side-by-side along a cell stack axis with cross-members separating the stacks (Figs. 8-9)
at least one cell stack comprising a plurality of cells 100, and a plurality of dividers 510 distributed along a cell stack axis (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0037-0043)
the divider compartmentalizing the interior area into a plurality of compartments, each holding at least one of the battery cells (Figs. 1 and 2)
wherein the at least one divider 510 includes a fin portion that is biased against the battery pack enclosure cover (Figs. 2 and 7, ¶ 0049)
Shin does not explicitly teach:
the cross-member assembly including at least one opening and an interior passageway that is divided by a barrier between first and second outer beams, to form first and second interior passageways
the first and second beams include openings from a given one of the plurality of compartments into the first or second interior passageways
each of the compartmentalized interior area formed by the dividers housing multiple battery cells of respective stacks
Jeon, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack comprising a plurality of cell stacks held in a battery pack enclosure, with cross-members 240/260 separating adjacent cell stacks from each other, teaches a cross-member with an interior passageways formed by a barrier dividing the internal passageway, wherein the plurality of stack compartments are configured to vent through at least one opening into the interior passageway (Figs. 2 and 4, ¶ 0053-0062, etc.). It would have been obvious to provide the cell stacks with biased dividers in Shin with the enclosure of Jeon having venting cross-members, with the motivation of improving safety by allowing dangerous gases to vent during such events as cell failure. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
While Shin teaches that each cell includes a divider for thermal contact with the housing, it would have been obvious to provide two or more cells between each divider in order to improve energy density of the pack with the predictable tradeoff that heat transfer is reduced. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. For further evidence of skill in the art, see Rhee, cited below.
Regarding Claim 24, Shin teaches:
wherein the at least one divider is adhered to the battery pack enclosure 530 via adhesion member 550 (Fig. 4, ¶ 0041)
Regarding Claim 25, Shin teaches:
a first section bent toward an axial end of the cell stack 517 and a second section bent away from the axial end 519 of the cell stack (Fig. 4)
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee (US 2022/0069377 to Rhee et al.) and Jeon (US 2023/0231264 to Jeon et al.), and, in the case of Claim 11, in further view of Evans (US 2021/0163303 to Evans et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Rhee teaches:
a traction battery pack assembly comprising a first cell stack in an enclosure interior with at least one divider 1300 distributed along the stack and compartmentalizing the interior area into a plurality of compartments holding a plurality of battery cells, wherein the divider is biased against the battery pack enclosure in virtue of being in tension with the cover and floor of the enclosure, to which it is adhered and held in place (Fig. 7, ¶ 0047-0057)
a second cell stack in the interior area (Fig. 2)
a cross-member assembly disposed between the cell stacks within the interior area, having at least one beam (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image5.png
610
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Rhee does not explicitly teach:
the cross-member assembly including at least one beam having at least one opening and an interior passageway, wherein the plurality of compartments are configured to vent through the at least one opening into the interior passageway of the cross-member assembly
Jeon, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack comprising a plurality of cell stacks held in a battery pack enclosure, with cross-members 240/260 separating adjacent cell stacks from each other, teaches a cross-member with an interior passageways, wherein the plurality of stack compartments are configured to vent through at least one opening into the interior passageway (Figs. 2 and 4, ¶ 0053-0062, etc.). It would have been obvious to provide the cell stacks with biased dividers, as taught in Rhee, with the enclosure of Jeon having venting cross-members, with the motivation of improving safety by allowing dangerous gases to vent during such events as cell failure. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Rhee teaches:
wherein the at least one divider is sandwiched between a plurality of foam 33 (i.e. porous) spacers along the cell stack axis (Fig. 4b, ¶ 0060-0066)
Regarding Claim 11, Rhee does not teach:
aerogel
Evans, however, from the same field of invention, teaches aerogels for thermal insulation in battery systems (abstract). It would have been obvious to use an aerogel to achieve high thermal insulation and compressibility at low weight. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (WO 2021/060735, the Office cites to English equivalent US 2022/0320628 to Shin et al.) in view of Jeon (US 2023/0231264 to Jeon et al.), in further view of Poller (US 2015/0303422 to Poller et al.).
Regarding Claims 21 and 23, Shin does not explicitly teach:
a membrane covering the at least one opening configured to rupture to permit gas to flow from a given one of the plurality of compartments into the interior passageway, and to inhibit gas within the interior passageway from flowing back through the at least one opening into another of the plurality of compartments holding battery cells that are not venting
Poller, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a cross-beam with a venting structure, teaches the use of a safety valve 14 designed to open when a predetermined internal pressure is exceeded (¶ 0045). It would have been obvious to use such a valve, of which various types were conventional in the art, including rupturing ones. Such safety vents would also prevent gas in the cross member from flowing into neighboring cell compartments (those compartments not having the internal pressure necessary to open/rupture). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-06-23 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the claim amendments the rejections have been altered to rely on Jeon et al.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights