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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments filed 11/25/2025:
Claims 1, 3-4,7,12-13, and 15-18 are pending in the current application. Claims 1,3,7, and 15 have been amended. Claims 2,5-6,8-11, 14, and 19 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the blocking panel, the cooling panel, and the cooling panel are sequentially disposed, and this disposition is repeated…”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this sequential order does not represent a specific starting side/position within the assembly and therefore the panels at either end of the array of panels can be a first or second cooling panel. I.e., the order could be cooling panel, blocking panel, cooling panel, cooling panel, blocking panel, cooling panel. This interpretation is supported by the disclosure (PGPUB US20240283052A1) which recites that a panel closest to the side panels should be a cooling panel, because when it is a blocking panel a fire may occur (P85).
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(s) 1,3,7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al. (US 2010/0136404) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2021/0328251) and Stephens et al (US 20200398652).
Regarding claim 1, Hermann teaches a battery case comprising: a support panel 601 provided to support a battery assembly; a spacing panel 603 provided to face the support panel and forming an accommodating space for accommodating the battery assembly between the support panel and the spacing panel; a two-side panel 206/208 provided to face each other to connect the support panel 601 and the spacing panel 603 to form a side surface of the accommodating space (P29-31; Fig. 6-7);
wherein the battery assembly comprises a plurality of battery cells 203 (P28-29),
a blocking panel, or central region 1201 of barrier element 1200, disposed between the support panel and the spacing panel in parallel with the two-side panel to compart the accommodating space, the blocking panel configured to minimize heat transfer (P30.35; Fig. 6.12);
a cooling panel, or layers 1203/1205 formed in the accommodating space in parallel with the blocking panel 1201 and cooling the battery assembly (P30.35; Fig. 6-7.12),
wherein the blocking panel, the cooling panel, and the cooling panel are sequentially disposed, and this disposition is repeated, wherein beginning at a blocking panel, two cooling panels are disposed (P35; Fig.6.12 – see claim interpretation above),
wherein the support panel 601 fixes the battery assembly into the accommodating space so that wider surfaces of each of the battery cells face the cooling panel, or thermal barrier element 201 (P29-30.35; Fig. 6-7),
wherein the number of cooling panels 1203/1205 is greater than the number of blocking panels 1201 in one battery case (P33.35; Fig, 6-7.11-12),
the cooling panels 1203/1205, or layers with high thermal conductivity, may include a cooling structure to aid in distribution and removal of thermal energy (P37) wherein a circulation flow path connecting an inlet and an outlet to circulate the coolant in communication with the outside (P35.37-38; Fig. 11-12.14),
wherein the cooling flow path comprises one or more first cooling flow paths and a second cooling flow path connecting the one or more first cooling flow paths to each other (Fig. 11-12), an inlet flow path connecting the inlet and the cooling flow path, and an outlet flow path connecting the outlet and the cooling flow path (Fig. 11-12),
wherein the first cooling flow path directs the coolant from an edge of the cooling panel in contact with the support panel to an edge of the cooling panel in contact with the spacing panel or from an edge of the cooling panel in contact with the spacing panel to an edge of the cooling panel in contact with the support panel, based on the configuration wherein the cooling panel, comprising the cooling panel, extends from the support panel to the spacing panel (P34-35.37-38; Fig. 6.12), and is implemented, i.e., as shown in Fig. 10.
Hermann is silent in teaching a length of the blocking panel is longer than a length of the support panel and longer than a length of the spacing panel; however, Hermann teaches that the blocking panel, or thermal barrier element extends completely between adjoining enclosure walls to prevent thermal runway from one group of cells from initiating in an adjacent group of cells (P7-8.31).
Therefore, it also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the blocking panel to completely separate adjacent groups of cells from one another thus extending completely between side walls and arrive at a blocking longer than a length of the support panel and longer than a length of the spacing panel. Further, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 The results are not unexpected because merely changing the length of the blocking panel relative to only the spacing panel and support panel does not change the function of the module or the panels and provides the exact functionality taught by Hermann – having increased thermal energy absorption and shielding from neighboring groups.
Hermann is silent in teaching the thickness of the blocking panel is greater than the thickness of the cooling panel, and a length of the blocking panel is longer than a length of the support panel and is longer than a length of the spacing panel; however, Hermann teaches making the blocking panels to prevent heat transfer and shows an example of a thicker blocking panel (Fig. 12).
Furthermore, Zhao, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches battery modules with blocking panels (P8-9). The blocking panels, or partitions of Zhao are formed to have a thickness that prevents excessive expansion and stress and provides structural integrity. The plates are also formed to thermally insulate the batteries from one another to prevent short circuiting and improve safety (P40-44.53-55.89-90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to find a thickness of the blocking panel and cooling panel that provide structural support, prevent cell bulging, and reduce weight while preventing heat transfer with the blocking panel and arrive with a thickness of the blocking panel greater than the thickness of the cooling panel because change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. Wherein the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. MPEP § 2144.04
Modified Hermann teaching the circulation flow path is silent in teaching the circulation flow path comprises a zig-zag shaped cooling flow path included in one of the cooling panels; however, Stephens, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a cooling panel comprising a cooling flow path with one or more first cooling flow paths and a second cooling flow path connecting the one or more first cooling flow paths to each other (Fig. 8.11-12.19), an inlet flow path connecting the inlet and the cooling flow path, and an outlet flow path connecting the outlet and the cooling flow path.
The circulation flow path comprises a zig-zag shaped cooling flow path included in one of the cooling panels to allow integration with the support panel and to cool the cells via additional surfaces (P49-52; Fig. 8.11.19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the circulation flow path of modified Hermann with the zig-zag shaped cooling flow path, as taught by Stephens, to dissipate heat downward and to allow various configurations when used in plurality.
The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 The results are not unexpected because merely using a zig-zag shape (where Hermann teaches routing through the same wall) to route through the support panel does not change the function of the module, panels, or channel, and provides the exact functionality as taught by Hermann- to dissipate heat from a module. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hermann teaches the cooling panel and the blocking panel are provided in plurality, and the plurality of blocking panels are positioned between two cooling panels that are closest to the two-side panel among the plurality of cooling panels (P35; Fig. 12 -wherein a cooling panel 1203/1205 will be on outside surface of each blocking panel 1201)
Regarding claim 4, modified Hermann teaches the blocking panel and the cooling panel are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in a preset interval (P35; Fig. 12 -wherein based on an order of blocking panel 1201, cooling panel 1205, cooling panel 1203, the blocking panel 1201 will be spaced apart from cooling panel 1203 by interval based on predetermined number of cells).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hermann in view of Stephens teaches any one panel of the support panel or the spacing panel comprises the inlet and the inlet flow path on one side, and the outlet and the outlet flow path are provided on the other side of the any one panel (Fig. 11-12)
Regarding claim 12, modified Hermann teaches one edge on one side of the blocking panel is connected to the support panel, and another edge on the other side of the blocking panel is connected to the spacing panel (P31; Fig. 6-7)
Regarding claim 13, modified Hermann teaches the blocking panel has a thermal conductivity of less than 1 W/mK (P35), overlapping the claimed range of 0.3 W/mK or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Claim(s) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2023/0041540) in view of in view of Hermann et al. (US 2010/0136404), Zhao et al. (US 2021/0328251), and Stephens et al (US 20200398652).
Regarding claim 15, Sun teaches a battery pack comprising:
a plurality of battery assemblies, electrode core assemblies 400;
a support panel, or bottom plate 130 provided to support the plurality of battery assemblies;
a spacing panel, or top plate 120 provided to face the support panel 130 and forming an accommodating space 300 to accommodate the plurality of battery assemblies between the support panel and the spacing panel;
a two-side panel, or side frames 140/150 provided to face each other to connect the support panel and the spacing panel to form a side surface of the accommodating space;
an opening portion formed by the support panel 130, the spacing panel 120, and the two-side panel 140/150 (P37; Fig. 1-3);
one or more blocking panels, or structural beams partition plates 200 disposed between the support panel and the spacing panel in parallel with the two-side panel 140/150 to compart the accommodating space 300 (P38.49-58; Fig.1-2), the battery assembly comprises a plurality of battery cells (Fig.2).
Sun is silent in teaching a length of the blocking panel is longer than a length of the support panel and longer than a length of the spacing panel; however, Sun teaches the blocking panel, or structural beams partition plates are arranged to be extend in the length direction of the electrode assemblies, or where the larger surface of the assemblies faces the blocking panels, can be engaged with the side plates via extension portions, and can be formed either integrally or separately from the support and spacer panel, improving structural stability and blocking adjacent compartments (P49-56.76-78.122.140).
Therefore, it also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the blocking panel in a manner that maintains structural integrity while blocking adjacent core compartments, and arrive at a blocking longer than a length of the support panel and longer than a length of the spacing panel, such as in an instance where the blocking panel is formed engaged with the sidewalls.
Further, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 The results are not unexpected because merely changing the length of the blocking panel relative to only the spacing panel and support panel does not change the function of the module or the panels and provides the exact functionality taught by Sun – having increased structural integrity of the container and blocking electrode core compartments.
Sun teaches the blocking panels provide structural strength and prevents thermal runaway between cavities and teaches additional embodiments that improve heat dissipation (P38.55.122). Sun is silent in teaching one or more cooling panels formed in the accommodating space in parallel with the blocking panel and cooling the plurality of battery assemblies, wherein a battery assembly of the plurality of battery assemblies is disposed between a blocking panel of the one or more blocking panels and a cooling panel of the one or more cooling panels; however, Hermann, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery case comprising: a support panel 601 provided to support a battery assembly; a spacing panel 603 provided to face the support panel and forming an accommodating space for accommodating the battery assembly between the support panel and the spacing panel; a two-side panel 206/208 provided to face each other to connect the support panel 601 and the spacing panel 603 to form a side surface of the accommodating space (P29-31; Fig. 6-7).
Hermann teaches that alternatively from a structure like that of Sun, one can be used wherein blocking panel, the cooling panel, and the cooling panel are sequentially disposed, and this disposition is repeated, wherein beginning at a blocking panel, two cooling panels are disposed (P35; Fig.6.12 – see claim interpretation above),
wherein the support panel 601 fixes the battery assembly into the accommodating space so that wider surfaces of each of the battery cells face the cooling panel, or thermal barrier element 201 (P29-30.35; Fig. 6-7),
wherein the number of cooling panels 1203/1205 is greater than the number of blocking panels 1201 in one battery case (P33.35; Fig, 6-7.11-12), the cooling panels 1203/1205, or layers with high thermal conductivity, may include a cooling structure to aid in distribution and removal of thermal energy (P37) wherein a circulation flow path connecting an inlet and an outlet to circulate the coolant in communication with the outside (P35.37-38; Fig. 11-12.14),
wherein the cooling flow path comprises one or more first cooling flow paths and a second cooling flow path connecting the one or more first cooling flow paths to each other (Fig. 11-12), an inlet flow path connecting the inlet and the cooling flow path, and an outlet flow path connecting the outlet and the cooling flow path (Fig. 11-12),
wherein the first cooling flow path directs the coolant from an edge of the cooling panel in contact with the support panel to an edge of the cooling panel in contact with the spacing panel or from an edge of the cooling panel in contact with the spacing panel to an edge of the cooling panel in contact with the support panel, based on the configuration wherein the cooling panel, comprising the cooling panel, extends from the support panel to the spacing panel (P34-35.37-38; Fig. 6.12), and is implemented, i.e., as shown in Fig. 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the configuration as taught by Hermann in the pack of Sun, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved.
Modified Sun in view of Hermann is silent in teaching the thickness of the blocking panel is greater than the thickness of the cooling panel, and a length of the blocking panel is longer than a length of the support panel and is longer than a length of the spacing panel; however, Hermann teaches making the blocking panels to prevent heat transfer and shows an example of a thicker blocking panel (Fig. 12).
Furthermore, Zhao, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches battery modules with blocking panels (P8-9). The blocking panels, or partitions of Zhao are formed to have a thickness that prevents excessive expansion and stress and provides structural integrity. The plates are also formed to thermally insulate the batteries from one another to prevent short circuiting and improve safety (P40-44.53-55.89-90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to find a thickness of the blocking panel and cooling panel that provide structural support, prevent cell bulging, and reduce weight while preventing heat transfer with the blocking panel and arrive with a thickness of the blocking panel greater than the thickness of the cooling panel because change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. Wherein the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. MPEP § 2144.04
Modified Sun in view of Hermann teaching the circulation flow path is silent in teaching the circulation flow path comprises a zig-zag shaped cooling flow path included in one of the cooling panels; however, Stephens, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a cooling panel comprising a cooling flow path with one or more first cooling flow paths and a second cooling flow path connecting the one or more first cooling flow paths to each other (Fig. 8.11-12.19), an inlet flow path connecting the inlet and the cooling flow path, and an outlet flow path connecting the outlet and the cooling flow path.
The circulation flow path comprises a zig-zag shaped cooling flow path included in one of the cooling panels to allow integration with the support panel and to cool the cells via additional surfaces (P49-52; Fig. 8.11.19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the circulation flow path of modified Sun in view of Hermann with the zig-zag shaped cooling flow path, as taught by Stephens, to dissipate heat downward and to allow various configurations when used in plurality.
The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 The results are not unexpected because merely using a zig-zag shape (where Hermann teaches routing through the same wall) to route through the support panel does not change the function of the module, panels, or channel, and provides the exact functionality as taught by Hermann- to dissipate heat from a module. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, modified Sun teaches the plurality of battery assemblies, or electrode core assemblies 400 are inserted into the accommodating space through the opening portion (P37.55-63; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sun teaches the plurality of battery assemblies 400 are grouped to form a plurality of battery stacks, or electrode core string 401, and any one of the plurality of battery stacks 401 is formed by stacking along a direction in which the battery assembly is inserted through the opening portion (P37-38; Fig. 2-4).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sun teaches the length of the blocking panel, or structural beams partition plates 220/230 along the direction in which the battery assembly 400 is inserted is equal to or longer than the length of the battery stack 401 to divide the space (P37.44-55; Fig. 1-3).
The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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 A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752