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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1-17 were rejected in the 4/9/2026 office action.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 6/23/2026 amendment, in response to the 4/9/2026 office action, has been entered.
Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the objection.
Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections; however these claim amendments introduced new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on a different interpretation of the previously-presented prior art (swapped first direction and second direction in Figure A below).
Priority
Examiner acknowledges applicant's claim for foreign priority, and receipt of a certified copy on 4/14/2026, of applications KR1020220175663 and KR1020220175664 filed in Korea on 12/15/2022.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 & 14 contain 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 14 were thus amended: “largest surfaces of the battery cells are perpendicular to a first direction”. The specification states: “largest surfaces of the battery cells are oriented in a first direction”, but fails to define “oriented in”. Figure 2 illustrates a battery cell largest surface perpendicular to a first direction X1 (paragraph 65); however, this is insufficient to support the above claim limitation because there is no indication in the specification that drawings are to scale.
Claims 2-13 & 15-17 are rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 or 14.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 1 was amended with the following contradictory claim limitations:
Limitation 1 (L1)
“a plurality of battery cells arranged such that largest surfaces of the battery cells are perpendicular to a first direction”
Limitation 2 (L2)
“the plurality of battery cells… are arranged in a laid-down state in the first direction”
As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section below, L2 is interpreted to mean that “a widest surface of the plurality of battery cells is parallel to the first direction”. Thus, L1 requires that the largest surface is perpendicular to the first direction, but L2 requires the opposite, that that the largest/widest surface is parallel to the first direction. It is impossible to fulfill both of these limitations simultaneously.
Claims 2-13 & 15-17 are rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 or 14.
Claim Interpretation
Amended claims 1 & 14 now state: “the plurality of battery cells… are arranged in a laid-down state in the first direction”. The specification provides the following for the meaning of this phrase:
[0062] The cell stack 120 may include a plurality of battery cells 110. The plurality of battery cells 110 may be disposed in a laid-down state. That is, the battery cell 110 may be disposed such that a widest surface thereof is oriented in a vertical direction.
[0065] The plurality of battery layers CL may be formed by stacking the plurality of battery cells 110 arranged in a laid-down state in the first direction X1.
Combining these paragraphs, the above phrase is interpreted to mean that “a widest surface of the plurality of battery cells is parallel to the first direction”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-11 & 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2013098982A1 machine translation (Oya).
With regard to claim 1, Oya teaches the following claim limitations:
A battery assembly (paragraph 11; figure 2: battery pack) comprising:
a cell stack including a plurality of battery layers (Figure A below) of battery cells (abstract, figures 3-5: battery cells 5)… each battery layer comprising two or more third-direction battery rows (Figure A below: 3rd rows) each third-direction battery row including the plurality of battery cells arranged in a third direction (Figure A below)…
wherein the cell stack includes a first second-direction battery row (Figure A below: 1st 2nd row) and a second second-direction battery row (Figure A below: 2nd 2nd row) in which the plurality of battery cells is arranged in a second direction (Figure A below),
the first second-direction battery row includes first electrode terminals and the second second-direction battery row includes second electrode terminals (paragraph 43; figures 2-3 & 5; Figure A below: terminals 5a & 5b) oriented in an opposite direction (paragraph 12: “The two battery blocks 2 are arranged back-to-back, with… the electrode external terminals projecting in opposite directions”) to the first electrode terminals based on a reference surface between the first second-direction battery row and the second second-direction battery row,
the plurality of battery cells provided in each battery layer are arranged in a laid-down state in the first direction (Figure A below), the first direction being a height direction of the cell stack,
a total number of battery layers provided in the cell stack (Oya shows 2 layers) is less than a number of battery cells provided in each of the first second-direction battery row (Oya shows > 2) and the second second-direction battery row (Oya shows > 2) so that a height of the cell stack is lowered,
Figure A: Annotated Oya Figure 2
PNG
media_image1.png
600
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also states:
one or more busbars coupled to the plurality of battery cells and configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells…
the one or more busbars include a transversal busbar configured to connect one or more of the first electrode terminals of the first second-direction battery row to one or more of the second electrode terminals of the second second-direction battery row and configured to traverse the reference surface
Although Oya teaches busbars (paragraphs 37-38), Oya fails to describe this arrangement of busbars; nevertheless, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have connected the electrode terminals. For example, it was within the skill of an electrician or an electrical engineer, before the effective filing date of the invention, to route wires or busbars for a parallel or series battery connection arrangement.
Claim 1 also states:
each battery layer including a plurality of battery cells arranged such that largest surfaces of the battery cells are perpendicular to a first direction
This perpendicular arrangement is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as not being supported by the specification and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as contradicting the “laid-down state” claim limitation. This claim limitation is not considered for present prior art analysis.
With regard to claims 2-8, modified Oya teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claims 2-8 state:
Claim 2
the one or more busbars include:
a first busbar structured to electrically connect the first electrode terminals of the first second-direction battery row and the second electrode terminals of the second second-direction battery row to an external structure outside the cell stack; and
a second busbar structured to connect the first electrode terminals of the first second-direction battery row to each other or the second electrode terminals of the second second-direction battery row to each other
Claim 3
the first busbar electrically connected to the first second-direction battery row and the first busbar electrically connected to the second second-direction battery row are disposed at a first end of the cell stack based on the second direction
Claim 4
the second busbar is structured to electrically connect electrode terminals of adjacent battery cells in series while electrically connecting electrode terminals provided in the plurality of battery layers in parallel
Claim 5
the first busbar and the transversal busbar are disposed in opposite positions of the cell stack based on the second direction
Claim 6
a portion of the second busbar connects electrode terminals of adjacent battery cells in each battery layer in series
Claim 7
the first busbar and the transversal busbar are disposed in a first end of the cell stack based on the second direction
Claim 8
wherein the first busbar comprises a terminal connection portion connected to the first electrode terminals of the first second-direction battery row or the second electrode terminals of the second second-direction battery row, and an external connection portion for electrical connection to the external structure,
wherein the external connection portion is exposed to a top surface of the cell stack
Although Oya teaches busbars (paragraphs 37-38), Oya fails to describe this arrangement of busbars; nevertheless, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have connected the electrode terminals as claimed in order to provide electrical power to an external device.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, such as an electrician or an electrical engineer, had knowledge of series and parallel connections for both the power supply and for the load. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have made the claimed electrical connections.
With regard to claim 9, modified Oya teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 9 states:
the transversal busbar comprises a terminal connection portion connected to the first and second electrode terminals and a transversal portion crossing the reference surface
Although Oya teaches busbars (paragraphs 37-38), Oya fails to describe this arrangement of busbars; nevertheless, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have connected the electrode terminals as claimed in order to provide electrical power to an external device.
Claim 9 also states:
the transversal portion is electrically insulated from the battery cells
Oya fails to describe this electrically insulated portion. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have known that the busbar must be electrically insulated from the battery cells, in order to avoid shorting out the battery cells. This has been common knowledge in the art for many decades.
With regard to claim 10, modified Oya teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Oya also teaches the following claim 10 limitations:
each of the battery cells (5) includes a first side, a second side, and a third side (Figure B below),
the first side includes an area larger than an area of the second side and an area of the third side, the first and second electrode terminals (5a & 5b) are disposed on the third side (Figure B below),
the first direction is a direction perpendicular to the first side, the second direction is a direction perpendicular to the second side, and the third direction is a direction perpendicular to the third side (Figure B below)
Figure B: Annotated Oya Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
754
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, modified Oya teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 10 as described above. Oya also teaches the following claim 11 limitation:
the battery cells include a prismatic secondary battery having a hexahedral shape (Figure B above),
With regard to claim 14, Oya teaches the following claim limitations:
A battery pack comprising:
a plurality of battery assemblies (it would have been obvious to increase the quantity of Oya’s battery assemblies to provide power to larger devices);
a pack housing structured to accommodate the plurality of battery assemblies (it would have been obvious to house the plurality of battery assemblies for protection and handling); and
an external busbar structured to electrically connect adjacent battery assemblies (it would have been obvious to electrically connect the plurality of battery assemblies so that they can function);
wherein each of the plurality of battery assemblies (paragraph 11; figure 2: battery pack) comprises:
a cell stack including a plurality of battery layers (Figure A below) of battery cells (abstract, figures 3-5: battery cells 5)…
each battery layer comprising two or more third-direction battery rows (Figure A below: 3rd rows) each third-direction battery row including the plurality of battery cells arranged in a third direction (Figure A below)…
wherein the cell stack includes a first second-direction battery row (Figure A below: 1st 2nd row) and a second second-direction battery row (Figure A below: 2nd 2nd row) in which the plurality of battery cells is arranged in a second direction (Figure A below),
the first second-direction battery row includes first electrode terminals and the second second-direction battery row includes second electrode terminals (paragraph 43; figures 2-3 & 5; Figure A below: terminals 5a & 5b) oriented in an opposite direction (paragraph 12: “The two battery blocks 2 are arranged back-to-back, with… the electrode external terminals projecting in opposite directions”) to the first electrode terminals based on a reference surface between the first second-direction battery row and the second second-direction battery row,
the plurality of battery cells provided in each battery layer are arranged in a laid-down state in the first direction (Figure A below), the first direction being a height direction of the cell stack,
a total number of battery layers provided in the cell stack (Oya shows 2 layers) is less than a number of battery cells provided in each of the first second-direction battery row (Oya shows > 2) and the second second-direction battery row (Oya shows > 2) so that a height of the cell stack is lowered,
Figure A: Annotated Oya Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
600
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 also states:
one or more busbars coupled to the plurality of battery cells and configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells…
the one or more busbars include a transversal busbar configured to connect one or more of the first electrode terminals of the first second-direction battery row to one or more of the second electrode terminals of the second second-direction battery row and configured to traverse the reference surface
Although Oya teaches busbars (paragraphs 37-38), Oya fails to describe this arrangement of busbars; nevertheless, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have connected the electrode terminals. For example, it was within the skill of an electrician or an electrical engineer, before the effective filing date of the invention, to route wires or busbars for a parallel or series battery connection arrangement.
Claim 14 also states:
each battery layer including a plurality of battery cells arranged such that largest surfaces of the battery cells are perpendicular to a first direction
This perpendicular arrangement is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as not being supported by the specification and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as contradicting the “laid-down state” claim limitation. This claim limitation is not considered for present prior art analysis.
With regard to claims 15-17, modified Oya teaches the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Claims 15-17 state:
Claim 15
the one or more busbars include a first busbar structured to electrically connect the first electrode terminals of the first second-direction battery row and the second electrode terminals of the second second-direction battery row to an external structure outside the cell stack
Claim 16
the first busbar electrically connected to the first second-direction battery row and the first busbar electrically connected to the second second-direction battery row are disposed at a first end of the cell stack based on the second direction
Claim 17
the first busbar comprises a terminal connection portion connected to the first electrode terminals of the first second-direction battery row or the second electrode terminals of the second second-direction battery row, and an external connection portion for electrical connection to the external busbar, wherein the external connection portion is exposed to a top surface of the cell stack
Although Oya teaches busbars (paragraphs 37-38), Oya fails to describe this arrangement of busbars; nevertheless, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have connected the electrode terminals as claimed in order to provide electrical power to an external device.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, such as an electrician or an electrical engineer, had knowledge of series and parallel connections for both the power supply and for the load. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have made the claimed electrical connections.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2013098982A1 machine translation (Oya), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20210057692A1 (Kim).
With regard to claim 12, modified Oya teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Oya fails to teach the following claim 12 limitations, which are taught by Kim:
a cooling plate (abstract: “a cooling pin having a plate shape”; paragraph 52 & figure 5: cooling pin 111A-1) disposed between adjacent battery layers (paragraph 52 & figure 5: two battery cells 111B and 111C fixed to both sides of the cooling pin 111A-1) and structured to cool the cell stack; and
one or more adhesive member structured to fix the cooling plate and the adjacent battery layers (paragraph 52 & figure 5: battery cells 111B and 111C fixed to the cooling pin 111A-1 by adhesive means 111A-2 and 111A-3)
Batteries generate heat. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have a cooling plate between adjacent battery cells 5 of Oya, as taught by Kim, for cooling the batteries.
With regard to claim 13, modified Oya teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 12 as described above. Claim 13 states:
the cooling plate is fixed to the adjacent battery layers disposed on both sides in the first direction through the one or more adhesive member
Although Kim teaches the cooling plate fixed to the batteries by adhesive, as discussed under claim 12, Kim fails to teach fixing in the first direction.
The battery side of the first direction is the largest side; therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to fix cooling plate to battery in this direction in order to maximize cooling.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights