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 Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted July 28th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 6, and 13 are amended and claims 11-12 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-10, and 13 pending for Examination.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed July 28th, 2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 28th, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-7, 13 as being anticipated by Soo (Korean Patent Publication No. 20180103625). However, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of these claims is presented below in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the alternate rejection of claims 1m 4, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soo. However, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of these claims is presented below.
Specification
The amendment filed July 28th, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “One or more embodiments include a battery pack that efficiently discharges heat generated by a protection circuit module, for example, by an FET, to the outside.” The specification as originally filed includes a slightly narrower scope of the battery pack, as recited in Paragraph 82 of the specification, “…the battery pack 10 according to one or more embodiments may efficiently discharge heat generated by the protection circuit module 130, for example, generated by the FETs 1311, 1312, 1313, and 1314, to the outside of the battery pack 10 through the heat dissipation element 154.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-10, and 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, the instant claim recites a fixing bracket “formed in a tape shape.” However the instant disclosure provides, more narrowly recited, that the fixing bracket may be fixing tape (Paragraph 0065). Therefore, there is a mismatch in scope between what is disclosed about the fixing bracket in the specification as filed and the limitations in the claims as amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-10, 13, these claims are rejected based on their dependence on the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-10, 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim recites a fixing bracket “formed in a tape shape.” It is unclear to the Examiner, without appropriate support from the specification as described above, what is meant by being “tape shaped” and how this recitation is different from the fixing bracket being a tape. For the purposed of Examination, being “tape-shaped” is interpreted by the Examiner as being any shape as tape is a flexible material which can form a variety of shapes. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 1, the instant claim recites a heat dissipation element “disposed on a position corresponding to a field effect transistor (FET) of the protection circuit module.” It is unclear to the examiner if the instant claim as amended requires a field effect transistor forming part of the protection circuit module or simply a position which is capable of having an FET. Further, in the case that the FET is required, it is additionally unclear to the Examiner how the heat dissipation element can be disposed on a position corresponding to an FET, as the instant claim requires the heat dissipator comprising the heat dissipation element to be outside of the fixing bracket. For the purposes of Examination, the heat dissipation element disposed on a position corresponding to a field effect transistor (FET) of the protection circuit module of the instant claim is interpreted by the Examiner to be a positive recitation of a FET and further to mean that in some direction, at least some portion of the heat dissipation element overlaps the FET of the protection circuit module. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-10, 13, these claims are rejected based on their dependence on the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 8, the instant claim recites the protection circuit module comprises field effective transistors (FET) and wherein the heat dissipator covers the FETs.
However, recited in the amended claim 1 and interpreted by the Examiner in the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above, the amendments of claim 1 were considered to positively recite a FET as part of the protection circuit module. Therefore, it is unclear if the FETs of the instant claim 8 are additional FETs or if the FET of claim 1 is considered a part of the FETs of the instant claim. Further, it is unclear if the FET of claim 1 is considered one of the FETs of the instant claim, how the heat dissipator covering the FET further limits the independent claim, which requires the FET to be disposed on a position corresponding to a FET of the protection circuit module. As interpreted by the Examiner in the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above, in some direction, at least some portion of the heat dissipation element overlaps the FET of the protection circuit module. It is unclear to the Examiner how the limitation of the heat dissipator covering the FET of the instant claim would further limit the independent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is rejected based on its dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2015088380 A), as evidenced by the Merriam Webster definition of “tape”.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a battery pack comprising:
a case (battery case);
an electrode assembly in the case (unit cell) (Paragraph 0008),
and comprising an electrode tab (Figure 2, Elements 15n and 15p);
a protection circuit module (Paragraph 0019) (Figure 2, Element 20) connected to the electrode tab (Paragraph 0020);
a fixing bracket (cover) (Figure 2, Element 30) at least partially surrounding the protection circuit module;
and a heat dissipator (Figure 2, Element 35) outside the fixing bracket, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
836
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Yamamoto
As described above in the 112(b) rejection, being “tape-shaped” is interpreted as being any shape, as tape is a flexible material which can form a variety of shapes. Such an assertion is supported by the Merriam Webster definition of tape being a narrow flexible strip or band. As the fixing bracket (cover) of Yamamoto is taught to be a thin plate (Paragraph 0021), the fixing bracket of Yamamoto is a thin band having a shape, as seen above in the annotated Figure, it is therefore considered to be tape-shaped, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
The element 35 represented in the annotated Figure of Yamamoto above is a heat dissipator, and there it is a heat dissipating element, as some material or part of it is an element that is capable of dissipating heat.
In the alternative, the Examiner presents that the connection holes (Figure 2, Element 36) are heat dissipation elements which are comprised in the heat dissipator.
Further, Yamamoto teaches the protection circuit module comprises field effect transistors (FET) (Paragraph 0019). As shown in the annotated Figure below, the heat dissipator is in line with the FETs, which is considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of the heat dissipator disposed on a position corresponding to a FET of the protection circuit module.
PNG
media_image2.png
836
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Yamamoto
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation element comprises a metal layer comprising aluminum (Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the protection circuit module comprises field effect transistors (FET) (Paragraph 0019), and wherein the heat dissipator covers the FETs, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
836
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Yamamoto
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipator contacts the fixing bracket, as shown in the annotate Figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
836
635
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Yamamoto
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo (Korean Patent Publication No. 20180103625) in view of Young (Korean Patent Publication No. 20090032613 A) and Niki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200366105 A1), as evidenced by the Merriam Webster definition of “tape”.
Regarding claim 1, Soo teaches a battery pack (Paragraph 0022) comprising:
a case (pouch) (Figure 1, Element 110) (Paragraph 0021);
an electrode assembly in the case, and comprising an electrode tab (first tab, second tab) (Figure 1, Elements 111 and 113) (Paragraphs 0021-0022);
a protection circuit module (Figure 1, Element 120) (a printed circuit board (PCB) on which the first tap plate and the second tap plate are mounted and a printed circuit module (PCM) is formed) (Paragraph 0021) connected to the electrode tab (Paragraphs 0025-0026);
a fixing bracket (protective case) (Figure 8, Element 850) at least partially surrounding the protection circuit module (Paragraph 0045), as seen in the annotated Figure below;
and a heat dissipator (cover tape) (Figure 8, Element 870) outside the fixing bracket. Soo teaches that the cover tape may be used as a means for improving thermal conductivity of the heat dissipation member (Paragraph 0059). As the cover tape of Soo is taught as being capable of diffusing heat, it is equated with the instant heat dissipator, meeting the claimed limitations.
Soo teaches a thermally conductive member, such a graphite sheet, formed integrally inside the cover tape to perform a heat spreading function (Paragraph 0059), meeting the instant claimed limitation of the heat dissipator (cover tape) comprising a heat dissipation element (thermal conductive member) (Figure 9a, Element 990)
PNG
media_image5.png
708
969
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Soo
As described above in the 112(b) rejection, being “tape-shaped” is interpreted as being any shape, as tape is a flexible material which can form a variety of shapes. Such an assertion is supported by the Merriam Webster definition of tape being a narrow flexible strip or band. As the fixing bracket Soo is a portion of material having a shape, as seen above in the annotated Figure, it is therefore considered to be tape-shaped, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Soo is silent as to the protection circuit module comprising a field effect transistor (FET) (see 112b interpretation above).
However, Young discloses a protection circuit unit for the secondary battery (Page 3) comprising a protection circuit and an active element. Young teaches the protection circuit is electrically connected to the active element to manage the overall state of the secondary battery, check the remaining battery capacity of the secondary battery, or select the appropriate charging method according to the charging and discharging state of the secondary battery to charge or discharge, and stores information such as voltage, current, temperature, and battery remaining on the state of the secondary battery. Young teaches the active element is a field effect transistor, which performed a charge/discharge management function in order to provide an electrical path for charging and discharging (Page 6).
Niki discloses a protection circuit for a battery to prevent current leakage and discharging of the battery (Abstract). Niki teaches that it is known in the art for the protection circuit to comprise a plurality of transistors, including a field effect transistor for charging and a field effect transistor for discharging (Paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection circuit module of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Young and Niki in which the protection circuit comprises and is electrically connected to a plurality of field effect transistors. Doing so would advantageously result in the ability to manage charge/discharge behavior of the battery as well as individually monitoring and controlling the charge and discharge paths of the battery, as recognized by Young and Niki.
The result of the modification of Soo in view of Young and Niki is a plurality of field effect transistors electrically connected to the protection circuit module. The ordinary artisan can imagine that to electrically connect the field effect transistors to the protection circuit, the field effect transistors would be provided on some surface of the protection circuit module. This is supported by Soo, who teaches that the heat dissipator (cover tape) used as a closing member of the battery to increase the integration with the battery pouch.
Thus, as described above and further illustrated below, the heat dissipator of Soo is taught to partially surround the protection circuit module. Therefore, it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan that the modification of Soo in view of Young and Niki to provide the field effect transistors (FETs) as part of the protection circuit module would necessarily result in the heat dissipation element disposed on a position corresponding to a FET of the protection circuit module (overlapping in a direction, see 112(b) interpretation set forth above), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
856
1961
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 8 and 9A of Soo
Regarding claim 2, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation element comprises a pair of elements respectively corresponding to an upper surface of the protection circuit module and to a lower surface of the protection circuit module, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image7.png
856
1521
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9A of Soo
Regarding claim 4, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the fixing bracket comprises:
a first fixing surface (side surface of the protective case) (Figure 8, Element 851) abutting an upper surface of the protection circuit module;
a second fixing surface (second surface of the protective case) (Figure 8, Element 853) extending downward from an end portion of the first fixing surface, and abutting a side surface of the protection circuit module (Paragraphs 0062-0063).
Soo teaches the shape of the protected case is not limited, and may include at least one other surface other than the first surface and the second surface. Soo teaches the protection circuit module as exemplified in Figure 5 may include a third surface (Figure 5, Element 550) extending from the second fixing surface (Paragraph 0046), meeting the instant claimed limitations of a third fixing surface extending toward the case from an end portion of the second fixing surface, and abutting a lower surface of the protection circuit module.
Soo teaches the heat dissipator comprises a first heat dissipation surface (first surface of the cover tape) (Figure 8, Element 871), a second heat dissipation surface (third surface of the cover tape) (Figure 8, Element 875), and a third heat dissipation surface (second surface of the cover tape) (Figure 8, Element 873), which respectively correspond to the first fixing surface, the second fixing surface, and the third fixing surface (Paragraph 0058).
The aforementioned claimed limitations taught by Soo are exemplified in the annotated Figure below:
PNG
media_image8.png
774
1404
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Soo
Regarding claim 5, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 4, wherein the heat dissipation element is at an interior of the first heat dissipation surface and is at an interior of the third heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image9.png
856
1311
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9A of Soo
Regarding claim 6, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 5, wherein the first heat dissipation surface comprises two ends contacting one surface of the first fixing surface, and define a first heat insulation space between the heat dissipation element and the first heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, Soon teaches a third fixing surface extends from the second fixing surface, which is added in the drawings below for the purposes of illustration. Soon teaches the third heat dissipation surface comprises two ends contacting one surface of the third fixing surface and define a second heat insulation space between the heat dissipation element and the third heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image10.png
856
1001
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9A of Soo
The instant specification does not define what is mean by “contact” and thus the Examiner has interpreted the claimed limitations to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, including thermal, physical, and or electrical contact. As the materials of the disclosure of Soo have some degree of conductivity, they are considered to be in thermal contact with each other, meeting the claimed limitations of both ends of the first heat dissipation surface contacting one surface of the first fixing surface and both ends of the third heat dissipation surface contacting one surface of the third fixing surface, defining a heat insulation space between the heat dissipation element the third heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure above. Additionally, the first heat dissipation surface may be considered to be in physical contact with one surface of the first fixing surface and the third heat dissipation surface in physical contact with the third fixing surface through intervening elements, further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 5, wherein the heat dissipation element is at an interior of the second heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image11.png
856
1123
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9A of Soo
Regarding claim 8, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Soo is silent as to the wherein the protection circuit module comprises field effect transistors (FET).
However, Young discloses a protection circuit unit for the secondary battery (Page 3) comprising a protection circuit and an active element. Young teaches the protection circuit is electrically connected to the active element to manage the overall state of the secondary battery, check the remaining battery capacity of the secondary battery, or select the appropriate charging method according to the charging and discharging state of the secondary battery to charge or discharge, and stores information such as voltage, current, temperature, and battery remaining on the state of the secondary battery. Young teaches the active element is a field effect transistor, which performed a charge/discharge management function in order to provide an electrical path for charging and discharging (Page 6).
Niki discloses a protection circuit for a battery to prevent current leakage and discharging of the battery (Abstract). Niki teaches that it is known in the art for the protection circuit to comprise a plurality of transistors, including a field effect transistor for charging and a field effect transistor for discharging (Paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection circuit module of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Young and Niki in which the protection circuit comprises and is electrically connected to a plurality of field effect transistors. Doing so would advantageously result in the ability to manage charge/discharge behavior of the battery as well as individually monitoring and controlling the charge and discharge paths of the battery, as recognized by Young and Niki.
Soo is silent as to the heat dissipator covering the FETs.
However, as discussed above, the result of the modification of Young in view of Niki is a plurality of field effect transistors electrically connected to the protection circuit module. The ordinary artisan can imagine that to electrically connect the field effect transistors to the protection circuit, the field effect transistors would be provided on some surface of the protection circuit module. This is supported by Soo, who teaches that the heat dissipator (cover tape) used as a closing member of the battery to increase the integration with the battery pouch.
Thus, as described above and further illustrated below, the heat dissipator of Soo is taught to partially surround the protection circuit module. Therefore, it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan that the modification of Soo in view of Young and Niki to provide the field effect transistors (FETs) as part of the protection circuit module would necessarily result in the coverage of the FETs by the heat dissipator as well, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
856
1961
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 8 and 9A of Soo
Regarding claim 9, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 8, wherein the FETs are inside the heat dissipator in a plan view, as shown in the annotated Figure above.
Regarding claim 10, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 9.
Soo is silent as to the area of the heat dissipator is greater than a sum of areas of the FETs.
However, Soo teaches in some embodiments, the heat dissipating member is provided with an area larger than the area of the printed circuit board in order to increase the area exposed to the outside (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, in the modification of Soo by Young and Niki discussed above to incorporate a plurality of field effect transistors onto the protective circuit module, the ordinary artisan would recognize that because the field effect transistors comprise a portion of the protective circuit module, and the heat dissipating member of Soo has an area larger than the area of the protective circuit module, then the area of the heat dissipating member is necessarily larger than a sum of areas of the FETs.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide the area of the heat dissipator to be greater than a sum of the areas of the FETs in order to increase the area exposed to the outside in order to provide more effective heat dissipation, as recognized by Soo.
Regarding claim 13, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
The instant specification does not define what is mean by “contact” and thus the Examiner has interpreted the claimed limitations to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, including thermal, physical, and or electrical contact. As the materials of the disclosure of Soo have some degree of conductivity, they are considered to be in thermal contact with each other, meeting the claimed limitations the heat dissipator contacting the fixing bracket. Additionally, the heat dissipator may be considered to be in physical contact with the first fixing bracket through intervening elements, further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
However, additionally, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, Soon teaches a third fixing surface extends from the second fixing surface, which is indicated in the drawings below. Thus, the ordinary artisan can imagine that when the parts are assembled as illustrated in Figure 8 of Soo shown below, the second heat dissipation surface would directly contact the second fixing surface and the third heat dissipation surface would directly contact the third fixing surface, further meeting the claimed limitations of the heat dissipator contacting the fixing bracket.
PNG
media_image12.png
725
1102
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Soo
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo in view of Young and Niki as applied to claims 1-2, 4-10, 13 above, and further in view of Haskell (Non-Patent Literature “Thermal Resistance Comparison of Graphite Foam, Aluminum, and Copper Heat Sinks”).
Regarding claim 3, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
As discussed above, Soo teaches the heat dissipation element (thermal conductive member) formed on the inside of cover tape to perform a heat spread function, the heat dissipation element comprised of a conductive material such as graphite (Paragraph 0059).
Soo is silent as to the heat dissipation element comprising a metal layer comprising aluminum.
However, Haskell discloses a plurality of materials for cooling used in heat sink applications (Pages 2-3), and compares the thermal performance of copper, aluminum, and graphite (Page 3). Haskell teaches that graphite has drawbacks as a heat sink in mainstream electronics applications (Page 6), with aluminum having a higher thermal performance at both low and high flow rates tested (Page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite heat dissipation element of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Haskell in which the heat dissipation element is made of aluminum instead of graphite. Doing so would advantageously result in improved thermal performance, as recognized by Haskell.
Claim 3 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo in view of Young and Niki as applied to claims 1-2, 4-10, 13 above, further in view of Oh (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240204302 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
As discussed above, Soo teaches the heat dissipation element (thermal conductive member) formed on the inside of cover tape to perform a heat spread function, the heat dissipation element comprised of a conductive material such as graphite (Paragraph 0059).
Soo is silent as to the heat dissipation element comprising a metal layer comprising aluminum.
However, Oh discloses a battery pack including heat radiation structure for a protection circuit module that uses heat radiation tape having heat conductivity in order to dissipate heat generated from the protective circuit module (Abstract). Oh teaches the heat radiation tape may comprise graphite or aluminum (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, given the general teachings of Oh it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the aluminum material of the heat dissipation element of Oh for the graphite material of the heat dissipation element of Soo because Oh teaches that the material for heat dissipation may suitably be selected as graphite or aluminum. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified element would be useful as a heat dissipation element in the heat dissipator of the device of Oh and possess the benefits of high heat conductivity taught by Oh (Paragraph 0040). See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo in view of Young (cited above, Korean Patent Publication No. 20090032613 A) and Niki (cited above, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200366105 A1), as evidenced by the Merriam Webster definition of “tape”.
An additional interpretation of the prior art of Soo with respect to the heat dissipation element is presented below:
Regarding claim 1, Soo teaches a battery pack (Paragraph 0022) comprising:
a case (pouch) (Figure 1, Element 110) (Paragraph 0021);
an electrode assembly in the case, and comprising an electrode tab (first tab, second tab) (Figure 1, Elements 111 and 113) (Paragraphs 0021-0022);
a protection circuit module (Figure 1, Element 120) (a printed circuit board (PCB) on which the first tap plate and the second tap plate are mounted and a printed circuit module (PCM) is formed) (Paragraph 0021) connected to the electrode tab (Paragraphs 0025-0026);
a fixing bracket (protective case) (Figure 8, Element 850) at least partially surrounding the protection circuit module (Paragraph 0045), as seen in the annotated Figure below;
and a heat dissipator (cover tape) (Figure 8, Element 870) outside the fixing bracket and comprising a heat dissipation element (heat radiation member) (Figure 8, Element 830) (Paragraphs 0059-0060).
Soo teaches that the cover tape may be used as a means for improving thermal conductivity of the heat dissipation member, and may include an integrated thermal conductive member to perform a function of spreading heat (Paragraph 0059). As the cover tape of Soo is taught as being capable of diffusing heat, it is equated with the instant heat dissipator, meeting the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image5.png
708
969
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Soo
As described above in the 112(b) rejection, being “tape-shaped” is interpreted as being any shape, as tape is a flexible material which can form a variety of shapes. Such an assertion is supported by the Merriam Webster definition of tape being a narrow flexible strip or band. As the fixing bracket Soo is a portion of material having a shape, as seen above in the annotated Figure, it is therefore considered to be tape-shaped, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Soo is silent as to the protection circuit module comprising a field effect transistor (FET) (see 112b interpretation above).
However, Young discloses a protection circuit unit for the secondary battery (Page 3) comprising a protection circuit and an active element. Young teaches the protection circuit is electrically connected to the active element to manage the overall state of the secondary battery, check the remaining battery capacity of the secondary battery, or select the appropriate charging method according to the charging and discharging state of the secondary battery to charge or discharge, and stores information such as voltage, current, temperature, and battery remaining on the state of the secondary battery. Young teaches the active element is a field effect transistor, which performed a charge/discharge management function in order to provide an electrical path for charging and discharging (Page 6).
Niki discloses a protection circuit for a battery to prevent current leakage and discharging of the battery (Abstract). Niki teaches that it is known in the art for the protection circuit to comprise a plurality of transistors, including a field effect transistor for charging and a field effect transistor for discharging (Paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection circuit module of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Young and Niki in which the protection circuit comprises and is electrically connected to a plurality of field effect transistors. Doing so would advantageously result in the ability to manage charge/discharge behavior of the battery as well as individually monitoring and controlling the charge and discharge paths of the battery, as recognized by Young and Niki.
The result of the modification of Soo in view of Young and Niki is a plurality of field effect transistors electrically connected to the protection circuit module. The ordinary artisan can imagine that to electrically connect the field effect transistors to the protection circuit, the field effect transistors would be provided on some surface of the protection circuit module. This is supported by Soo, who teaches that the heat dissipator (cover tape) used as a closing member of the battery to increase the integration with the battery pouch.
Thus, as described above and further illustrated below, the heat dissipator of Soo is taught to partially surround the protection circuit module. Therefore, it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan that the modification of Soo in view of Young and Niki to provide the field effect transistors (FETs) as part of the protection circuit module would necessarily result in the heat dissipation element disposed on a position corresponding to a FET of the protection circuit module (overlapping in a direction, see 112(b) interpretation above), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
856
1961
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 8 and 9A of Soo
Regarding claim 2, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Soo is silent as to the heat dissipation element comprising a pair of elements.
As discussed above, Soo teaches a heat dissipation element (heat radiating member) (Figure 8, Element 830) (Paragraph 0060) so that heat generated from the printed circuit board can be transmitted (Paragraph 0027). Soo teaches the heat dissipation element as seen in Figure 8 is placed on the first surface of the protective case (first fixing surface) (Paragraph 0062).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a second heat dissipation element in order to provide additional heat transfer capabilities to improve cooling of the protective circuit. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
As a result of the duplication of parts described above, Soo teaches the heat dissipation element comprises a pair of elements.
Soo is silent as to the pair of heat dissipation elements corresponding to an upper surface of the protection circuit module, and to a lower surface of the protection circuit module.
Soo teaches that the heat dissipator (cover tape) covers both the heat radiation member and the fixing bracket (protective case). Thus, the ordinary artisan would recognize two possible options to provide a second heat dissipation element to be located in order to be covered by the protective case as described above: the third surface of the protective case or the second surface of the protective case.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select the third surface of the protective case from the finite lists of possible combinations for possible locations to dispose the second heat dissipation element to arrive at the pair of heat dissipation element of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a structure to dissipate heat from the protective circuit module to provide better cooling, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Thus, Soo teaches the heat dissipation element comprises a pair of elements respectively corresponding to an upper surface of the protection circuit module and to a lower surface of the protection circuit module, as illustrated in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image13.png
803
1511
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Soo
Regarding claim 4, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the fixing bracket comprises:
a first fixing surface (side surface of the protective case) (Figure 8, Element 851) abutting an upper surface of the protection circuit module;
a second fixing surface (second surface of the protective case) (Figure 8, Element 853) extending downward from an end portion of the first fixing surface, and abutting a side surface of the protection circuit module (Paragraphs 0062-0063).
Soo teaches the shape of the protected case is not limited, and may include at least one other surface other than the first surface and the second surface. Soo teaches the protection circuit module as exemplified in Figure 5 may include a third surface (Figure 5, Element 550) extending from the second fixing surface (Paragraph 0046), meeting the instant claimed limitations of a third fixing surface extending toward the case from an end portion of the second fixing surface, and abutting a lower surface of the protection circuit module.
Soo teaches the heat dissipator comprises a first heat dissipation surface (first surface of the cover tape) (Figure 8, Element 871), a second heat dissipation surface (third surface of the cover tape) (Figure 8, Element 875), and a third heat dissipation surface (second surface of the cover tape) (Figure 8, Element 873), which respectively correspond to the first fixing surface, the second fixing surface, and the third fixing surface (Paragraph 0058).
The aforementioned claimed limitations taught by Soo are exemplified in the annotated Figure below:
PNG
media_image8.png
774
1404
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Soo
Regarding claim 5, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 4.
As described above, Soo teaches the heat dissipator (cover tape) covers heat dissipating member (Paragraph 0060). Further described above in the rejection of claim 2, the heat dissipator was a pair of elements, with the first heat dissipator provided on the first fixing surface and the second heat dissipator provided on the third fixing surface.
Thus, according to the teachings of Soo, the ordinary artisan can imagine that when the elements as shown in Figure 8 are assembled, the heat dissipator is the outermost surface and thus sandwiches the heat dissipating element between the fixing bracket and the surface of the heat dissipator.
Thus, Soo teaches the claimed limitations of the heat dissipation element at an interior of the first heat dissipation surface, and is at an interior of the third heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image14.png
803
1174
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Soon
Regarding claim 6, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 5, wherein the first heat dissipation surface comprises two ends contacting one surface of the first fixing surface, and define a first heat insulation space between the heat dissipation element and the first heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, Soon teaches a third fixing surface extends from the second fixing surface, which is added in the drawings below for the purposes of illustration. Soon teaches the third heat dissipation surface comprises two ends contacting one surface of the third fixing surface and define a second heat insulation space between the heat dissipation element and the third heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image15.png
856
1001
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9A of Soo
Further, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, Soon teaches a second heat dissipation element corresponding to the third heat dissipation surface, which is added in the drawings below for the purposes of illustration
The instant specification does not define what is mean by “contact” and thus the Examiner has interpreted the claimed limitations to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, including thermal, physical, and or electrical contact. As the materials of the disclosure of Soo have some degree of conductivity, they are considered to be in thermal contact with each other, meeting the claimed limitations of both ends of the first heat dissipation surface contacting one surface of the first fixing surface and both ends of the third heat dissipation surface contacting one surface of the third fixing surface, defining a heat insulation space between the heat dissipation element the third heat dissipation surface, as shown in the annotated Figure above.
Additionally, the first heat dissipation surface may be considered to be in physical contact with one surface of the first fixing surface and the third heat dissipation surface in physical contact with the third fixing surface through intervening elements, further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
In the alternative, the heat insulation space is interpreted as the air gaps formed as a result of the first and second openings (Figure 8, Elements 831, 833) of the heat dissipation elements which define a heat insulation space between the heat dissipation element the first heat dissipation surface and a heat insulation space between the heat dissipation element the third heat dissipation surface.
Regarding claim 7, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 5.
Soo is silent as to the heat dissipation element is at an interior of the second heat dissipation surface.
However, as discussed above, Soo teaches a heat dissipation element (heat radiating member) (Figure 8, Element 830) (Paragraph 0060) so that heat generated from the printed circuit board can be transmitted (Paragraph 0027). Soo teaches the heat dissipation element as seen in Figure 8 is placed on the first surface of the protective case (first fixing surface) (Paragraph 0062).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an additional heat dissipation element in order to provide additional heat transfer capabilities to improve cooling of the protective circuit. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Soo teaches that the heat dissipator (cover tape) covers both the heat radiation member and the fixing bracket (protective case). Thus, the ordinary artisan would recognize two possible options to provide a second heat dissipation element to be located in order to be covered by the protective case as described above: the third surface of the protective case or the second surface of the protective case.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select the second surface of the protective case from the finite lists of possible combinations for possible locations to dispose an additional heat dissipation element to arrive at the heat dissipation element of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a structure to dissipate heat from the protective circuit module to provide better cooling, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Regarding claim 8, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Soo is silent as to the wherein the protection circuit module comprises field effect transistors (FET).
However, Young discloses a protection circuit unit for the secondary battery (Page 3) comprising a protection circuit and an active element. Young teaches the protection circuit is electrically connected to the active element to manage the overall state of the secondary battery, check the remaining battery capacity of the secondary battery, or select the appropriate charging method according to the charging and discharging state of the secondary battery to charge or discharge, and stores information such as voltage, current, temperature, and battery remaining on the state of the secondary battery. Young teaches the active element is a field effect transistor, which performed a charge/discharge management function in order to provide an electrical path for charging and discharging (Page 6).
Niki discloses a protection circuit for a battery to prevent current leakage and discharging of the battery (Abstract). Niki teaches that it is known in the art for the protection circuit to comprise a plurality of transistors, including a field effect transistor for charging and a field effect transistor for discharging (Paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection circuit module of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Young and Niki in which the protection circuit comprises and is electrically connected to a plurality of field effect transistors. Doing so would advantageously result in the ability to manage charge/discharge behavior of the battery as well as individually monitoring and controlling the charge and discharge paths of the battery, as recognized by Young and Niki.
Soo is silent as to the heat dissipator covering the FETs.
However, as discussed above, the result of the modification of Young in view of Niki is a plurality of field effect transistors electrically connected to the protection circuit module. The ordinary artisan can imagine that to electrically connect the field effect transistors to the protection circuit, the field effect transistors would be provided on some surface of the protection circuit module. This is supported by Soo, who teaches that the heat dissipator (cover tape) used as a closing member of the battery to increase the integration with the battery pouch.
Thus, as described above and further illustrated below, the heat dissipator of Soo is taught to partially surround the protection circuit module. Therefore, it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan that the modification of Soo in view of Young and Niki to provide the field effect transistors (FETs) as part of the protection circuit module would necessarily result the coverage of the FETs by the heat dissipator as well, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
856
1961
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 8 and 9A of Soo
Regarding claim 9, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 8, wherein the FETs are inside the heat dissipator in a plan view, as shown in the annotated Figure above.
Regarding claim 10, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 9.
Soo is silent as to the area of the heat dissipator is greater than a sum of areas of the FETs.
However, Soo teaches in some embodiments, the heat dissipating member is provided with an area larger than the area of the printed circuit board in order to increase the area exposed to the outside (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, in the modification of Soo by Young and Niki discussed above to incorporate a plurality of field effect transistors onto the protective circuit module, the ordinary artisan would recognize that because the field effect transistors comprise a portion of the protective circuit module, and the heat dissipating member of Soo has an area larger than the area of the protective circuit module, then the area of the heat dissipating member is necessarily larger than a sum of areas of the FETs.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide the area of the heat dissipator to be greater than a sum of the areas of the FETs in order to increase the area exposed to the outside in order to provide more effective heat dissipation, as recognized by Soo.
Regarding claim 13, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipator contacts the fixing bracket (Paragraph 0067), as seen in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image16.png
856
993
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9A of Soo
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the alternative interpretation of Soo in view of Young and Niki as applied to claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13 above, and further in view of Haskell (Non-Patent Literature “Thermal Resistance Comparison of Graphite Foam, Aluminum, and Copper Heat Sinks”).
Regarding claim 3, Soo teaches the battery pack of claim 1.
Soo is silent as to the heat dissipation element comprising a metal layer comprising aluminum.
However, Haskell discloses a plurality of materials for cooling used in heat sink applications (Pages 2-3), and compares the thermal performance of copper, aluminum, and graphite (Page 3). Haskell teaches that graphite has drawbacks as a heat sink in mainstream electronics applications (Page 6), with aluminum having a higher thermal performance at both low and high flow rates tested (Page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite heat dissipation element of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Haskell in which the heat dissipation element is made of aluminum instead of graphite. Doing so would advantageously result in improved thermal performance, as recognized by Haskell.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed July 28th, 2026, applicant argues that it appears that the references, whether taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose the newly amended features now recited in amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that an updated rejection of claim 1, including the instant amended limitations, has been present in the rejection above. Therefore, each and every limitation of the instant claim is taught by the prior art of record.
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 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights