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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1,2,4,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (JP 2015185535 A) and further in view of Katayama (US 20150311484 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses
a battery module (Fig. 1, item 10,[battery module]) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1, item 20) (para. 0001, [plurality of battery cells]);
at least one cooling fin located between adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells in the housing (Fig. 1, item 21, [cooling member]),
wherein the at least one cooling fin comprises an insulating cap (Fig. 1, item 22, [protrusions]) for preventing direct contact of the at least one cooling fin with the housing (Fig. 1, item 22 prevents direct contact of item 21 with the rest of the items in the battery module).
Yamaguchi teaches that the battery module (item 10) may be mounted in another apparatus instead of a moving means (para. 0036). However, Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach a housing enclosing the plurality of battery cells.
Katayama, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches
a housing enclosing the plurality of battery cells (Katayama, para. 0039, [the battery container body … therein to accommodate the respective cells … the battery container body can securely hold the battery module])(Katayama, Fig. 3, item 12 – the container body (item 12) encloses battery module (item 11)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have placed Yamaguchi’s battery module in another apparatus, as taught by Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi, para. 0036), such as an enclosed housing, as taught by Katayama, in order to securely hold the battery module (Katayama, para. 0039).
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi discloses the battery module according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one cooling fin further comprises a fin body (Fig. 1 flat surface of item 21 is the cooling body),
wherein a surface of the fin body is in contact with surfaces of adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1, item 21 contacts item 20 – battery cells),
and wherein the insulating cap is coupled to at least an end portion of the fin body (Fig. 1, item 22 is coupled to an end portion of item 21).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses the battery module according to claim 2, wherein the insulating cap surrounds the at least an end portion of the fin body (Fig. 2, item 22 surrounds the end portion of item 21]).
Regarding claim 13, Yamaguchi discloses a battery pack (para. 0001, battery pack) comprising at least one battery module according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Yamaguchi discloses a vehicle comprising at least one battery pack according to claim 13 (para. 0036).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Yamaguchi (JP 2015185535 A) in view of Katayama (US 20150311484 A1), and further in view of Seong (US 20150064535 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi teaches the battery module according to claim 2.
Yamaguchi does not teach wherein the at least an end portion of the fin body protrudes toward an inner surface of the housing rather than towards the plurality of battery cells.
Seong, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the at least an end portion of the fin body protrudes toward an inner surface of the housing rather than towards the plurality of battery cells (Seong, Fig. 3, item 130 [cooling plates] extend past the battery cells [item 110]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have extended Yamaguchi’s fin body, as taught by Seong, in order to discharge heat to the outside, as taught by Seong (para. 0014 [discharge heat from the thermal conduction part to the outside to perform cooling]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamaguchi teaches the battery module according to claim 3, and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the insulating cap is spaced apart from the inner surface of the housing (Yamaguchi, Fig. 2, item 22 is spaced apart from the surface of item 30- which is mounted in the apparatus per para. 0036), and the insulating cap is located closer to the inner surface of the housing than the plurality of battery cells (Modified Yamaguchi teaches that the fin body protrudes/extends past the battery cells – see claim 3 above).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Yamaguchi (JP 2015185535 A) in view of Katayama (US 20150311484 A1), and further in view of Kardasz (US 20120088140 A1) and Kim (US 20040091770 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi discloses the battery module according to claim 2.
Yamaguchi does not teach wherein the at least an end portion of the fin body comprises a coupling end having a loop shape.
Kardasz, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein at least an end portion of the fin body comprises a coupling end having a loop shape (Kardasz, Fig. 21B) (Kardasz, para. 0067, [hook-shaped edge functioning as a cooling fin]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have shaped the end portion of Yamaguchi’s cooling fin into a loop/hook shape, as taught by Kardasz, in order to increase the radiating surface area without increasing the overall breadth of the design (Kardasz, para. 0066, [the plate may be modified at its periphery to … increase the radiating surface area without increasing the overall breadth of the design]).
Modified Yamaguchi does not teach that the insulating cap comprises a coupling hook, and wherein a shape of the coupling hook is complementary to the loop shape of the coupling end of the at least an end portion of the fin body.
Kim, teaches that the insulating cap (member) has a shape that can be easily manufactured in various shapes by an insert-injection mold (Kim, para. 0045).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have manufactured modified Yamaguchi’s insulating cap by injection molding the insulating material into a shape, as taught by Kim, in order to complement its adjacent structures (Kim, para. 0040, [an insulating molding resin is injected into the mold to fill the space between the (one adjacent structure) cap plate and the (second adjacent structure) electrode port and form the insulating member therein]), as taught by Kim.
Therefore, modified Yamaguchi teaches wherein a shape of the coupling hook is complementary to the loop shape of the coupling end of the at least an end portion of the fin body.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Yamaguchi discloses the battery module according to claim 2, wherein the at least an end portion of the fin body has at least one convex portion (see Fig. 2 for convex portion) and at least one concave portion (see Fig. 2 for concave portion) and wherein the insulating cap is coupled to the at least one convex portion(see Fig. 2).
Yamaguchi does not teach that the convex and concave portions are alternately arranged in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of battery cells.
Kardasz, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein at least an end portion of the fin body comprises a coupling end having a loop shape (Kardasz, Fig. 21B) (Kardasz, para. 0067, [hook-shaped edge functioning as a cooling fin]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have shaped the end portion of Yamaguchi’s cooling fin into a loop/hook shape, as taught by Kardasz, in order to increase the radiating surface area without increasing the overall breadth of the design (Kardasz, para. 0066, [the plate may be modified at its periphery to … increase the radiating surface area without increasing the overall breadth of the design]).
Modified Yamaguchi does not teach that the insulating cap comprises a coupling hook, and wherein a shape of the coupling hook is complementary to the loop shape of the coupling end of the at least an end portion of the fin body.
Kim, teaches that the insulating cap (member) has a shape that can be easily manufactured in various shapes by an insert-injection mold (Kim, para. 0045).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have manufactured modified Yamaguchi’s insulating cap by injection molding the insulating material into a shape, as taught by Kim, in order to complement its adjacent structures (Kim, para. 0040, [an insulating molding resin is injected into the mold to fill the space between the (one adjacent structure) cap plate and the (second adjacent structure) electrode port and form the insulating member therein]), as taught by Kim.
Therefore, modified Yamaguchi teaches wherein a shape of the coupling hook is complementary to the loop shape of the coupling end of the at least an end portion of the fin body.
PNG
media_image2.png
613
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, modified Yamaguchi teaches that the convex and concave portions are alternately arranged in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of battery cells (Yamaguchi, the longitudinal direction of the cells is in the z direction. Fig. 2 of Yamaguchi indicates the z direction. This is analogous to the direction to the convex and concave potions shown in Fig. 21B of Kardasz) (See below).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Yamaguchi (JP 2015185535 A) in view of Katayama (US 20150311484 A1), and further in view of Hoerpel (US 20130122330 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi teaches the battery module according to claim 1.
Yamaguchi teaches wherein the housing further comprises a heat dissipating element (Yamaguchi, Fig. 2, item 31), wherein the heat dissipating element is in contact with the at least one cooling fin (Yamaguchi, Fig. 2, item 31 is in contact with item 22), and wherein the insulating cap is inserted into the heat dissipating element (Yamaguchi, Fig. 2, item 22 is inserted into item 31).
Yamaguchi teaches that the heat dissipating element can be made of silicone.
Hoerpel, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches in the background section that the heat dissipating element (Hoerpel, para. 0022, [potting compound … which serves to dissipate heat]) can be made of silicone, or epoxy resin (Hoerpel, para. 0022, [a potting compound composed of foam, polyurethane, epoxy resin and/or silicone]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Yamaguchi’s heat dissipating element out of either a silicone or epoxy resin. The simple substitution of a known element (silicone) for another (epoxy resin) would achieve the predictable result of enabling heat dissipation, as disclosed by Yamamoto. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamaguchi discloses the battery module according to claim 7, wherein the heat dissipating resin (Fig. 3, item 31) is coated on an inner surface of the housing to a predetermined height (Fig. 3, item 31 is at a predetermined height of item 30 as shown in Fig. 3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Yamaguchi (JP 2015185535 A) in view of Katayama (US 20150311484 A1), and further in view of Hoerpel (US 20130122330 A1) and Jang (US 20220271364 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamaguchi teaches the battery module according to claim 7.
Yamaguchi does not teach wherein at least a part of each of the plurality of battery cells is inserted into the heat dissipating resin.
Jang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries teaches wherein at least a part of each of the plurality of battery cells is inserted into the heat dissipating resin (Jang, Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, the battery cells [item 11] are inserted into layer 31 [the thermal conductive resin layer]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a thermal conductive resin layer covering the lower surface of the battery cell stack to Yamaguchi’s cell stack, as taught by Jang, in order to cool heat generated in the battery cell stack (Jang, para. 0007)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Yamaguchi (JP 2015185535 A) in view of Katayama (US 20150311484 A1), and further in view of Oogami (US 20040050414 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi discloses the battery module according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of battery cells are pouch-type cells (para. 0014, [flat cells]).
Yamaguchi is silent regarding:
each of the plurality of battery cells comprises a receiving portion which accommodates an electrode assembly, a sealing portion surrounding the receiving portion, and an electrode lead extending from the sealing portion to the outside of the battery cell, wherein the electrode lead is connected to the electrode assembly, and wherein the insulating cap is formed in a direction parallel to a direction in which the electrode lead extends.
Oogami, in the same field of endeavor, batteries teaches battery cells comprising
receiving portion (Oogami, Fig. 7A, item 10a, thick portion) which accommodates an electrode assembly (Oogami, para. 0041, [the battery cell houses the stacked electrode item 11])
a sealing portion surrounding the receiving portion (Oogami, Fig. 7A, item 10b, thin portion), and
an electrode lead extending from the sealing portion to the outside of the battery cell (Oogami, Fig. 7A, items 14 and 15)
wherein the electrode lead is connected to the electrode assembly (Oogami, Fig. 7A shows the connection)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a flat cell designed with a receiving portion and sealing portion, as taught by Oogami, in order to house the electrode, as taught by Oogami (para. 0041).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the electrode leads extend from the cell body, as taught by Oogami, in order to connect the leads to an external part without concern for the rigidity of the cell, as taught by Oogami (para. 0064).
Modified Yamaguchi teaches and wherein the insulating cap is formed in a direction parallel to a direction in which the electrode lead extends (Oogami, Fig. 7A, the electrode lead direction is analogous to the instant).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Yamaguchi (JP 2015185535 A) in view of Katayama (US 20150311484 A1), and further in view of Oogami (US 20040050414 A1) and Horie (US 20030008205 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yamaguchi teaches the battery module according to claim 2, wherein a material of the fin body is an aluminum metal (para. 0015, aluminum).
Yamaguchi does not teach that a material of the insulating cap is a rubber material.
Horie teaches that a material of the insulating material for its heat mediating structure is a rubber material (Horie, para. 0037, [in the case of applying an insulating material for the heat mediating structure …. the insulting material (can be) silicon rubber]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Yamaguchi’s insulating cap/material from rubber, as taught by Horie, in order to eliminate a necessity of introducing other insulating means, as taught by Horie (para. 0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the protrusions are not an “insulating cap of an insulating material”:
Claim 1 does not require the insulating cap to be of an insulating material.
Regarding the function of Yamaguchi’s protrusions is diametrically opposed to the function of the claimed insulating cap. The claimed insulating cap is for “preventing direct contact between the at least one cooling fin and the housing.”:
Yamaguchi’s protrusions (item 22) prevent direct contact between the cooling fin (item 21) and the housing (modified Yamaguchi’s container).
The term “direct contact” is broad and can include physical, thermal, electrical, acoustic, etc.
Yamaguchi teaches that the insulating caps (item 22, protrusions) are also used to efficiently cool the cell (Yamaguchi, para. 0022, [Since the contact area of each protrusion 22 and the heat exchanger 30 is larger in the center where heat is easily stagnated by this, the cooling performance can be made better than at both ends. Therefore, since the heat dissipation of the portion where heat is easily accumulated is improved, the cell 20 can be cooled efficiently.])
Regarding “the housing enclosing the plurality of battery cells”:
See claim 1 above.
Regarding “Horie’s rubber material is not used as an insulating cap on a cooling fin” and “Horie discloses a battery system in which heat mediating structures are interposed between cell groups, and the walls of those heat mediating structures may optionally be composed of an insulating material such as silicon rubber” and “Horie’s heat mediating structures are fluid paths or solid heat conductors that serve an entirely different structural and functional role from the claimed insulating cap”:
Horie teaches that the mediating structure [Horie, item 3] may have a cooling function (Horie, para. 0035).
Yamaguchi teaches that the insulating caps (item 22, protrusions) are also used to efficiently cool the cell (Yamaguchi, para. 0022, [Since the contact area of each protrusion 22 and the heat exchanger 30 is larger in the center where heat is easily stagnated by this, the cooling performance can be made better than at both ends. Therefore, since the heat dissipation of the portion where heat is easily accumulated is improved, the cell 20 can be cooled efficiently.])
Therefore, both teachings of Horie and Yamaguchi function as a cooling mechanism.
Other Pertinent Art
KR 20170132514 A
US 20200052353 A1
KR 20200067588 A
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights