DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-06-12, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 2 have been amended; Claim 3 has been added.
Claims 1-3 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2020-0155367 to Watanabe et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Lee (US 2021/0184303 to Lee et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe teaches:
a battery pack comprising a plurality of power storage modules disposed side by side along a first direction orthogonal to a vertical direction (abstract, Figs.)
a housing case that includes an upper case 21 and a lower case 22 that houses the battery modules (¶ 0033-0035, Fig. 7)
PNG
media_image1.png
282
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plate 51 disposed above the battery modules in the housing case (Fig. 7)
a shielding plate 52 having a vertical wall portion disposed between battery modules, and a top portion, the top portion being fixed to the plate 51 (Fig. 7, ¶ 0055)
the plate 51 is disposed above the shielding plate 51, neither being in contact with the battery modules (Fig. 7)
Watanabe does not explicitly teach:
a heat conduction member fixed to the lower case and disposed between the shielding plate and the lower case
Lee, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack housing with a shielding plate 155 disposed between adjacent battery modules (Fig. 4, ¶ 0074), teaches a buffer pad 127 disposed between the shielding plate 155 and the module housing (¶ 0057), as well as thermal transfer members TA, including TA2, that can be thermally conductive adhesive or buffer pads (¶ 0124) between the lower part of the housing and the shielding plate 155.
PNG
media_image2.png
836
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee also makes clear that the partition member is designed to transfer heat through the joint(s) connecting it to the housing member(s), and wherein “bonding” is a conventionally known option for connecting the partition to the housing (¶ 0134, 0072-0076). Moreover, the discussion of “bonding” in Lee at every other interface encompasses adhesive bonding, as was conventional in the art. It would have been obvious to provide a thermally conductive adhesive between the partition members and the lower housing in order to improve the heat transfer between the two members, as suggested by Lee. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A thermally conductive adhesive at the joint between the two members reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a heat conduction member [that] is fixed to the lower case and disposed between the shielding plate and the lower case.”
Regarding Claim 2, Lee renders obvious:
a thermally conductive adhesive at the joint between the shielding/partition plate and the lower housing, which would have a lower rigidity than the shielding plate, and would be compressed in the vertical direction, and would fix the shielding plate to the lower case in a horizontal direction by a reaction force of the adhesive
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe teaches:
each battery module has at least one “cell,” comprising a cathode, anode, and separator housed therein, and the plurality of battery modules are disposed side by side along the first direction (Figs).
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-06-12 do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the amendments the rejects have been altered to rely on Watanabe in view of Lee, which renders obvious the use of thermally conductive adhesive at joints between conventional partition walls and lower housings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights