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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Fig. 2 it is difficult to make out what structure reference numbers 140 and 162 are directed towards. As best understood, these reference numbers appear directed towards the same structure.
In Fig. 3 it is difficult to make out what structure reference numbers 111 and 112 are directed towards. As best understood, these reference numbers appear directed towards the same structure.
In Fig. 3, it appears that reference numbers 123 and 123a are directed towards the same structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-6 is 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the cooling pad comprises a plurality of cooling pads attached to the two long surfaces of the can, respectively”. In view of Claim 1, which has been amended to indicate that the cooling pad has “a first surface facing the electrode assembly and a second surface opposite the first surface and adhered to an inner surface of the can through a first adhesive”, Claim 5 becomes unclear. Specifically, each cooling pad is understood to have its own distinct “first surface” and “second surface” as evidenced by instant Fig. 3 and [0044]. Therefore, it is unclear in Claim 5 whether the first surface and the second surface of Claim 1 should be interpreted to include multiple surfaces which are separate from one another (e.g. the first surface should be interpreted as the combination of the first surfaces of each of the plurality of cooling pads), or whether the first surface and the second surface should be interpreted as referring to one of the multiple cooling pads of Claim 5. As such, Claim 5 and dependent Claim 6 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the second interpretation will be applied to the claims, since it is generally understood that “a first surface” and “a second surface” each refer to one surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 3-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200343604-A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20110117404-A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US-20240014489-A1) and in further view of Miyatake (US-20120234613-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a secondary battery [0007-0008, 0029-0032] comprising:
an electrode assembly (not illustrated; [0033]) including a first electrode plate (negative electrode plate; [0034]) and a second electrode plate (positive electrode plate; [0034]).
Lee discloses that the positive electrode plates and the negative electrode plates may be provided with electrode tabs, respectively [0036]. The electrode assembly of Lee is not illustrated [0033], and therefore Lee does not teach that the electrode tabs are “exposed on opposite sides, respectively”.
Ahn teaches a similar electrode assembly comprising a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate which each include a respective electrode tab (144, 115, Fig. 1) [0026-0030]. The first electrode tab and the second electrode tab extend in opposite directions [0030], and are exposed on opposite sides (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the electrode tabs of Lee as taught by Ahn with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrode assembly. Accordingly, Lee renders obvious a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate which are “exposed on opposite sides, respectively” (i.e. the electrode tabs, which are interpreted as being a part of the respective plate, are exposed on opposite sides of the electrode assembly). Here, “exposed” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as “not shielded or protected”, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Lee further discloses (see annotation of Lee Fig. 2, below):
a can (corresponds to the combination of first plate 50 and second plate 40; see Fig. 1) to accommodate the electrode assembly [0071-0072, 0075-0079], and having opposite open sides (see Fig. 1; [0079]);
a first terminal (corresponds to electrode lead 15) electrically coupled to the first electrode plate of the electrode assembly (i.e. connected to the electrode tab of the first electrode plate; [0036-0038]);
a first cap plate (corresponds to one of the insulating covers 70, Fig. 1) to seal one of the open sides of the can [0031, 0092-0095] and externally expose the first terminal [0095];
a second terminal (corresponds to the electrode lead 15 protruding in the opposite direction) electrically coupled to the second electrode plate of the electrode assembly (i.e. connected to the electrode tab of the second electrode plate; [0036-0038]);
and a second cap plate (corresponds to the other of the insulating covers 70, Fig. 1) to seal the other of the open sides of the can [0031, 0092-0095], and externally expose the second terminal [0095], wherein
the can comprises a cooling pad (heat transfer member 90) having a first surface facing the electrode assembly, and a second surface opposite to the first surface (see annotation of Lee Fig. 2, below; [0014-0015, 0051-0052, 0083-0084]).
PNG
media_image1.png
950
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Lee Fig. 2.
Lee discloses that the cooling pad (heat transfer member) is placed between the battery cells and the can in order to transfer heat to the can [0082-0083]. The cooling pad can be disposed in a pad shape on an internal surface of the can [0084]. Lee does not teach that the second surface of the cooling pad is adhered to an inner surface of the can through a first adhesive.
Kim teaches that an adhesive can be placed between an insulating sheet (500, Fig. 2) and an upper plate (300, Fig. 2) of the module housing in order to adhere the insulating sheet to the cover, thereby preventing it from being displaced or detached [0064-0066]. The insulating sheet is directly adjacent to the upper cover (see Fig. 2), and therefore corresponds to the cooling pad of Lee.
Additionally, Miyatake teaches that a thermally conductive adhesive can be used to bond heat transfer plates to the wall plates of the battery module [0055, 0093-0094]. Advantageously, such a configuration fills any minute gaps between the heat transfer plates and the wall plates with thermally conductive adhesive, thereby enhancing the heat transfer rate between the heat transfer plates and the wall plates and improving cooling efficiency [0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have bonded the second surface of the cooling plate of modified Lee to an inner surface of the can using a first adhesive (i.e. thermally conductive adhesive) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful secondary battery capable of preventing the cooling pad from being displaced and enhancing the heat transfer rate between the cooling pad and the can.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Lee further discloses that the can comprises (see annotation of Lee Fig. 2, below):
a rectangular upper surface extending in a longitudinal direction (corresponds to one of side covers 60, Fig. 2);
a lower surface opposite to the upper surface (corresponds to the other of the side covers 60, Fig. 2), extending in the longitudinal direction, and having the same shape as that of the upper surface; and
two long side surfaces (corresponds to lower plate 52 and second plate 40, Fig. 2) connecting long sides of the upper surface and the lower surface to each other [0081, 0092].
PNG
media_image2.png
458
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Lee Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Lee further discloses that the can has a rectangular parallelepiped shape (see Figs. 1-2), and the upper surface, the lower surface, and the two long side surfaces of the can are integrated together (i.e. the surfaces are bonded through fixing members; [0081, 0092]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Lee further discloses that the cooling pad comprises a plurality of cooling pads (see 90 in Fig. 2; [0082, 0088]). Although modified Lee does not explicitly teach that the plurality of cooling pads are “attached to the two long side surfaces of the can”, such a configuration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since modified Lee renders obvious attaching a cooling pad to a respective inner surface of the can via a thermally conductive adhesive, thereby preventing the cooling pad from being displaced and improving cooling efficiency (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided a first adhesive (i.e. thermally conductive adhesive) between each cooling pad and each respective inner surface of the can. Since the cooling pads are disposed on the two long side surface of the can, modified Lee thereby renders obvious “a plurality of cooling pads attached to the two long side surfaces of the can, respectively”.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the first electrode plate is a negative electrode plate (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [Lee: 0034]). The first electrode plate includes an electrode tab which is exposed at an outermost side (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [Ahn: 0026, 0031]). Therefore, the first electrode plate is interpreted as being located at “an outermost side”. Here, an “outermost side” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as the side from which the negative electrode tab and the negative electrode lead protrude.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200343604-A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20110117404-A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US-20240014489-A1) and in further view of Miyatake (US-20120234613-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Yun et al. (US-20200411924-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses that the can (combination of first plate 50 and second plate 40) may be made of a material having relatively high thermal conductivity such as a metal [0078, 0080]. Although Lee discloses aluminum as a specific example of a suitable metal, Lee notes that various materials may be used [0078, 0080]. Modified Lee does not teach that the can comprises stainless steel.
Yun teaches a similar secondary battery including a module case which houses an electrode assembly [0057-0058]. Yun teaches that the module case is made of a thermally conductive material such as SUS or aluminum-based materials [0053]. The Examiner notes that this establishes SUS (i.e. stainless steel) as a suitable thermally conductive metal for a module housing and a substitutable alternative to aluminum (MPEP 2144.06, II; MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected stainless steel as the material of the can of modified Lee with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful secondary battery (MPEP 2144.06, II; MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200343604-A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20110117404-A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US-20240014489-A1) and in further view of Miyatake (US-20120234613-A1) as applied to Claim 5, above, and in further view of Park et al. (WO-2021261702-A1; see English equivalent US-20230187725-A1 for citations).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses that the cooling pad can be positioned in various places within the secondary battery [0082, 0084, 0088, 0107]. Lee also discloses that various modifications can be made to the prior art disclosure [0110]. Modified Lee does not explicitly teach that a longitudinal length of each of the cooling pads is smaller than that of the electrode assembly.
Park teaches that it is known in the prior art to transfer heat generated in a battery cell stack to the outside of a battery module via a thermally conductive resin layer coated on an inner side of a bottom surface of the lower frame [0007] (MPEP 2123). Park teaches that the thermally conductive resin layer (31, Fig. 1) has a smaller longitudinal length (i.e. in the X-direction, Fig. 1) than the battery cells (11, Fig. 1) (MPEP 2125, I).
One of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided each of the cooling pads of modified Lee such that a longitudinal length of each cooling pad is smaller than that of the electrode assembly with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful secondary battery, since Park teaches that such a configuration is known in the prior art, and because normally a change in size or shape requires only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A-B).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200343604-A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20110117404-A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US-20240014489-A1) and in further view of Miyatake (US-20120234613-A1), as applied to Claim 3, above, and in further view of Landerer et al. (US-20160322679-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the cooling pad (heat transfer member) is attached to the can through a first adhesive (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Lee discloses that the cooling pad is placed between the battery cells and the can in order to transfer heat to the can [0082-0083, 0108]. Modified Lee further renders obvious that filling any minute gaps between the cooling pad and the can with thermally conductive adhesive enhances the heat transfer rate and improves cooling efficiency (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [Miyatake: 0094]). Although modified Lee does not explicitly teach that “the cooling pad is attached to the electrode assembly through a second adhesive on a surface of the cooling pad facing the electrode assembly”, such a configuration would have been obvious in light of the teachings of Miyatake and Landerer.
Specifically, Miyatake teaches that filling any minute gaps between two surfaces enhances the heat transfer rate and improves cooling efficiency [0094]. Additionally, Landerer teaches that it is known in the art to place an adhesive between a cooling plate and an energy storage module in order to eliminate air gaps and promote uniform heat transfer [0011, 0013, 0016-0017, 0049-0051, 0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have also provided the thermally conductive adhesive taught by Miyatake between the cooling pad and the electrode assembly of modified Lee with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful secondary battery wherein any small gaps between the electrode assembly and the cooling pad are filled, thereby enhancing the heat transfer rate and improving cooling efficiency of the secondary battery. The thermally conductive adhesive between the cooling pad and the electrode assembly reads on the recited limitation of a “second adhesive”.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200343604-A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20110117404-A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US-20240014489-A1) and in view of Miyatake (US-20120234613-A1) and in further view of Landerer et al. (US-2016322679-A1) as applied to Claim 7, above, and in view of Yun et al. (US-20200411924-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the first and second adhesives comprise a heat transfer material (i.e. the adhesives are thermally conductive; [Miyatake: 0094]).
Although modified Lee does not explicitly teach that the first and second adhesives comprise an “insulating” heat transfer material, Yun teaches that a thermal resin such as a thermally conductive silicon-based bond, a thermally conductive acrylic bond and a thermally conductive polyurethane bond may be suitably used as a thermally conductive adhesive in a battery module [0063-0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the first and second adhesives to comprise a thermal resin as taught by Yun with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful secondary battery. The thermally conductive resins rendered obvious by modified Lee (i.e. a thermally conductive silicon-based resin, a thermally conductive acrylic resin, or a thermally conductive polyurethane resin) are understood to inherently provide some degree of electrical insulation, thereby reading on first and second adhesives which comprise “an insulating heat transfer material”.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200343604-A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20110117404-A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US-20240014489-A1) and in further view of Miyatake (US-20120234613-A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Fogaing et al. (US-20050026014-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Lee teaches that the cooling pad (heat transfer member 90) is made of a material having relatively high thermal conductivity, and indicates that the material of the cooling pad is not limited [0083].
Fogaing teaches heat sink pads which are formed of electrically resistant and thermally conductive material [0036]. For example, a suitable material is a silicone elastomer comprising a thermally conductive ceramic filler such as boron nitride [0036]. Advantageously, such a material is compressible, and conforms to increase contact area [0036]. Additionally, it can provide dampening for the electrochemical cells against vibration or mechanical shocks transferred from the housing [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the cooling pad of modified Lee to be formed of a silicone elastomer comprising boron nitride with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful cooling pad capable of transferring heat from the battery cells and protecting the cells from mechanical shock or vibration. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20200343604-A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20110117404-A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US-20240014489-A1) and in further view of Miyatake (US-20120234613-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Bell et al. (US-20230246288-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Lee discloses that if an internal temperature of a battery module rises rapidly, the lifespan of the battery may be decreased and, in the worst case, ignition or explosion may occur [0005]. Modified Lee does not teach that the can comprises a safety vent.
Bell teaches a battery module including a housing [0027-0028, 0109-0110]. The housing includes a pressure release vent that is designed to rupture in the event that a pressure within the battery module exceeds a threshold pressure [0030, 0109]. Advantageously, such a configuration allows internal pressure from the battery module to be safely discharged at a designated location, thereby avoiding explosions that may damage components surrounding the battery module and other harmful effects [0030, 0109]. Bell teaches that the pressure release vent may include thinned sections that are designed to break, rip, or otherwise fail first [0108, 0110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the can of modified Lee with a pressure release vent (corresponds to safety vent) with a smaller thicknesses than other regions of the can as taught by Bell with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful secondary battery capable of safely discharging internal pressure. Since a “lower surface” is a relative term (i.e. any surface could be considered the “lower surface” depending on how the battery is positioned), by providing a safety vent on any surface of the can, modified Lee renders obvious the limitation “wherein the can comprises a safety vent on a lower surface of the can and the safety vent has a smaller thickness than other regions of the can”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the objection to the drawings, Applicant has indicated that cleaner versions of Figs. 2 and 3 have been submitted with to amendments made thereto (Remarks, Pg, 6). The Examiner notes that the newly submitted drawings do not resolve the noted objections (see above), and therefore the objections to the drawings are maintained.
Applicant has argued that the cited prior art of the Non-Final Office action (mailed 04/15/2026) fails to teach the newly added limitation, since Miyatake only teaches providing the thermally conductive adhesive between ends of the heat transfer plates and the wall plates (Remarks, Pgs. 7-9). Based on the teachings of Miyatake, Applicant has argued that the thermally conductive adhesives would merely be applied to ends of the heat transfer members 90 to prevent sliding of the heat transfer member 90 at the contact point with the side plate 58 (Remarks, Pg. 9). Applicant has argued that the teaching reference Landerer teaches a heat-conducting layer which is attached to an external surface of the energy storage module 12, rather than to “a second surface opposite the first surface” as recited in Claim 1 (Remarks, Pg. 10).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. Although the Examiner disagrees that one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of Miyatake, would only think to place adhesive at the ends the cooling pad between the cooling pad and sidewalls, to expedite prosecution Kim is newly cited. Kim teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed an adhesive between a second surface of the cooling pad and an inner surface of the can (see rejection of Claim 1), thereby rendering obvious the newly added limitation.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights