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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is based on the argument that the battery pack of claim 1 cannot be made by a process other than the process of claim 14, in particular stating the restriction requirement does not provide a basis for concluding that the compression modulus of the heat insulating portion can be achieved “via adhesive materials”. This is not found persuasive as further evidenced by Nagano (WO 2020129274A1). In FIGs. 6-7 of Nagano, a battery pack 25 made up of multiple secondary battery cell 20 stacked comprising a separation member 10X in at least one of spaces between the cells and has a noncontact region that is not in contact with the cells; the separation member adhering to the lithium-ion secondary cells (adhere [0042]) has a heat insulating sheet having a compressive modulus of 4000 to 10,000 kPa ([0008]), which falls within the compression modulus range as claimed “a compression modulus of the heat insulating portion in stacking direction of the cells is 0.5 to 10 MPa”. Nagano does not require the step of fixing the separation member with pressure applied in the thickness direction of the heat insulating portion of the separation member to provide a noncontact region. Further, the traversal based on not having serious burden, is not found persuasive either because the inventions (method and product) belong to different classifications which require different search strategies.
Thus, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/27/2026.
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 14 is withdrawn. Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Specification
1. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
In Ln 3 of the Abstract, “in stacking direction” should read “in the stacking direction” due to improper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
2. The instant disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
In [0010] Ln 4, [0011] Ln4, and Ln11-12 ”in stacking direction” should read “in the stacking direction” due to improper grammar;
In [0011] Ln 9 “in plane direction perpendicular to stacking direction of the cells” should read “in a plane direction perpendicular to the stacking direction of the cells” because there are multiple planes perpendicular to the stacking direction of the cells.
[0016], [0020] and [0021] have the same problems as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because FIG. 12 fails to show English title on the X and Y axis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1 Ln 4, and in claim 4 Ln 2, ”in stacking direction” should read “in the stacking direction” due to improper grammar.
In claim 3 Ln 2-3 “in plane direction perpendicular to stacking direction of the cell” should read “in a plane direction perpendicular to the stacking direction of the cells” because there are multiple planes perpendicular to the stacking direction of the cells.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8, in Ln 2 recites the limitation “the support on the separation member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the support” in the claim or its base claim. It is unclear about what “the support” refers to, namely, it could refer to “a support” recited in Ln 1 of claim 3 by changing dependence to claim 3; or it could be another support on the separation member by changing “the” to “a”. For examination purposes, claim 8 is interpreted as dependent from claim 3 which recites “the separation member has a support”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagano (WO 2020129274 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Nagano discloses a battery pack (25, FIGs 6 and 7) in which cells (20, FIG. 5 and 7) are stacked, comprising: a separation member (10X,10A/B, FIGs. 6 and 7) in at least one of spaces between the cells and the separation member has a noncontact region that is not in contact with the cells (sticking out portion of 10X, or 10A/B, FIGs. 6-7), wherein the separation member has a heat insulating portion (heat insulating sheet, [0008]). The heat insulating sheet of Nagano is made of an insulating rubber composition having a compressive modulus of 4,000 to 10,000 kPa ([0008]) which translates to 4 MPa to 10 MPa, falling within the compression modulus range as claimed “a compression modulus of the heat insulating portion in stacking direction of the cells is 0.5 to 10 MPa”.
Regarding claim 2, Nagano discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Nagano further discloses the separation member in all spaces between the cells (FIG. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20230011587 A1, priority to 9/14/2020), in view of Liu (Materials 2020, 13, 148).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon discloses a battery pack (FIGs. 1 and 2) in which cells (battery modules 100, FIGs. 1-2 and 9) are stacked, comprising: a separation member (insulating material 200 plus thermal conductive sheet 300, [0037] and FIGs. 2 and 9) in at least one of spaces between the cells (100 A/B FIG. 5), wherein the separation member has a heat insulating portion (insulating material 200 includes insulation pads 210/220/230, [0056] and FIG. 2), and the separation member has a noncontact region (through holes H, [0085] and FIGs. 7-9) that is not in contact with the cells (FIG. 9).
While Yoon further discloses a material such as phenolic foam may be used to manufacture the insulating material 200 ([0049]), Yoon does not explicitly disclose a compression modulus of the heat insulating portion in the stacking direction of the cells is 0.5 to 10 MPa.
Liu teaches phenolic foam (PF) is an excellent fire insulation composite reached the standard of Class B1 flame-retardant foam without modification (Ln4/P2); and the compressive modulus for PF is 5.83 MPa (Ln 19/P8 and FIG. 4b). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to select phenolic foam with a compression modulus value of 5.83 MPa as taught by Liu for the heat insulating pads of 210/220, which falls within the claimed compression modulus range of 0.5 to 10 MPa, with a reasonable expectation that the selected phenolic foam for the 210/220 would be a successful heat insulating material to prevent heat generated in the battery module from leaking to the outside or prevent heat from the outside from flowing into the battery module as desired by Yoon ([0049]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoon further discloses the separation member in all spaces between the cells (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoon further discloses the desire of an insulation and heat dissipation structure of effectively preventing propagation of thermal runaway caused by heat generated in some battery modules to other battery modules in the vicinity ([0009]), and the separation member has a support (top portion of bended thin edge 310/320, FIGs. 8-9) outside the heat insulating portion in plane direction perpendicular to stacking direction of the cells. Yoon’s top bended edge 310/320 as a portion of the thermal conductive sheet 300 (FIG. 8) is in thermal contact with at least one of the cells at both top corner portions via 200 (210b/220b) ([0053] and FIG. 9). {Examiner notes: The term “be in contact with” is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as including both direct and indirect contacts}.
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoon does not explicitly disclose a compression modulus of the support in stacking direction of the cells is 0.5 to 100 MPa.
However, Yoon further discloses the material of the thermally conductive sheet 300 may be aluminum (Al) or graphite ([0063]). A skilled artisan would reasonably envisage using graphite as the support material which inherently possess a compression modulus ranging from 20-220 MPa, overlapping the range of 0.5 to 100 MPa. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to have prepared the support of Yoon (top bended edge 310, FIG. 5) with graphite material as taught by Yoon, and it would have been further obvious to arrive at the overlapping portion (20-100 MPa) between the modulus range of a graphite material and the claimed range, thus arriving at the claimed “a compression modulus of the support in stacking direction of the cells is 0.5 to 100 MPa”.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Yoon’s non-contact region through hole H has a depth as shown in FIG. 9, the distance between the noncontact region and each of the cells above the noncontact region is considered as equivalent from the 230 insulating pad to the adjacent side surface of cell 100 (A) or 100(B).
Modified Yoon does not explicitly disclose the distance from 230 insulating pad to the adjacent side surface of cell 100 (A) or 100(B) is 0.1 to 2.5 mm.
However, Yoon further discloses an anti-compression body 500 as through holes H ([0085] and FIG. 9) which performs a function of preventing compression of the insulating material 200 due to inflation of a portion of the battery module 100 ([0079]); the through holes H are recessed by a thickness of the insertion limiting portion P2, which may not protrude from the first insulating pad 210 and the second insulating pad 220 ([0085]); and there is a difference in insulating performance depending on the material or thickness of the insulation material 200 ([0051]). The flange portion of the through holes H has a thickness (FIG. 9) that functions substantially equivalent to “a distance between the noncontact region and each of the cells above the noncontact region” as claimed. A skilled artisan would reasonably envisage the distance (thickness of the flange portion of the through holes H) as a result-effective variable depending on the inflation extent of the battery cell and the insulating material performance, and would reasonably expect a distance value that falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 2.5 mm would generate favorable results in obtaining enough insulating performance as well as robustness in preventing compression of the insulating material 200.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Yoon FIGs. 8-9 appear to show a ratio (SN/SI) of an area of the noncontact region (SN) (through hole H, FIG. 9) to an area of the heat insulating portion (SI) (230, FIG. 9) in plan view is 0.3 to 1 (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Yoon appears to have very small surface area of the support (310b and 320b thin edges) compared to the surface area of the separation member shown in FIG. 8, a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage that a ratio (SS/SP) of an area of the support (SS) to an area of the separation member (SP) in plan view (FIG. 8) falls within the claimed range of 0.02 to 0.2.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoon further discloses the separation member (200/300 FIG. 2) in plan view is rectangular, and the support (310 and 320, FIG. 2) on the separation member is linear and forms at least a pair of opposite sides (310/320 a pair of opposite side, FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoon further discloses the heat insulating portion is accommodated in an exterior body (a case 400, [0037] and FIG. 1). {Examiner notes: Since the heat insulating portion is located within the overall module case 400, it is considered as being accommodated in the module case 400 under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “be accommodated in”, which is interpreted as “be provided a space to stay or be stored in”. }
14. Claim 7 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20230011587 A1, priority to 9/14/2020), in view of Liu (Materials 2020, 13, 148), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Miyazaki (US 20230081610 A1, priority to 2/28/2020).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. As set forth above, modified Yoon appears to have very small surface area of the support (310b and 320b thin edges) compared to the surface area of the separation member shown in FIG. 8, a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage that a ratio (SS/SP) of an area of the support (SS) to an area of the separation member (SP) in plan view of Yoon’s FIG. 8 falls within the claimed range of 0.02 to 0.2.
Assuming, arguendo, that modified Yoon, for some reason, is not considered to anticipate claim 7 as set forth above, the following obviousness rejections are also presented.
Miyazaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches when intercell distance is maintained and thermal conduction is impeded such that cascade thermal runaway of other cells does not occur ([0002]); and with an intercell spacer arranged between battery cells that are adjacent to each other, the inclusion of a heat-resistant anti-compression portion having a Young’s modulus in the direction in which the battery cells are adjacent of not less than a specific value at a specific temperature makes it possible to maintain intercell distance even in a situation in which a cell has expanded inside a battery module at abnormally high temperature ([0012]). The intercell spacer as shown in the Embodiment 2-1 of Miyazaki, teaches heat-resistant anti-compression portion completely embedded in holding portion which is in contact with cells at both sides (Table 1 and FIGs. 1 and 3). The intercell spacer of Miyazaki corresponds to the claimed separation member; the heat-resistant anti-compression portion corresponds to the claimed heat insulating portion; and the holding portions on both top and bottom ends as shown in FIG. 1 of Miyazaki corresponds to the claimed “a support outside the heat insulating portion in plane direction perpendicular to stacking direction of the cells, and the support is in contact with at least one of the cells”.
Miyazaki further teaches that contact area of holding portion with cell surface decreases and thereby reduces thermal conductivity (Table 1) and when the holding portion includes a portion that extends between surfaces that are in contact with the battery cells, such arrangement relationship makes it possible to achieve a thermal insulation effect between the cells at abnormally high temperature through reduction of thermal conductivity via the holding portion due to reduction of contact area between the holding portion and the cell surfaces; moreover, the holding portion is in contact with the cells at both sides inside a battery module at a temperature in an unheated state, and thereby enables equalization of temperature of the cells inside the battery module ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the thickness of the support (top portion of bended thin edge 310/320, FIGs. 8-9) of Yoon under routine experimentations in order to optimize the ratio (SS/SP) in order to achieve enough thermal insulation between the cells at abnormally high temperature and equalization of temperature of the cells inside the battery module at a temperature in an unheated state, as taught by Miyazaki, and with a reasonable expectation to find out that a ratio (SS/SP) value falling within the claimed range of 0.02 to 0.2 would be a success in achieving the goal, thus arriving at the claimed “wherein a ratio (SS/SP) of an area of the support (SS) to an area of the separation member (SP) in plan view is 0.02 to 0.2”.
15. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20230011587 A1, priority to 9/14/2020) in view of Liu (Materials 2020, 13, 148), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Numata (US 20200388890 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10 modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Yoon discloses the heat insulating portion includes insulation pad 230 ([0081] and FIG. 9), modified Yoon does not explicitly disclose the insulation pad 230 contains a liquid (claim 9); nor is a porous heat insulating material and the liquid is contained in the porous heat insulating material (claim 10).
Numata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches using a coolant 10 to make it difficult for the heart to be transmitted to an adjacent member in a power storage pack ([0024]), and the coolant 10 includes a refrigerant 12, a porous plate-shaped heat insulator 11, and an enclosure 13 ([0045] and FIG. 1); and the heat insulator 11 be formed from a porous material such that the heat insulator 11 can absorb the refrigerant 12 ([0053]), which teaches the limitations of claims 9-10.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating pad 230 of Yoon in the same fashion as taught by Numata, thus arriving at the claims 9-10 without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the goal of preventing heat generated in the battery module from leaking to the outside or prevent heat from the outside from flowing into the battery module, as desired by Yoon.
16. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20230011587 A1, priority to 9/14/2020) in view of Liu (Materials 2020, 13, 148), as applied to claim 1, further evidenced by Sasayama (US 6461757 B1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Yoon discloses the exterior material of a pouch-type secondary battery may include an external insulating layer, a metal layer, and an internal adhesive layer ([0039]) which reads on the exterior body includes a stack including metal foils; and renders obvious that the exterior body includes a thermoplastic resin layer because it is well-known in the art that an internal adhesive layer made of thermoplastic resin layer, as further evidenced by Sasayama (Col1/Ln18).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yoon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Yoon includes a metal layer, a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage that commonly used aluminum metal foil would be a success for the metal layer of Yoon, as further evidenced by Sasayama (Col2/Ln46-47).
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/3/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/8/2026
Prosecution Insights