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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/08/2026:
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
The previous rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous and new prior art has been applied. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment. Thus the action is final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/01/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN203707212 to Zhou (Google Patent translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0234189 to Gaben in further view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0197317 to Dittel et al. and US Patent Application Publication 2007/0196729 to Yamauchi et al.
With respect to claim 1, Zhou teaches a battery pack, comprising: a housing 1, wherein at least one side of the housing 1 is provided with a through-hole 6; a battery module, accommodated in an accommodation cavity formed by the housing 1, wherein the battery module comprises a plurality of cells 2; and a layer 3 or 4, disposed in a partial region of a side end of the battery module, and covering package parts of side ends of the plurality of cells 2, wherein the partial region comprises a lower part of the side end of the battery module, the side end of the battery module is an end at which the side ends of the plurality of cells 2 in the battery module are located, and a channel 7 is disposed between the through-hole 6 and a space enclosed by the resin layer 4 and the battery module (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
Zhou further teaches the layer is a silica gel layer. Zhou does not specifically teach the layer is a resin layer.
However, Gaben teaches an electrochemical device having a covering layer made of epoxy resin or sol-gel silica (Gaben: Section [0321]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with the above teaching from Gaben with the motivation of having a means such the covering layer holds the battery in place and protecting the battery from damage.
Zhou does not teach each of the plurality of cells being packaged in a metal composite film.
However, Dittel et al. teach a battery cell comprising a casing with metallic composite material (Dittel et al.: Section [0045]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with the above teaching from Dittel with the motivation of having a means such metallic composite material is a common material for protecting and insulating the battery.
Zhou does not teach an exposed edge of the metal composite film at a side end of each of the plurality of cells is covered with the resin layer, and the resin layer does not completely cover the side end of each of the plurality of cells
However, Yamauchi et al. teach a battery comprising a insulating frame 16, which is made of resin sheet for preventing an electrode group 10 from being damaged while being inserted into the metal outer can (Yamauchi et al.: Section [0037]; Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with the above teaching from Yamauchi et al. with the motivation of having a means such the resin frame takes less space and material to improve the energy density of the battery.
With respect to claim 2, Zhou in view of Gaben further teach the battery pack, wherein a height of the resin layer 4 is less than or equal to ⅔ of a height of the side end of the battery module 2 (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
However, Zhou in view of Gaben discloses the claimed invention except for one end of the resin layer 4 is connected to bottoms of the plurality of cells, and the height of the resin layer 4 is a distance between an other end opposite to the one end of the resin layer and a bottom of the battery module. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the resin layer is connected to bottoms of the plurality of cells, and the height of the resin layer is a distance between an other end opposite to the one end of the resin layer and a bottom of the battery module, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 3, Zhou in view of Gaben disclose the claimed invention except for the height of the resin layer is less than or equal to ½ of the height of the side end of the battery module.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the height of the resin layer is less than or equal to ½ of the height of the side end of the battery module, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 4, Zhou in view of Gaben disclose the claimed invention except for the height of the resin layer is less than or equal to ⅓ of the height of the side end of the battery module.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the height of the resin layer is less than or equal to ⅓ of the height of the side end of the battery module, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 5, Zhou in view of Gaben further teach the battery pack, wherein a height of the resin layer is greater than ⅓ of a height of the side end of the battery module and less than or equal to a length of the side end of the battery module (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
Zhou in view of Gaben discloses the claimed invention except for one end of the resin layer is connected to bottoms of the plurality of cells, and the height of the resin layer is a distance between an other end opposite to the one end of the resin layer and a bottom of the battery module. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the resin layer is connected to bottoms of the plurality of cells, and the height of the resin layer is a distance between an other end opposite to the one end of the resin layer and a bottom of the battery module, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 6, Zhou in view of Gaben teach the battery pack, wherein the resin layer 3 or 4 comprises a plurality of sublayers 3 disposed at an interval, each of the sublayers 3 covers a partial region of a side end of each cell 2, the partial region of the side end of the cell comprises a lower part of the side end of the cell, and each of the sublayers 3 covers a package part of the side end of each cell (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 7, Zhou in view of Gaben further teach the battery pack, wherein the at least one side provided with the through-hole is a top face of the housing 1 (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
However, Zhou in view of Gaben discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one side provided with the through-hole is a bottom face or a side face of the housing. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the at least one side provided with the through-hole is a bottom face or a side face of the housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 8, Zhou in view of Gaben further teach the battery pack, wherein the top face of the housing is provided with a plurality of through-holes 6, and the channel 7 is disposed between the plurality of through-holes 6 and the plurality of cells 2 in the battery module (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
However, Zhou in view of Gaben discloses the claimed invention except for the bottom face of the housing is provided with a plurality of through-holes, and the channel is disposed between the plurality of through-holes and the plurality of cells in the battery module. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the bottom face of the housing is provided with a plurality of through-holes, and the channel is disposed between the plurality of through-holes and the plurality of cells in the battery module, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 9, Zhou in view of Gaben teach the battery pack, wherein some or all of the plurality of through-holes 6 are disposed between adjacent cells 2, and the channel 7 is disposed between the some or all of the plurality of through-holes 6 and the adjacent cells 2 (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Zhou in view of Gaben teach the battery pack, wherein the resin layer 3 is further disposed in a partial region between adjacent cells (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 11, Zhou in view of Gaben do not specifically teach the battery pack, wherein a minimum width of the resin layer between two adjacent cells ranges between 5 mm and 10 mm.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have a minimum width of the resin layer between two adjacent cells ranges between 5 mm and 10 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 12, Zhou in view of Gaben teach the battery pack, wherein in a direction from top to bottom of the battery module 2, a width of the resin layer 4 between two adjacent cells remains unchanged (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 13, Zhou teaches the battery pack, wherein a bottom of the housing 1 is provided with a cushion pad 3, and the plurality of cells 2 are disposed on the cushion pad 3 (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 14, Zhou teaches the battery pack, the cell 2 is surrounded by silica gel layer (a soft-packed cell) (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 15, Zhou teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising a battery pack, wherein the battery pack comprises: a housing 1, wherein at least one side of the housing 1 is provided with a through-hole 6; a battery module, accommodated in an accommodation cavity formed by the housing 1, wherein the battery module comprises plurality of cells 2; and a layer 3 or 4, disposed in a partial region of a side end of the battery module, and covering package parts of side ends of the plurality of cells, wherein the partial region comprises a lower part of the side end of the battery module, the side end of the battery module is an end at which the side ends of the plurality of cells 2 in the battery module are located, and a channel 7 is disposed between the through-hole 6 and a space enclosed by the layer and the battery module (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
Zhou further teach the layer is a silica gel layer. Zhou does not specifically teach the layer is a resin layer.
However, Gaben teaches an electrochemical device having a covering layer made of epoxy resin or sol-gel silica (Gaben: Section [0321]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with the above teaching from Gaben with the motivation of having a means such the covering layer holds the battery in place and protecting the battery from damage.
Zhou does not teach each of the plurality of cells being packaged in a metal composite film.
However, Dittel et al. teach a battery cell comprising a casing with metallic composite material (Dittel et al.: Section [0045]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with the above teaching from Dittel with the motivation of having a means such metallic composite material is a common material for protecting and insulating the battery.
Zhou does not teach an exposed edge of the metal composite film at a side end of each of the plurality of cells is covered with the resin layer, and the resin layer does not completely cover the side end of each of the plurality of cells
However, Yamauchi et al. teach a battery comprising a insulating frame 16, which is made of resin sheet for preventing an electrode group 10 from being damaged while being inserted into the metal outer can (Yamauchi et al.: Section [0037]; Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with the above teaching from Yamauchi et al. with the motivation of having a means such the resin frame takes less space and material to improve the energy density of the battery.
With respect to claim 16, Zhou in view of Gaben further teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein a height of the resin layer 4 is less than or equal to ⅔ of a height of the side end of the battery module 2 (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
However, Zhou in view of Gaben discloses the claimed invention except for one end of the resin layer is connected to bottoms of the plurality of cells, and the height of the resin layer is a distance between the other end opposite the one end of the resin layer and a bottom of the battery module. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the resin layer is connected to bottoms of the plurality of cells, and the height of the resin layer is a distance between an other end opposite to the one end of the resin layer and a bottom of the battery module, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 17, Zhou in view of Gaben teach the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the resin layer 3 or 4 comprises a plurality of sublayers 3 disposed at an interval, each of the sublayers 3 covers a partial region of a side end of each cell 2, the partial region of the side end of the cell comprises a lower part of the side end of the cell, and each of the sublayers 3 covers a package part of the side end of each cell (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 18, Zhou in view of Gaben further teach the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the top face of the housing is provided with a plurality of through-holes 6, and the channel 7 is disposed between the plurality of through-holes 6 and the plurality of cells 2 in the battery module (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
However, Zhou in view of Gaben discloses the claimed invention except for the bottom face of the housing is provided with a plurality of through-holes, and the channel is disposed between the plurality of through-holes and the plurality of cells in the battery module. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the bottom face of the housing is provided with a plurality of through-holes, and the channel is disposed between the plurality of through-holes and the plurality of cells in the battery module, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 19, Zhou in view Gaben teach the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the resin layer 3 is further disposed in a partial region between adjacent cells 2 (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 20, Zhou in view Gaben teach the unmanned aerial vehicle, the cell 2 is surrounded by silica gel layer (a soft-packed cell) (Zhou: Example 1; Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights