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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“to bridge between first protrusions of the plurality of first protrusions” is unclear. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “to bridge between the plurality of first protrusions.”
“to extend along gaps between battery cells of the plurality of battery cells” is unclear. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “to extend along gaps between adjacent battery cells.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon et al. (US 2020/0365844 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches a battery pack (battery module 100) comprising: a cell stack (cell unit 20; Par. 0044, cells are stacked) configured by stacking a plurality of battery cells (battery cells 10) with a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape (Par. 0042, “a battery module 100 according to this embodiment may have a substantially hexahedral shape;” Fig. 2, 8), the plurality of battery cells including adjacent battery cells spaced from each other in a stacking direction such that a gap is formed between the adjacent battery cells (Fig. 8; Par. 0075, plate portions 22 are placed between the battery cells corresponding to positions of first protrusions, which are described below; it is noted that claim 1 does not require each cell being spaced apart) and a battery case (case 40) provided in a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape (Fig. 1) and accommodating the cell stack (Par. 0018; “a case accommodating the cell assembly”), wherein the battery case includes a first protrusion (external plate 50b) protruding from an outer surface of the battery case (Par. 0114; “the external plate 50 b is disposed on an external side of the internal plate 50 a”) to an outside of the battery case (Fig. 8) at a position of the gap between the adjacent battery cells in the stacking direction of the cell stack (Modified Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 8
Regarding claim 2, Jeon teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein: the battery case includes a pair of side walls (internal plates 50 a), the pair of side walls extending along the stacking direction (Fig. 1-2; internal plate 50a is part of the third plate 50, which covers the entire side of the cell stack) and facing a side surface of the cell stack (Fig. 8; internal plate 50 a faces the side of the cell stack); and the first protrusion is provided on at least one of the pair of side walls (Par. 0113; “the external plate 50 b is disposed on an external side of the internal plate 50 a”).
Regarding claim 3, Jeon teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the battery case includes a second protrusion (Fig. 8; plate portion 22) that protrudes from an inner surface of the battery case to be interposed between the adjacent battery cells on an inner side of the first protrusion (Fig. 8; plate portion 22 extends from the side of the battery case; Par. 0080, “two battery cells 10, disposed to oppose each other with the plate portion 22 interposed therebetween”).
Regarding claim 8, Jeon teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the first protrusion is elongated perpendicular to the stacking direction (Fig. 2; battery cells are stacked vertically, while the external plate 50 b, which is part of the third plate 50 as stated in Par. 0112, extends horizontally along the gaps between battery cells).
Regarding claim 9, Jeon teaches the battery pack of claim 3, wherein the first protrusion is aligned with the second protrusion (Fig. 8; the extension portions of the external plate 50 b are centered with the centers of the extension portions of the frames 31 and plate portions 22).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon fails to teach the first and second protrusions being integrally formed with a sidewall of the battery case.
However, the examiner notes that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Jeon would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, in view of Park (US 2014/0120391 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jeon teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the battery case includes an upper wall (insulating cover 80) extending along the stacking direction and facing an upper surface of the cell stack (Fig. 2; insulating cover 80 is disposed on the upper end of the battery case relative to the stacking direction, and it covers the entire end of the cell stack). Jeon fails to teach a third protrusion protruding from an inner surface of the upper wall to be interposed between the battery cells, and a second rib provided on an outer surface of the upper wall which extends parallel or obliquely to the stacking direction.
However, Park teaches a third protrusion (Dividing panel 27) protruding from an inner surface of an upper wall (Upper panel 26) so as to be interposed between the adjacent battery cells (Fig. 4); and the battery case includes a second rib (Fig. 1; long box-shaped rib extending down the middle of the cover) provided on an outer surface of the upper wall, wherein the second rib is provided so as to extend parallel or obliquely to the stacking direction (Fig. 1; rib extends in the X-direction, thus extending parallel to the stacking direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack taught by Jeon by incorporating a protrusion protruding from an upper wall to between a gap between battery cells, and a second rib extending along the outer surface of the upper wall parallel to the stacking direction, as taught by Park. This would be done in order to reduce variations in battery positioning and to improve case stability, as stated in Park (Par. 0003, 0008).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0313648 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon teaches a bottom wall (Fig. 2; insulating cover 80 is additionally placed at the opposite end) facing a bottom surface on the battery case. Jeon fails to teach a third protrusion protruding from an inner surface of the bottom wall interposed between the battery cells, and a second rib on an outer surface of the bottom wall.
However, Choi teaches a third protrusion protruding from an inner surface of the bottom wall so as to be interposed between the adjacent battery cells (Par. 0088); and the battery case includes a second rib (Bottom connection bar SC2) provided on an outer surface of the bottom wall (Par. 0020-0021), wherein the second rib is provided to extend parallel or obliquely to the stacking direction (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack taught by Jeon by incorporating a third protrusion on the bottom surface to be interposed between adjacent battery cells, and by arranging a second rib on the bottom wall extending in the stacking direction, as taught by Choi. Doing so would increase structural rigidity and provide a gap between batteries in case of swelling, as stated by Choi (Par. 0053, 0057).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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:
Claim 4 of the present application would be found allowable because Jeon fails to teach a first rib provided on an outer surface of at least one of the pair of side walls on which the first protrusion and the second protrusion are provided; where the first rib is provided to extend parallel or obliquely to the stacking direction. The closest prior art reference is Kim (US 2011/0294000 A1). The references neither teach nor reasonably suggest the combination of features claimed.
Kim is the closest prior art. Kim teaches a first rib (reinforcement portion 180) provided on an outer surface of at least one pair of side walls (Fig. 1A; Par. 0023, “a reinforcement portion 180 coupled to a side surface of the housing 110”) on which a first protrusion (lattice shaped rib 112a) is provided; where the first rib is provided to extend parallel to the stacking direction (Fig. 4; Par. 0009, “the reinforcing member may have a pair of substantially parallel side members”). While Kim teaches the claimed limitations, the teachings of Kim are not combinable with the teachings of Jeon. This is because Jeon teaches a reinforcement rib 50c placed on the side plate 50b, which extends perpendicularly to the stacking direction corresponding to the side plate 50b. The module taught by Jeon has no need for another rib which extends parallel to the stacking direction.
Claim 5 of the present application would be found allowable because Jeon fails to teach a first rib provided to bridge between the plurality of first protrusions. The closest prior art reference is Kim (US 2011/0294000 A1). The references neither teach nor reasonably suggest the combination of features claimed.
Kim is the closest prior art. Kim teaches a first rib (reinforcing portion 180), which is provided as to bridge between the plurality of first protrusions adjacent to each other (Fig. 1A-B; Par. 0055, “the opposite sidewall reinforcement portions 181 of the reinforcement portion 180 closely contact the plurality of latticed ribs 112 a”). While Kim teaches the claimed limitations, the teachings of Kim are not combinable with the teachings of Jeon. This is because Jeon teaches a reinforcement rib 50c which is placed over the side plate 50b and directly corresponds to each protrusion of the side plate 50b, thus eliminating a need for a rib which bridges between each protruding portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 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.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection of record of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Kim. However, as new prior art has been applied to the claims, Applicant’s arguments do not apply with the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Jeon.
Applicant’s new claims 8-10 have been considered.
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 CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights