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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 2, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended. The rejection of claim 1 has been modified as required by the amendment. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0209852 (IDS dated 09/12/2024) hereinafter Schletterer, and further in view of Foreign Reference WO2020171626A1, hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 1, Schletterer teaches a battery module (‘electrochemical energy store’
[0047]) comprising: a battery cell stack (‘cell stacks’ [0058]) in which a plurality of battery cells (Fig 7: 2) are stacked; a module frame (Fig 7: 1) that surrounds the battery cell stack (Fi 7: 2); and a fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) interposed between the plurality of battery cells (Fig 7: 2), wherein the plurality of battery cells (Fig 7: 2) includes a first battery cell (most left battery cell 2) and a second battery cell (second from the left battery cell 2) that are adjacent to each other, and wherein the fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) extends over an upper surface of the first battery cell (Fig 7: most left extinguishing agent additive 16), in a space between the first battery cell and the second battery cell (Fig 7: most left extinguishing agent additive 10), and under a lower surface of the second battery cell in a zigzag shape (Fig 7: 17 under second from the left battery cell 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Schletterer fails to teach a thermal conductive resin layer located between a lower surface of a battery cell stack and a lower part of the module frame.
Cho teaches a battery module 100 that includes a battery cell stack 110 in which a plurality of battery cells 112 are stacked side by side and adjacent to each other. The battery cell stack 110 is accommodated in module frame 120 (pg 3, paragraph 10). Between the lower plate 126 of the module frame 120 and battery cell stack 110 is a resin layer 140 that is a thermally conductive resin layer (Fig 1, pg 3, paragraphs 14-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermally conductive resin layer of Cho between the battery cell stack and module frame of Schletterer in order to effectively cool the battery as heat is generated. Applying the thermally conductive resin as a layer also evenly distributes the resin and eliminates the risk of it leaking through an injection port (pg 2, paragraphs 6-7). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that such a resin would help keep the cells in position barring evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6, Schletterer and Cho teach the battery module (‘electrochemical energy store’ [0047]) according to claim 1. Additionally, Schletterer teaches that the fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) contacts an upper part of the module frame (fig. 7: 1) and a lower part of the module frame (Fig 7: 9 and 15).
Regarding claim 7, Schletterer and Cho teach the battery module (‘electrochemical energy store’ [0047]) according to claim 1. Additionally, Schletterer teaches that the fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) contacts the upper surface of the first battery cell (Fig 7: most
left 16) and the lower surface of the second battery cell (Fig 7: second from the left 17).
Regarding claim 8, Schletterer and Cho teach the battery module (‘electrochemical energy store’ [0047]) according to claim 1. Additionally, Schletterer teaches that the fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) adheres (extinguishing agent has a gel-like, particularly a viscous consistency’ [0051]) an upper part of the module frame and the upper surface of the first battery cell (Fig 7: most left 16), and adheres (extinguishing agent has a gel-like, particularly a viscous consistency’ [0051]) a lower part of the module frame and the lower surface of the second battery cell (Fig 7: 9).
Regarding claim 9, Schletterer and Cho teach the battery module (‘electrochemical energy store’ [0047] [0048] [0058-9]) according to claim 1. Additionally, Schletterer teaches that the fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17) adheres (extinguishing agent has a gel-like, particularly a viscous consistency’ [0051]) the first battery cell and the second battery cell to each other (Fig 7: most left 10).
Regarding claim 10, Schletterer and Cho teach the battery module (‘electrochemical energy store’ [0047]) according to claim 1. Additionally, Schletterer teaches that the fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) is interposed between a side surface part of the module frame and an outermost battery cell of the battery stack (Fig 7: 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 11, Schletterer and Cho teach the battery module (‘electrochemical energy store’ [0047]) according to claim 10. Additionally, Schletterer teaches that the fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) adheres (extinguishing agent has a gel-like, particularly a viscous consistency’ [0051]) the side surface part of the module frame to the outermost battery cell (Fig 7: 7 and 8).
Claims 2-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schletterer and Ryu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0248160, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claims 2-5, Schletterer and Cho teach an electrical energy store having a housing 1 that contains a battery cell stack (Fig 7: 2s) and fire extinguishing members disposed around the battery cells (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) (instant claim 1). These fire extinguishing members are contained within housing member 1 and have a gel-like, viscous consistency (Schletterer, [0051]) (instant claim 4).
However, Schletterer and Cho fail to teach a double-sided adhesive case for fire extinguishing agents that melts above a predetermined temperature.
Lee teaches a battery pack 400 consisting of battery cells 10 in which a fire retarding
material or fire extinguishing agent 60 may be covered with a thin film or a membrane 92 and adhesive 90 (reads on case) (instant claim 2) of a material which is apt to melt in the event of
fires (instant claim 3), and the adhesive 90 of the case is able to be attached to the inside of the
module case. (Lee, [0067], Fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the double-sided adhesive case for a fire
extinguishing agents of Lee in Schletterer and Cho because ‘when a thin film or membrane 92 [case] of a
material which is apt to melt in the event of fires is peeled off or melted, the fire retarding
material or fire extinguishing agent 60 is discharged or diffused toward the cell 10’ (Lee,
[0068]). This prevents and stops fires from spreading quickly, minimizing secondary damage
such as battery explosions (Lee, [0069]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Schletterer and Cho teach an electrical energy store having a housing 1 that contains a battery cell stack (Fig 7: 2s) and fire extinguishing members disposed around the battery cells (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) (instant claim 1). The first battery cell and second battery cell are provided in a plurality of pairs (‘adjacent pairs of electrochemical cells,’ Claim 24) and the fire extinguishing member (Fig 7: 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 [0048] [0058-9]) extends between the first battery cell and second battery cell of each of the plurality of pairs (‘the extinguishing agent or extinguishing agent additive is arranged as an intermediate element between adjacent pairs,’ Claim 24) (instant claim 13).
However, Schletterer and Cho do not teach a battery pack that comprises of the battery
module.
Lee teaches a battery pack 400 consisting of battery cells 10 in which a fire retarding
material or fire extinguishing agent 60 may be covered with a thin film or a membrane 92 and adhesive 90 (reads on case) (instant claim 2) of a material which is apt to melt in the event of
fires (instant claim 3), and the adhesive 90 of the case is able to be attached to the inside of the
module case. (Lee, [0067], Fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the battery module of Schletterer and Cho in the battery pack of Lee because battery packs are ‘the most essential component of a hybrid electric vehicle or electric vehicle’ (Lee, [0004]) but have ‘risks of fire explosion caused by over-charging and over- current’ (Lee, [0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate a battery module in a battery pack that consists of fire extinguishing agents to put out the fires that electric vehicles are at risk of.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 18, 2026, with respect to claim 1 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed May 18, 2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-13 have been fully considered but are moot due to the modifications necessitated by the amendment.
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 Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights