DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted June 30, 2023, September 12, 2024, and February 21, 2025 (two documents), have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang US PG Publication 2020/0287179 as evidenced by “Mica as an insulator” NPL (https://aximmica.com/mica-as-an-insulator/).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules 120 (e.g. a group of two secondary battery cell array structures which are considered modules under broadest reasonable interpretation; see annotated Fig. 10 below), each battery module of the plurality of battery modules including a plurality of battery cells 102, and a pack frame 2/3 in which the plurality of battery modules are housed, wherein at least two battery modules of the plurality of battery modules form a first battery module group, wherein at least two battery modules of the plurality of battery modules form a second battery module group, wherein the second battery module group is located above (see below for explanation of “above”) the first battery module group, wherein a partition member (fireproof member) 171 is arranged between the first battery module group and the second battery module group, and wherein the partition member 171 comprises an insulating sheet having thermal and electrical insulation (the sheet is mica, para 0110, which is a thermally and electrically insulating material; see highlighted portions of evidentiary reference “Mica as an insulator” NPL) (see entire disclosure of Wang and especially Fig. 10 and paras 0110; 0116-0117). Although Wang does not specifically recite that the second battery module group is “above” the first battery module group, Wang’s battery pack could be used in an orientation (e.g. rotated from the position shown in Figs 1 and 10) that would place the second battery module group above the first battery module group and so the term of relative positioning “above” is met by Wang. For example, if the battery pack shown in Fig. 1 is rotated 90 degrees clockwise, then the module shown in Fig. 10 would be rotated 90 degrees clockwise, and accordingly, the second battery module group would be above the first battery module group.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
1065
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 3-5, Wang discloses wherein the plurality of battery cells of each battery module of the plurality of battery modules are stacked along a first direction and are perpendicular to a bottom part of the pack frame, said bottom part being formed extending in the first direction when the pack frame halves are brought together, such that the battery cells extend in a direction perpendicular to the first direction, and at least two battery modules included in the first battery group and at least two battery modules included in the second battery group are also arranged in the first direction (meeting Claims 4 and 5) (see annotated Fig. 1 below and annotated Fig. 10 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
641
1002
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang US PG Publication 2020/0287179.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses the claimed battery pack as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Wang shows that the partition member 171 covers an upper surface of the first battery module group, but does not specifically recite that the partition member 171 covers an entire upper surface of the first battery module group. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery pack of Wang such that the partition member 171 covers an entire upper surface of the first battery module group in order to fully protect the entire upper surface of the first battery module group from vented gases since Wang uses the partition member 171 to protect the first battery module group from gases vented from the second battery module group.
Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses in para 0003 that the battery pack design is relevant to the field of energy storage power stations and electric vehicles, for example, and while Wang does not specifically disclose these devices (or the parts of these structures that are the devices that would be powered by the battery pack of Wang), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the battery pack of Wang in one of said devices because Wang teaches that these uses are relevant and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US PG Publication 2020/0287179, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Juzkow US PG Publication 2021/0226189.
Regarding Claim 6, Wang discloses the claimed battery pack as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Wang discloses battery cells that are apparently prismatic in shape and does not specifically disclose wherein each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is a pouch-type battery cell. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery pack design in the area of protection against fire propagation, for example, Juzkow discloses that three types of battery cells are used in EVs: cylindrical, prismatic, and pouch cells (para 0024) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use pouch cells in the battery pack of Wang because Juzkow teaches that they are functionally equivalent for use in EVs and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
8. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US PG Publication 2020/0287179, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Wynn US PG Publication 2019/0386264.
Regarding Claims 7-8, Wang discloses the claimed battery pack as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Wang discloses that the partition member is formed of e.g. mica (para 0110) but does not specifically recite that the insulating sheet comprises a polymer resin or that the partition member further comprises base plates and the insulating sheet comprises a polymer resin. However, in the same field of endeavor of fire proof separating members/partitions between battery cells, Wynn discloses a protective laminate design that includes a core layer having high strength such as steel or carbon fiber woven with flame retardant resin (para 0027) to support relatively fragile outer layers, such as mica or dielectric coating to provide electrical insulation (para 0027) or flame-retardant material (para 0028) or paper doped with flame resistant resin and coated with flame-resistant resin (para 0040) or a carbon fiber layer woven with flame retardant resin with a dielectric coating (para 0029) to prevent electrical shorts between cells if issues arise in the cells – and teaches that this type of partition is inexpensive, lightweight, and provides improved protection for battery cells to reduce the impact of thermal runaways and the venting of hot gas (as in Wang) (see entire disclosure and especially para 0026-0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a laminate partition structure in the battery pack of Wang such as that taught by Wynn including a polymer resin in the insulating sheet, e.g. forming the laminate from paper highly doped with flame resistant resin and having flame-retardant resin base plates sealing in the paper therebetween and obvious to form the partition member to further comprise base plates sandwiching the insulating sheet (e.g. the flame-retardant resin base plates seal in the paper insulating sheet therebetween) since Wynn teaches that this type of partition is inexpensive, lightweight, and provides improved protection for battery cells to reduce the impact of thermal runaway and the venting of hot gas. Although Wynn does not say that the sheet of paper that is highly doped with flame-resistant resin is an insulating sheet, Wynn makes it clear that they layers of the laminate should prevent electrical shorts between cells and reduce the impact of thermal runaways and the skilled artisan would find it obvious to use a flame-resistant resin that is electrically and thermally insulating such as that prevents short-circuit in order to maintain electrical and thermal isolation between batteries in case thermal runaway takes place.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen CN205508925 discloses a battery pack having a configuration of an upper battery module group and a lower battery module group separated by an insulating epoxy resin board (see highlighted portion on pp. 3, 5 and Figs. 1-2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729