BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME

§102 §103 §112

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Applicant’s amendments have been received on 7/20/26. Claim 8, 11, 16 has been amended. Claims 3-4 are cancelled. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/26 are considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “one” in limitation “one or more” in between the central to the first end and also in between central and second end of the same plate must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 8, 11, 16 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, in claim 7, the limitation “are formed between a central part of the second end plate and a first end,” and “and between the central part of the second end plate and a second end opposite to the first end in the width direction” appears to state there more than one second mounting part which would make the limitation “one or more second mounting parts” unclear. Appropriate corrections are required. Claim 8 depending from claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is also rejected for the same. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cicero et al., on claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 16-18 are maintained. The rejection is repeated and further clarified below for Applicant’s convenience. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cicero et al., on claim 7, is withdrawn, please note the 35 U.S.C 112, second paragraph rejection on claims 7 and 8. 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cicero et al. (US Publication 2012/0156543). Regarding claim 1, the Cicero et al. reference discloses a battery module comprising a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells, a housing (Fig. 4 shown as part of the bottom of Fig. 6, combination of 232, 236, 212 on both sides of the cell) for a battery cell stack comprising a first end plate (one of 204 or 208) covering a first side of the battery cell stack and a second end plate (the other of 204 or 208) covering a second side of the battery cell stack, a heat sink located under a bottom part of the housing (300), a coolant injection port that supplies coolant to the heat sink and coolant discharge port that discharges the coolant form the heat sink (228). The first housing protrusion and a second housing protrusion, each of which protrudes from the bottom part of the housing and passes through the first end plate and the coolant injection port located on the first housing protrusion and the coolant discharge port is located on the second housing protrusion (Fig. 4, 228). Regarding claim 2, the Cicero et al. reference discloses the coolant injection port and the coolant discharge port are located to correspond to opposite ends in a width direction of the first end plate (Fig. 1, 228). Regarding claim 5, the Cicero et al. reference discloses a first guide (combination 516 and aperture; P55-P56) is formed in the central part of the first end plate (combination of 204 and504) and a guide hole opened along the height direction is formed in the first guide part (aperture; P56). Regarding claim 6, the Cicero et al. reference discloses a second guide part is formed in at least one location between a central part of the second end plate and opposite ends in a width direction of the second end plate (Fig. 2 and 3, 516). Regarding claim 8, the Cicero et al. reference discloses a second guide part formed between at least one of the one or more second mounting parts and the first end in the width direction of the second end plate Regarding claim 9, the Cicero et al. reference discloses wherein the bottom part of the housing and the heat sink form a flow path for the coolant and the bottom part of the housing is in contact with the coolant (Fig. 4-6). Regarding claim 10, the Cicero et al. reference discloses the heat sink comprises a lower plate that is joined to the bottom part of the housing and comprises a recessed part that is recessed downward from the lower plate (236). Regarding claim 11, the Cicero et al. reference disclose a battery pack comprising the battery module of claim 1 and a pack frame housing the battery module wherein the first end plate comprise a first mount part that is formed on one surface of the first end plate, and the one first mount part is fastened (joined and anchored) to the pack frame (P51-P52). Regarding claim 14, the Cicero et al. reference disclose the first end plate comprises one of the first mounting part (516) that are formed on a surface of the first end plate, wherein the coolant injection port and the coolant discharge port are spaced apart from each other along a width direction of the first end plate, and the one or more first mounting parts are located between the coolant injection port and the coolant discharge port (228). Regarding claim 17, the Cicero et al. reference discloses wherein the heat sink includes a first heat sink protrusion that protrudes from one side of the heat sink (Fig. 4, 228) to a portion where the first module frame protrusion is located (Fig. 2 upper of 228), and a second heat sink protrusion (Fig. 4, 228) that protrudes from one side of the heat sink to a portion where the second module frame protrusion is located (Fig. 2, the upper of 228). Regarding claim 18, the Cicero et al. reference discloses wherein a protrusion pattern (304) is formed in the recessed part. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero et al. in view of Bin et al. on claims 5, 12, 13, 15 are maintain. The rejections are repeated below for convenience. Alternatively, claim 5 can also be rejected below. 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. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero et al. (US Publication 2012/0156543). Regarding claim 16, the Cicero et al. reference discloses the one of the mounting (324) part is located between a central part of the first end plate and the coolant injection part extends between the central part and the coolant discharge port. The Cicero et al. reference is silent in disclosing the mounting parts to include two first mounting parts, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made to have dividing the first mounting part into two, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Claim(s) 5, 12, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero et al. (US Publication 2012/0156543) in view of Bin et al. (KR20120096886). Regarding claims 5, 12, 13, the Cicero et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporate herein. The Cicero et al. reference discloses a first guide part is formed in a central part of the first end plate and a guide hole open along a height direction is formed in the first guide part. The Cicero et al. reference also discloses the pack frame comprise a pack bottom part, the battery module is disposed on the pack bottom part. However, the Cicero et al. reference discloses a generic mounting part to mount the battery housing to the bottom plate and to a vehicle but does not specifically disclose a guide pin protrudes upward from the pack bottom part and the guide pin passes through the guide hole. However, Bin et al. reference discloses a first guide part is formed in a central part of the first end plate and a guide hole open along a height direction is formed in the first guide part and the pack frame comprise a pack bottom part, the battery module is disposed on the pack bottom part and a guide pin protrudes upward from the pack bottom part and the guide pin passes through the guide hole to mount the battery to the bottom part of the housing and to a vehicle (Fig. 3 and fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery mounting configuration with guides disclosed by the Bin et al. reference for the generic teaching of the battery mounting configuration disclosed by the Cicero et al. reference for the same purpose of mounting the battery into a vehicle. A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex Regarding claim 15, the Cicero et al. reference in view of the Bin reference (herein’ referred to as modified Cicero et al. reference discloses a mounting hole open along a height direction is formed in each of the one or more first mounting parts. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues,” PNG media_image1.png 216 600 media_image1.png Greyscale The claim limitation does not require that the bottom part is separate or distinct from the housing. As a matter fact, it is unknown if “a bottom part” is positively claimed or if the position of the heat sink is intended to be at a bottom part of the housing. The housing can have a bottom part as interpreted broadly. However, in arguendo, even if the Applicants do have a distinct claimed structure, the heat sink can be interpreted as the structure of 300 which comprises channels for coolant and can be a heat sink as it heat exchanges with the cells. In addition, the term “heat sink” was never further define by the Applicants and therefore, the component disclosed by the Cicero reference is applicable as a heat sink. The Applicants argue, “ PNG media_image2.png 162 624 media_image2.png Greyscale ” However, the protrusion is the protruded area of 228 and it protrudes out of 204 when viewing along the plane of 204. Applicant’s argue, “ PNG media_image3.png 150 598 media_image3.png Greyscale ” However, the protrusion is the protruded area of 228 and it protrudes out of 204 when viewing along the plane of 204. 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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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. /Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752