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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2024/0421441 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and Remarks filed on 31 July 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 02 February 2026 have been entered and fully considered, respectively. Claims 10-15 have been canceled and claims 1, 7, and 9 have been amended. As such, claims 1-9 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the objection over the Specification previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection.
The objection over the Specification is withdrawn due to the amendments to the Abstract filed on 31 July 2026.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection.
The arguments on Pages 5-6 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) previously set forth is fully considered, found persuasive, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for the statements clarifying the scope and non-quantitative nature of the claimed term "flexible" presented on pp. 5-6 of the Remarks in response to the 112(b) rejection. Thereby, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) previously set forth regarding the term “flexible” is withdrawn.
All other rejections under 35 USC 112(b) previously set forth are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issues.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 9-11 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 9, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley, “Ground 1: The Office Action Does Not Establish the Claimed "Rigidify the Battery Pack" Limitation”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Given that the term “rigidify” defined by claim 1 does not define or imply any requisite degree for being “rigid” such that any degree of rigidity reads thereon (MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01, and MPEP 2173.01(I)), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the pouch of Utley (Utley, [0031]-[0032], previously cited paragraphs in the rejection of claim 1), utilized around the plurality of battery cells of Kwag, as set forth previously in the rejection of claim 1, would have held the plurality of battery cells together to a certain degree, thereby rigidifying the battery pack.
Additionally, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV). Since, Utley is utilized in combination with Kwag, Utley does not need to teach rigidification of a multi-cell battery pack, instead the combination of the pouch of Utley utilized around the plurality of battery cells of Kwag is well within the abilities of a PHOSITA to understand that the pouch would have imparted rigidification to the plurality of battery cells.
Applicant’s arguments on Page 11 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 9, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley, “Ground 2: Utley Does Not Teach a Sheathing Secured Around the Claimed Plurality of Battery Cells”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV). Since, Utley is utilized in combination with Kwag, Utley does not need to teach encapsulation around a plurality of battery cells forming a battery pack, instead the combination of the pouch of Utley utilized around the plurality of battery cells of Kwag to form the battery pack is well within the abilities of a PHOSITA to understand that the pouch would have prevented unwanted moisture and other undesirables from contacting the plurality of battery cells as recognized by Utley (Utley, [0033]), thereby motivating a PHOSITA to make this modification with Kwag.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 11-12 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 9, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley, “Ground 3: The Rejection Does Not Adequately Explain Why a PHOSITA Would Have Modified Kwag in the Claimed Manner”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Again, it is well within the abilities of a PHOSITA to understand that the pouch of Utley, utilized around the plurality of battery cells of Kwag to form the battery pack, would have prevented unwanted moisture and other undesirables from contacting the plurality of battery cells as recognized by Utley (Utley, [0033]), thereby motivating a PHOSITA to make this modification with Kwag. In view thereof, it is well within the abilities of the PHOSITA to understand that the pouch would have imparted rigidification to the plurality of battery cells.
Additionally, Utley at [0031]-[0032] (previously cited paragraphs in the rejection of claim 1), teaches “a tight fitting encasement”, and that techniques may be used to “tightly secure the pouch to the cell”, therefore, the PHOSITA again would have understood that the pouch would have imparted rigidification to the plurality of battery cells.
Moreover, in view of the argument on Pages 5-7 of the Remarks, Applicant clarified that PHOSITA would have readily understood that the flexible outer sheathing “does not require a particular flexibly value, modulus, bending radius, or quantitative threshold” and that flexible outer sheathing, as claimed, only simply requires “the characteristic of being flexible while being secured around the plurality of battery cells”, and thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is interpreted as any degree of flexibility (and as previously stated in the Non-Final Action ¶17). Additionally, the claimed term “rigidify” defined by claim 1 does not define or imply any requisite degree for being “rigid” such that any degree of rigidity reads thereon (MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01, and MPEP 2173.01(I)). In view thereof, and given that the claimed element/feature of flexible outer sheathing does not require any quantitative threshold, a PHOSITA would have also recognized that any material may be utilized for such flexible outer sheathing, wherein the PHOSITA would have also recognized that the pouch of Utley utilized around the plurality of battery cells of Kwag would have held the plurality of battery cells together, thereby rigidifying the battery pack.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 12-14 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, and 9, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
As to the arguments against the rejection of claim 2, the “cited portions of Kwag” in the Non-Final Action, disclose that the connection member may transmit voltage information about the battery cells (Kwag, [0083], [0086]), therefore a PHOSITA would have understood that the connection member serves as a low-current voltage tap, as claimed.
As to the arguments against the rejection of claim 3, Kwag explicitly discloses that the separation member is provided to remove the risk of explosion or fire of the battery cells (Kwag, [0091]), thereby reading on the outer insulation layers, as claimed.
Moreover, the separation member 140, may be seen in Kwag FIG. 6, wherein a PHOSITA would have understood that the opposite sets of one or more foils shown in Kwag FIG. 5, are covered by the separation member, as the opposite sets of one or more foils extend to make connection with the plurality of battery cells, thereby, in totality, reading on covering the opposite sets of one or more foils, as claimed.
As to the arguments against the rejection of claim 6, see above ¶6d-8i.
As to the arguments against the rejection of claim 9, Kwag FIG. 1 discloses that the opposite sets of one or more foils includes that base portion, while Kwag FIG. 2-3 assigns the opposite sets of one or more foils as the rod or post terminal portion, therefore, Kwag elements 121 and 122 encompass both the opposite sets of one or more foils and the rod or post terminals, wherein, Kwag FIG. 3, which is cited to in the rejection of claim 9, refers to the elements 121 and 122 on the rod or post terminal portion.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 14-16 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 4-5, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley and Kim, “Ground 1: Kim's Cited Laminate Layers Do Not Correspond to the Claimed Inner and Outer Insulation Layers”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
As to the arguments against the rejection of claim 4, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV). Kim is utilized for the teaching that outer insulation layers may comprise layers of insulation paper, wherein this teaching is then used to modify the opposite outer insulation layers of Kwag/Utley in their same position so that they comprise layers of insulation paper, in order to protect against external impact as recognized by Kim (Kim, [0034]). Therefore, Kim alone does not need to teach the claimed positioning, as the positioning as claimed comes from Kwag. A PHOSITA would have understood that this would have been a suitable modification as Kim and Kwag are both directed towards insulation layers utilized in the battery-pack field.
As to the arguments against the rejection of claim 5, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV). Kim is utilized for the teaching that inner insulation layers may comprise layers of insulation paper, wherein this teaching is then used to modify the opposite inner insulation layers of Kwag/Utley in their same position so that they comprise layers of insulation paper, in order to serve as a sealant and protect the plurality of battery cells as recognized by Kim (Kim, [0034]). Therefore, Kim alone does not need to teach the claimed positioning, as the positioning as claimed comes from Kwag. A PHOSITA would have understood that this would have been a suitable modification as Kim and Kwag are both directed towards insulation layers utilized in the battery-pack field.
Applicant’s arguments on Page 16 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 4-5, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley and Kim, “Ground 2: The Stated Motivations Do Not Adequately Explain the Proposed Modifications”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Kim [0034]-[0035] discloses a benefit for each layer, which would have prompted PHOSITA to make the aforementioned modification. It is well within the abilities of a PHOSITA to understand that the disclosed benefits for each layer would indeed provide these stated benefits for the layers of insulation paper of Kim as well.
Applicant’s arguments on Page 17 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 4-5, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley and Kim, “Ground 3: The Office Action Has Not Adequately Established That Kim Constitutes Analogous Art”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Kim is directed towards insulation layers and battery cells (Kim, [0034]), of which is pointed out on Page 17 of the Remarks, and stated in the previous Non-Final Action, therefore, Kim constitutes analogous art.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 18-19 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claim 7, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley and Cho, “Ground 1: The Office Action Does Not Adequately Explain Why a PHOSITA Would Have Adopted the Particular Foil Configuration Recited in Claim 7”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Cho’s foils define an opening, with the benefit of having the ability for the positioning of stopper structures through the foils, thereby preventing unit batteries from being separated (Cho, [0052], [0056]-[0058], FIG. 2), as laid out in the Non-Final Action. Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify the opposite sets of one or more foils of Kwag/Utley, so that they comprise rectangular foils that define an opening, like that of Cho, in order for the ability to position stopper structures through the foils to prevent unit batteries from being separated.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 19-20 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claim 7, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley and Cho, “Ground 2: The Office Action Has Not Adequately Established That Cho Teaches the Claimed ‘Rectangular Foils, Open in the Center’”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Cho FIG. 2, previously cited in the rejection of claim 7 in the Non-Final Action, explicitly shows/discloses that elements 310 and 320 are "Rectangular Foils, Open in the Center", as well as, rectangular foils, defining an opening, as claimed. Elements 310 and 320 electrically connect the battery pack and the unit batteries (Cho, [0056]).
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 20-22 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claim 8, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley, Cho, and Ahn, “Ground 1: The Office Action Does Not Explain How the Proposed Combination Would Simultaneously Satisfy Both Claim 7 and Claim 8”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The rejection of claim 8 is in view of the rejection of claim 7, therefore Kwag/Utley/Cho, as set forth previously in the rejection of claim 7, teaches the limitations/configuration defined by claim 7. The element M1 of Ahn is then utilized in combination with Kwag/Utley/Cho, to teach the bar foils limitation defined by claim 8, which is separate to the elements 310/320 of Cho that read on the rectangular foils defining an opening set forth in the rejection of claim 7. A PHOSITA would have utilized the element M1 of Ahn while also utilizing the elements 310/320 of Cho, as they serve different benefits, the element M1 of Ahn would reduce contact resistance (Ahn, [0070]), as stated in the Non-Final Action, thereby providing a motivation to utilize the element M1 of Ahn in combination with Kwag/Utley/Cho.
Applicant’s arguments on Page 22 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claim 8, under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious over Kwag in view of Utley, Cho, and Ahn, “Ground 2: The Office Action Has Not Adequately Established That Ahn's M1 Structure Corresponds to the Claimed ‘Bar Foils’”, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a PHOSITA would have readily understood from FIG. 2, that element M1 of Ahn, being a bus bar material layer that forms a frame of the bus bar (Ahn, [0070]), is a bar and a sheet/foil, wherein the bus bar comprises a plurality of material layers (Ahn, [0070], FIG. 2) that form a homogeneous metal bond (Ahn, [0076]).
For these reasons above, Applicant's arguments identified above have not been found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag (US 20210167342 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Kwag) and further in view of Utley et al. (US 20150179990 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Utley).
Regarding claim 1, Kwag teaches a battery pack ([0042]), comprising: a plurality of battery cells ([0042], element 10), each battery cell having an anode and a cathode on opposite faces thereof ([0043]-[0044]); opposite inner insulation layers covering the anodes and the cathodes of the plurality of battery cells (cell holder, [0052], elements 110a and 110b), the inner insulation layers having openings provided to expose the anodes and the cathodes to allow for electrical connection ([0054], element 112); opposite sets of one or more foils electrically connected to ones of the anodes and the cathodes of the plurality of battery cells over the inner insulation layers (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, elements 121 and 122) so as to connect the plurality of battery cells in series, in parallel, or in some combination of series and parallel ([0045]-[0048]) to produce a collective power ([0068]); at least one set of battery pack terminals electrically and mechanically connected to the opposite sets of one or more foils to receive and convey at least some of the collective power of the plurality of battery cells ([0066], FIG. 2, elements 121 and 122).
Kwag remains silent regarding a flexible outer sheathing secured around a plurality of battery cells to rigidify a battery pack.
Utley is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a flexible outer sheathing secured around a plurality of battery cells to rigidify a battery pack ([0007], [0031]-[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwag to incorporate the teachings of Utley so that there is a flexible outer sheathing secured around a plurality of battery cells to rigidify a battery pack. Doing so would prevent unwanted moisture and other undesirables from contacting the plurality of battery cells as recognized by Utley (Utley, [0033]).
Regarding claim 2, Kwag as modified by the teachings of Utley (hereinafter “Kwag/Utley”) teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Kwag further teaches each of the opposite sets of one or more foils further comprises a tab that serves as a low-current voltage tap (connection member, [0071]-[0072], [0083], [0086], FIG. 2, elements 125a and 125b).
Regarding claim 3, Kwag/Utley teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Kwag further teaches opposite outer insulation layers covering the opposite sets of one or more foils (separation member, [0091]-[0092], FIG.6, element 140).
Regarding claim 6, Kwag/Utley teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Utley further teaches a flexible outer sheathing comprises shrink wrap ([0007], [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwag to incorporate the teachings of Utley so that a flexible outer sheathing comprises shrink wrap. Doing so would prevent unwanted moisture and other undesirables from contacting the plurality of battery cells as recognized by Utley (Utley, [0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Kwag/Utley teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Kwag further teaches a set of battery pack terminals comprises rod or post terminals ([0066], FIG.3, elements 121 and 122).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag/Utley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20230266372 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 4, Kwag/Utley teaches the battery pack of claim 3.
Kwag/Utley remains silent regarding opposite outer insulation layers comprising layers of insulation paper.
Kim is in the same field of endeavor and teaches opposite outer insulation layers comprise layers of insulation paper ([0034], element 42).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwag/Utley to incorporate teachings of Kim so that opposite outer insulation layers comprise layers of insulation paper. Doing so would protect a plurality of battery cells from external impact as recognized by Kim (Kim, [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Kwag/Utley teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Kwag/Utley remains silent regarding opposite inner insulation layers comprise layers of insulation paper.
Kim is in the same field of endeavor and teaches opposite inner insulation layers comprise layers of insulation paper ([0034], element 46).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwag/Utley to incorporate teachings of Kim so that opposite inner insulation layers comprise layers of insulation paper. Doing so would serve as a sealant and protect a plurality of battery cells as recognized by Kim (Kim, [0034]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag/Utley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 20150162592 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 7, Kwag/Utley teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Kwag/Utley remains silent regarding opposite sets of one or more foils comprise rectangular foils, that are open in the center.
Cho is in the same field of endeavor and teaches opposite sets of one or more foils comprise rectangular foils that define an opening ([0056]-[0058], FIG. 2, elements 310 and 320).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwag/Utley to incorporate teachings of Cho so that opposite sets of one or more foils comprise rectangular foils that define an opening. Doing so would allow for the positioning of stopper structures ([0052], FIG. 3, element 133) which act to prevent unit batteries from being separated as recognized by Cho (Cho, [0052]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag/Utley as modified by the teachings of Cho (hereinafter “Kwag/Utley/Cho”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 20230216151 A1, previously cited, hereinafter Ahn).
Regarding claim 8, Kwag/Utley/Cho teaches the battery pack of claim 7.
Kwag/Utley/Cho remains silent regarding opposite sets of one or more foils comprise bar foils.
Ahn is in the same field of endeavor and teaches opposite sets of one or more foils comprise bar foils ([0070], [0072], [0076]), FIG. 2, element M1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwag/Utley/Cho to incorporate teachings of Ahn so that opposite sets of one or more foils comprise bar foils. Doing so would reduce contact resistance within a battery pack as recognized by Ahn (Ahn, [0070]).
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 l.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR l.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 JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
