DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments, filed on July 8, 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is 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.
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 of this title, 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, 6 - 10, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holman et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0237112 A1) as applied in Paragraph No. 5 of the Office Action mailed on April 9, 2026, and further in view of Kopra (U.S. Patent App. No. 2023/0134618 A1) and Whitmore et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2023/0130497 A1).
Holman et al. is relied upon as set forth in Paragraph No. 5 of the Office Action mailed on April 9, 2026.
Holman et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the ‘end plates’ are the top and bottom plate meeting the claimed structural requirements (upper and lower side of the battery cells) and wherein each of the top and bottom plates includes a compression pad provided on an inner surface facing the battery cells. The Examiner notes that Holman et al. does disclose that ‘compression pad’ (porous spacers) can be ‘integrally formed’ with the sidewalls (Paragraph 0024) and cover up to 100% of the surface area of the side walls (Paragraph 0028), but it appears that Holman et al. is referencing more the side walls of the battery cells. However, covering 100% of the sidewalls of the battery cells would necessarily mean that a porous spacer (i.e. ‘compression pad’) was located between the outermost battery cells and the inner side wall of the housing. However, this is not the same as an ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ side of the battery cells as recognized by a skilled artisan.
However, Kopra teaches this more explicitly … using compression pads on the side walls of the housing to aid in compressing the batteries (See Figures, especially Figures 3 and 4, as well as Abstract and Paragraphs 0044 – 0045). Kopra teaches various compressive materials for this purpose (ibid), but, like Homan et al., does not teach that these compressive pads can be on the upper and lower sides of the battery cells. Conversely, Whitmore et al. explicitly discloses that similar compressive pads (flexible pads) can be provided within a battery module on the upper and lower sides of the battery cells to provide impact resistance, etc. (Figures 2 and 3, elements 202 and 316, and at least Paragraphs 0027 and 0029).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Holman et al. to use compression pads (i.e. ‘porous spacers’) meeting the claimed structural location requirements as taught by Kopra and Whitmore et al., as using compressive and flexible pads in the claimed location is known to provide similar compressive benefits, as well as to provide protection from impacts, etc.
Regarding claims 6 - 10, 14, and 15, Holman et al. disclose the claimed limitations for the reasons previously set forth.
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner has given the term ‘provide insulation’ a very broad definition versus considering it indefinite as a relative term (i.e. what type of insulation? What magnitude constitutes a sufficient value to be considered to ‘provide’ it?). As such, given that the prior art clearly teach that these layers provide both compression forces to insulate the batteries from shocks, as well as potentially forming them of known dielectric materials (polymers, etc.), the Examiner deems that the disclosed materials in either Holman et al. (Paragraph 0028 – porous elastic polymer) or Kopra (polyurethane or polyethylene) necessarily meet the claimed limitations.
Claims 2 - 5, 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holman et al. in view of Kopra and Whitmore et al. as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0083241 A1 and corresponding published PCT application - publication date of April 24, 2020).
(The Examiner notes that this is a substantial duplicate of the text as applied under 103(a) in the last office action with the base rejection being Holman et al. alone)
Holman et al., Kopra and Whitmore et al. are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 2, all of the above fail to disclose the specifics of the battery cells as claimed.
However, Shin et al. teach that battery cells meeting the claimed limitations are conventional in the art and a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that battery cells include an electrode assembly; a pair of electrode leads connected to the electrode assembly (Title; Abstract; Figures; and Paragraphs 0011 – 0022: “pair of electrode leads”); and a battery case including a case body configured to form an accommodation space for accommodating the electrode assembly (ibid: “battery case”) and a case terrace configured to extend from the case body (ibid: “case terraces”), the pair of electrode leads protruding from the case terrace (ibid), and wherein the pair of end plates press the case bodies of the battery cells in the stacking direction (as taught per Holman et al., claim 1, above).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Holman et al. in view of Kopra and Whitmore et al. to use batteries having battery leads that are accessible outside the case as taught by Shin et al., as if the battery did not have leads or the leads were not accessible outside the case, then the battery would not be of much use and would not function as a battery capable of being connected to load-based devices.
Regarding claim 3, Holman et al. discloses that the battery cells are disclosed between the end plates and optionally teach including the porous spacer layer as part of the housing/end plates (Paragraph 0024). This clearly implies that embodiments wherein the end plates are in contact with the case bodies of the battery cells is envisioned by Holman et al. and, as such, is obvious in view of the combined teachings above.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as noted above, Holman et al. disclose optionally including the porous spacer layers (i.e. “compression pad”) meeting the claimed limitations. This would allow for additional pre-loading of pressure and/or for external temperature sensors.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 16, Holman et al. disclose thermistors and ‘seating grooves’ as taught above, wherein the thermistor has a body and a wire (see discussion and citations above). Holman et al. fails to disclose a bus bar housing, but Shin et al. clearly teach that bus bar housings are conventional aspects of battery modules as it allows the various electrode leads to be unified (see Shin et al. citations above).
Neither Holman et al. nor Shin et al. explicitly teach a ‘thermistor mounting member’ meeting the limitations of claims 11 and 12, nor a ‘wire supporting portion’ on the bus bar meeting the limitations of claim 16.
However, Shin et al. talks extensively about various couplings (see at least Paragraphs 0055 – 0061) to improve the coupling and connections in the battery module. The Examiner deems that adding ‘thermistor mounting members’ to help securely mount a thermistor and to secure the wire to prevent it from accidentally moving to contact a portion of the battery module it should not during subsequent processing would have been well within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The same applies to having a wire securing portion (wire clamp, etc.) on the bus bar to secure the wire so that it would not move during subsequent processing of the module. The exact structure, location and/or make up of these ‘connection assisting aids’ is not deemed critical nor novel to a skilled artisan. To put it another way, the Examiner maintains that a skilled artisan would have been well versed in arriving at means to secure a thermistor and its wire, based on the overall architecture and structure of the battery module – whether this was the use of clamps, sliding wire clips, U-rings that the wire would ‘snap’ into, etc. This is all within the common knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as securing wires so that they do not move during subsequent processing is clearly within the knowledge of such an artisan.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Holman et al. in view of Shin et al. to meet the limitations of claims 11, 12 and 16, as the need to secure wires to prevent their motion during subsequent processing would have been recognized as necessary and obvious to a skilled artisan and the exact means of achieving this securing would all be taken as functionally equivalent means. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holman et al. in view of Kopra and Whitmore et al. as applied above, and further in view of Sauerteig et al. et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0358145 A1).
(The Examiner notes that this is a substantial duplicate of the text as applied under 103(a) in the last office action with the base rejection being Holman et al. alone)
Holman et al., Kopra, and Whitmore et al. are relied upon as described above.
While the Examiner maintains that Holman et al. teaches the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above, the Examiner acknowledges that part of the subject matter is relied upon by the drawings, which clearly show the temperature sensor as not sticking above the ‘buffer layer’. However, Homan et al. fails to explicitly state this in clear language, only showing it in the Drawings.
However, Sauerteig et al. teach a similar battery module having temperature sensors embedded in internal buffer layers and explicitly teaches that the thickness of the buffer layer should be equal to or larger than the temperature sensor to avoid having the sensor extend above the buffer layer (Paragraphs 0052 – 0056).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Holman et al. in view of Kopra and Whitmore et al. to meet the limitations of claim 6, even if the relative thickness values are shown as not anticipatory, as taught by Sauerteig et al., since Sauerteig et al. teach that it is known to control the relative thickness to the claimed values to insure that the sensor does not stick out above the buffer layer.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holman et al. in view of Kopra and Whitmore et al. as applied above, and further in view of Rhee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,155,053 B2).
(The Examiner notes that this is a substantial duplicate of the text as applied under 103(a) in the last office action with the base rejection being Holman et al. alone)
Holman et al., Kopra, and Whitmore et al. are relied upon as described above.
None of the above disclose mica sheets meeting the claimed limitations.
However, Rhee et al. teach using mica sheets meeting the claimed limitations as fire resistant layers for preventing the propagation of heat in and out of the battery module (Figure 8 and at least col. 4, lines 5 – 57).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Holman et al. to use mica sheets meeting the limitations of claim 13 as taught by Rhee et al., as it is known in the art that such a use can help prevent the propagation of heat in and out of the battery module.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 18 requires the use of expanded polypropylene in the specific structural arrangement as shown, which is deemed to neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record. The closest reference disclosing expanded polypropylene within a battery module is deemed Lee et al. (‘429 A1), which discloses the use of ePP as a thermal insulation material (see especially Paragraphs 0058 – 0059), not as a shock absorbing material or compressive pad, as well as teaching its use along the sidewalls of the battery module, versus in the claimed location of the upper and lower surfaces of the battery cells.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C § 102 – Holman et al.
The above noted rejection has been withdrawn because Applicants’ amendment(s) have set forth new limitations (e.g. amendments to claim 1) no longer anticipated by the above noted rejection.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) – Holman et al. in view of various references
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. In so far as they apply to the present rejection of record, Applicant(s) argue that Holman et al. fails to teach the claimed structural arrangement. However, the Examiner addresses this as discussed above in the pending rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Applicants’ amendment resulted in embodiments not previously considered (i.e. amended language of claim 1) which necessitated the new grounds of rejection, and hence the finality of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights