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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, theis not supported by the specification or any of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Applicants’ remarks filed 17 June 2026 do not sufficiently provide for where support for the amendment may be found.
Claims 2-4 and 9-13 are rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walter (US 20250079616 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Walter is directed to a battery module consisting of a plurality of battery
cells arranged in a first direction (multiplicity of prismatic battery cells combined in succession, with
main face to main face (¶ 0018, 0048)), with each of the plurality of battery cells including a housing
having a gas-discharge valve and an electrode terminal provided on the housing (each battery cell has a
safety valve between the electrical contacts (¶ 0049)). The battery module has a cover member that
includes a first region and a second region, the first region is located above at least one of the electrode
terminals, and the second region is located above at least one of the gas-discharge valves (an outer
module cover lies on the side of the module with the electrical contacts (on top of the battery cells) and
has a region with rupture cut-outs positioned above the safety valves, with each safety valve associated
with a corresponding rupture cut-out (¶ 0049 - 0050). Each rupture cut-out is closed with a rupture disc
that is sufficiently thin that it opens when acted upon by the temperature and pressure of hot gas (¶
0023, 0060 - 0062). The first region and the second region also comprise a same material, with the first region (outer module cover) comprising fiber-reinforced material with glass fibers (¶ 0028) and the second region (rupture discs) comprising fiber-reinforced material with glass silk (¶ 0039 – 0040).
Regarding claim 2, Walter teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the second region extends in the direction of the battery cells because the battery cells are stacked main face to main face (¶ 0018, 0048), lining up the safety valves, and the rupture cut-outs are positioned above the safety valves, with each rupture cut-out corresponds to a safety valve (¶ 0049 - 0050).
Regarding claim 3, Walter teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the second region has rupture cut-outs, and each rupture cut-out is closed with a rupture disc that is sufficiently thin that it opens when acted upon by the temperature and pressure of hot gas (¶ 0023, 0060 – 0062), corresponding to the limitation of claim 3 of the second region being provided with a thin portion formed in the cover member.
Regarding claim 4, the features in claim 4 are outlined in claims 2 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 9, Walter teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein in the second region, each rupture cut-out is closed with a rupture disc that is sufficiently thin that it opens when acted upon by the temperature and pressure of hot gas (¶ 0023, 0060 - 0062), which allows the gas to escape and prevent contact with other electrically conducting components elsewhere on the module (¶ 0058), such as first region, the area without the rupture discs.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Walter teaches the battery module of claim 3, wherein the second region is provided with a thin portion, the rupture cut-outs and rupture discs (¶ 0023, 0060 – 0062), and thus the limitations drawn to a notch portion and a groove portion are necessarily met.
Regarding claim 12, Walter teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the outer cover enables the exiting hot gas flow containing electrically conductive particles to be discharged rapidly from the module (at the second region) without the conductive gas coming into contact with adjacent electrically conducting components such as busbars, cell connectors, module connectors, etc. (located below the first region)(¶ 0058, 0015).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter (US 20250079616 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Walter teaches the battery module of claim 1, but does not teach a plate member placed on the plurality of battery cells, wherein the cover member is provided on the plate member. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to provide a second outer cover between the first and the battery module, and the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Examiner clarifies that the Walter reference was meant to be applied under U.S.C. 102(a)(2) instead of U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Appropriate correction has been made.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks pages 4-5, filed 17 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are addressed as follows:
Applicant asserts that Walter fails to disclose the limitation “wherein the first region and the second region comprise a same material.” Based on a thorough interpretation of applicant’s limitation and the applied prior art, this is not persuasive because Paragraph 28 of Walter sets forth that the outer module, corresponding to the first region, can be a layer structure consisting of layers of fiber-reinforced material, with the fibers being exemplified as glass fibers, and Paragraph 39 and 40 of Walter set forth that the rupture discs, corresponding to the second region, can be likewise made of a fiber-reinforced material, with the fibers being exemplified as glass silk. Thus, the first region and the second region both comprise a same material of glass.
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 MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights