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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 18/475,550 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 06/17/2026. Claims 1-12 are under examination.
Withdrawn Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s), specification, and/or drawing(s) filed 06/17/20256 is acknowledged and the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/17/2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous prior art rejection of record, however, the arguments/amendments do not overcome the prior art for the reasons set forth below.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Lee discloses only a single partition member. However, Lee discloses that the module housing may include a plurality of partition members arranged at intervals, with battery cells positioned between adjacent partition members or between a partition member and a side plate (see e.g. paragraph [0076] of Lee). Lee’s disclosure that the partition members improve rigidity does not teach away from providing insulation on the surfaces of those members.
Furthermore, in light of the amendments a new search was conducted and new prior art identified that renders Applicant’s arguments/amendments regarding the absence of the claimed spray coating in Lee, Chung, Honda, and Glaspie moot. Amended claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 Lee in view of Ma et al. (US-20210159469-A1) and further in view of Fuhr et al. (US-20110244286-A1). Chung, Honda, and Glaspie are relied upon only for the additional limitations of the respective dependent claims. See claims 1-12 rejections below.
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, 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20210184303-A1) in view of Ma et al. (US-20210159469-A1) and further in view of Fuhr et al. (US-20110244286-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a battery box (see e.g. “battery module 100” in paragraph [0059] and part number 100 in FIG. 2), comprising:
a metal frame (see e.g. part numbers 160 and 170 in FIG. 2 and "Similarly to the first plate 160, the second plate 170 may be formed of a material having high thermal conductivity such as a metal. " in paragraph [0068]), a plurality of accommodating cavities for accommodating cells being formed in the metal frame (see e.g. the open spaces in FIG. 9 and part number 110 in FIG. 2), the plurality of accommodating cavities being arranged at intervals (see e.g. “a plurality of partition members 155 may be disposed to be spaced apart from each other, and a plurality of battery cells 120 may be stacked between the partition members 155 or between the partition member 155 and the side plate 165” in paragraph [0076]),
wherein the metal frame further includes:
a housing having an upper side plate and a lower side plate arranged in parallel (see e.g. “lower plate 161” in paragraph [0063], “second plate 170 (or an upper plate)” in paragraph [0067], and part numbers 161 and 170 in FIGS. 4 and 9); and
a plurality of partition plates arranged in the housing, between the upper side plate and the lower side plate, to divide an internal space of the housing into the plurality of accommodating cavities for battery cells (see e.g. “partition member 155” in paragraphs [0069]-[0076] and part number 155 in FIGS. 4 and 9).
Lee does not disclose that an inner surface of each accommodating cavity, formed by corresponding areas of the upper side plate, the lower side plate, and adjacent partition plates, is spray-coated with an insulation coating having a spraying thickness D of the insulation coating meeting: D = (V x A)/(p x I) wherein V represents a test voltage, the unit is volt, and the test voltage V is not less than 3000 volts; I represents a test current, the unit is ampere, and the test current I is less than 1 milliampere; p represents a volume resistivity of the insulation coating, and the unit is Ω·m; D represents a spraying thickness of the insulation coating, and the unit is m; and A represents a total spraying area of the insulation coating, and the unit is m2.
Ma, however, in the same field of endeavor, battery modules, discloses a housing member accommodating a plurality of secondary battery cells and an insulating member formed on an inner surface of the housing member to prevent electrical current from flowing to the housing member (see e.g. paragraph [0044 of Ma]) and that the insulating member includes a bottom insulating portion formed on a bottom portion of the housing and a sidewall insulating portion formed on a sidewall of the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0104] of Ma).
Ma also discloses that the withstand voltage performance of the insulating member is proportional to its thickness (see e.g. paragraph [0070] of Ma), that the insulating member may have a thickness of 50 to 200 μm (see e.g. paragraph [0078] of Ma), and that a thickness of 70 μm provides a withstand voltage performance greater than 3000 kV (see e.g. paragraphs [0090]-[0091] of Man).
Ma teaches that providing the insulating member prevents uncontrolled current flow, electrical shorts, and damage to the battery cells caused by insulation breakdown (see e.g. paragraph [0071] of Ma). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cell facing inner surfaces of the housing and partition defined cavities of Lee et al. such that they include the insulating member taught by Ma et al. in order to prevent electrical current from flowing between the battery cells and the metal housing as suggested by Ma.
Lee in view of Ma does not disclose that the inner surface of each accommodating cavity, formed by corresponding areas of the upper side plate, lower side plate, and adjacent partition plates, is spray coated with the insulation coating.
Fuhr, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrically insulated battery housings, discloses an electrically insulating coating provided on an inner surface of a conductive housing (see e.g. paragraph [0054] of Fuhr) and that the coating may cover all or substantially all of the interior sides and the bottom of the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0054] of Fuhr) and that the coating may be applied using a spraying process (see e.g. paragraphs [0055]-[0056] of Fuhr).
Fuhr also teaches that the sprayed coating electrically insulates the cell element from the conductive housing and prevents electrical contact between the cell element and the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0054] of Fuhr). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation member of Lee et al. in view of Ma et al. such that the inner surface of each accommodating cavity, formed by corresponding areas of the upper side plate, lower side plate, and adjacent partition plates, is spray coated with the insulation coating as taught by Fuhr et al. in order to provide insulation coverage throughout each accommodating cavity and prevent electrical contact between the battery cells and the metal frame as suggested by Fuhr.
Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr does not explicitly disclose that the spraying thickness D of the insulation coating follows the equation:
D = (V x A)/(p x I)
wherein V represents a test voltage, the unit is volt, and the test voltage V is not less than 3000 volts; I represents a test current, the unit is ampere, and the test current I is less than 1 milliampere; p represents a volume resistivity of the insulation coating, and the unit is Ω·m; D represents a spraying thickness of the insulation coating, and the unit is m; and A represents a total spraying area of the insulation coating, and the unit is m2.
However, Ma teaches that withstand voltage performance is affected by insulation thickness (see e.g. paragraphs [0069]-[0071] of Ma) and Fuhr teaches that coating thickness may be selected according to the desired amount of electrical insulation (see e.g. paragraph [0056] of Fuhr). Therefore, insulation thickness is recognized as a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the spraying thickness based on the applied test voltage, spraying area, material resistivity, and allowable test current, including a test voltage not less than 3000 volts and a test current less than 1 milliampere, in order to obtain the desired electrical insulation performance through routine engineering and optimization.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr disclose the battery box of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee does not disclose that the thickness of the insulation coating is about 0.05 mm to about 0.3 mm.
Ma, however, discloses that the thickness of the insulation coating is about 50 µm to about 200 µm (see e.g. paragraph [0078] of Ma; this corresponds to a range of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm).
Ma discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ma further teaches that providing the insulating member prevents uncontrolled current flow, electrical shorts, and damage to the battery cells caused by insulation breakdown (see e.g. paragraph [0071] of Ma). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify battery box of Lee et al. such that it includes the insulation member with a thickness of the insulation coating being about 0.05 mm to about 0.3 mm as taught by Ma et al. in order to prevent electrical current from flowing between the battery cells and the metal housing as suggested by Ma.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr disclose the battery box of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee further discloses that the housing has at least one end open in a first direction (see e.g. the hollow tubular housing formed by the first plate 160 and second plate 170 in paragraphs [0060] and [0067] and the front and rear openings covered by cover plates 180 in FIG. 2); and
the plurality of partition plates extend in the first direction (see e.g. paragraph [0075] and part number 155 in FIG. 2) and are arranged at intervals in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and part number 155 in FIGs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr discloses a battery pack (see e.g. "a battery module 100 " in paragraph [0037] and part number 100 in FIGs. 2 and 4), comprising a battery box according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above), and a cell, the cell being arranged in the accommodating cavity (see e.g. "a battery cell 120" in paragraph [0038] and par number 120 in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of ma and further in view of Fuhr discloses the battery pack according to claim 10 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Lee further discloses that the cell is a pouch cell (see e.g. "the battery cells 120 may be a pouch-type secondary battery" in paragraph [0042]), a plurality of pouch cells are arranged in the accommodating cavity (see e.g. part number 120 in FIG. 4), the plurality of pouch cells are arranged in a first direction and are connected in series (see e.g. part number 110 in FIG. 2 and "To this end, the electrode lead 125 may be electrically connected to the connection terminal 132 through a circuit wiring, not illustrated, provided in the insulating cover 130. Such a circuit wiring may perform electrical connection depending on serial/parallel connection of modules through a bus bar formed of a copper material." in paragraph [0096]), and the battery pack further comprising: an insulation film (see e.g. "sealing portion 123" in paragraph [0047] and part number 123 in FIG. 3), the insulation film cladding the outside of the plurality of pouch cells (see e.g. "the sealing portion 123 may formed in the shape of a flange extending outwardly of the accommodation portion 122 formed in a container shape, and may be disposed along an external surface of the accommodation portion 122. A thermal fusion process may be used to bond the pouch 121 for forming the sealing portion 123" in paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee does not disclose that a vehicle comprises the battery pack.
Fuhr, however, discloses a vehicle (see e.g. " a vehicle 10 in the form of an automobile (e.g., a car) having a battery system 20 for providing all or a portion of the motive power for the vehicle 10" in paragraph [0027] and FIGs. 1 and 2 of Fuhr), comprising the battery pack according to claim 10 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Fuhr also teaches that the battery system provides all or a portion of the motive power for the vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [0027] of Fuhr). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the battery pack of Lee et al. in view of Ma et al. and Fuhr et al. in a vehicle in order to provide motive power to the vehicle, as suggested by Fuhr.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20210184303-A1) in view of Ma et al. (US-20210159469-A1) in view of Fuhr et al. (US-20110244286-A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US-20170155102-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr disclose the battery box of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr is silent as to the elongation of the insulation coating and thus does not disclose that the elongation at break of the insulation coating is greater than 100%
Chung, however, in the same field of endeavor, insulating layers for secondary battery cases, discloses an elongation percentage at break of the insulating coating may be 10% to 200% (see e.g. "an elongation percentage of the insulating layer may be 10% to 200%, more particularly 100% to 200%" in paragraph [0014] and "the elongation percentage denotes a deformation percentage of an object fractured during testing with respect to a non-tested state" in paragraph [0014] of Chung).
Chung discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Chung also teaches that an insulating coating having a high elongation percentage can prevent direct contact between an object penetrating the battery box and the electrodes and thus prevent short circuit (see e.g. paragraph [0018] of Chung). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation coating of Lee et al. in view of Ma et al. and further in view of Fuhr et al. such that it has an elongation percentage at break of 10% to 200% as taught by Chung et al. in order to prevent short circuit as suggested by Chung.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Ma in view of Fuhr and further in view of Chung disclose the battery box of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Lee does not disclose that the thickness of the insulation coating is about 0.05 mm to about 0.3 mm.
Ma, however, discloses that the thickness of the insulation coating is about 50 µm to about 200 µm (see e.g. paragraph [0078] of Ma; this corresponds to a range of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm).
Ma discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ma further teaches that providing the insulating member prevents uncontrolled current flow, electrical shorts, and damage to the battery cells caused by insulation breakdown (see e.g. paragraph [0071] of Ma). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify battery box of Lee et al. such that it includes the insulation member with a thickness of the insulation coating being about 0.05 mm to about 0.3 mm as taught by Ma et al. in order to prevent electrical current from flowing between the battery cells and the metal housing as suggested by Ma.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr disclose the battery box of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr does not disclose that the insulation coating is a polyurethane coating.
Chung, however, discloses an insulation coating is a polyurethane coating (see e.g. "the insulating layer is preferably composed of polyurethane" in paragraph [0021] of Chung).
Chung also teaches that an insulating coating being a polyurethane coating can prevent direct contact between an object penetrating the battery box and the electrodes and thus prevent short circuit (see e.g. paragraph [0018]-[0022] of Chung). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation coating of Lee et al. in view of Ma et al. and further in view of Fuhr et al. such that it is a polyurethane coating as taught by Chung et al. in order to prevent short circuit as suggested by Chung.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20210184303-A1) in view of Ma et al. (US-20210159469-A1) in view of Fuhr et al. (US-20110244286-A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Honda et al. (US-20210013471-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr disclose the battery box of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr does not disclose that the height of each accommodating cavity is about 0.1 m to about 0.13 m.
Honda, however, discloses that the height of the partitions are 115 mm (see e.g. "a partition member having a height of 115 mm" in paragraph [0127] of Honda; 115 mm is equivalent to 0.115 m). Honda also discloses that the battery cavities are the same height as the partitions (see e.g. FIG. 12 of Honda).
Thus Honda discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Honda also teaches that housings of this type including partitions dissipate heat and suppress vibrations of the battery cells (see e.g. paragraph [0011] of Honda). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal frame of Lee et al. in view of Ma et al. and further in view of Fuhr et al. such that the height of each accommodating cavity is 0.115 m as taught by Honda et al. in order to dissipate heat and suppress vibration of the battery cells as suggested by Honda.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20210184303-A1) in view of Ma et al. (US-20210159469-A1) in view of Fuhr et al. (US-20110244286-A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Glaspie et al. (US-20150364730-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr disclose the battery box of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Lee in view of Ma and further in view of Fuhr does not disclose that the spraying area of the insulation coating in each accommodating cavity is about 0.1 m² to about 0.5 m².
Glaspie, however, in the same field of endeavor of insulating layers for batteries, discloses a battery shield wrap (see e.g. “battery shield wrap” in paragraph [0015] of Glaspie) having dimensions of 430 mm × 510 mm for the bottom portion and side portions having dimensions of 83 mm × 185 mm, 117 mm × 117 mm, 70 mm × 185 mm, and 80 mm × 117 mm (see e.g. paragraph [0026] of Glaspie). The total area of the accommodating portion is approximately 270,654 mm², or approximately 0.27 m², which corresponds to the spraying/insulation area of the accommodating cavity as defined in paragraph [0038] of the instant specification.
Glaspie discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Glaspie further teaches that the battery shield wrap provides excellent puncture resistance and thermal insulation for batteries used in vehicles, thereby extending battery life (see e.g. paragraph [0025] of Glaspie). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying area of the accommodating cavity of Lee et al. in view of Ma et al. and further in view of Fuhr et al. such that it is approximately 0.27 m² as taught by Glaspie in order to improve insulation and extend battery life as suggested by Glaspie
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20210184303-A1) in view of Ma et al. (US-20210159469-A1) in view of Fuhr et al. (US-20110244286-A1) in view of Honda et al. (US-20210013471-A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Glaspie et al. (US-20150364730-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Ma in view of Fuhr and further in view of Honda disclose the battery box of claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Lee in view of Ma in view of Fuhr and further in view of Honda does not disclose that the spraying area of the insulation coating in each accommodating cavity is about 0.1 m² to about 0.5 m².
Glaspie, however, in the same field of endeavor of insulating layers for batteries, discloses a battery shield wrap (see e.g. “battery shield wrap” in paragraph [0015] of Glaspie) having dimensions of 430 mm × 510 mm for the bottom portion and side portions having dimensions of 83 mm × 185 mm, 117 mm × 117 mm, 70 mm × 185 mm, and 80 mm × 117 mm (see e.g. paragraph [0026] of Glaspie). The total area of the accommodating portion is approximately 270,654 mm², or approximately 0.27 m², which corresponds to the spraying/insulation area of the accommodating cavity as defined in paragraph [0038] of the instant specification.
Glaspie discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Glaspie further teaches that the battery shield wrap provides excellent puncture resistance and thermal insulation for batteries used in vehicles, thereby extending battery life (see e.g. paragraph [0025] of Glaspie). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying area of the accommodating cavity of Lee et al. in view of Ma et al. in view of Fuhr et al. and further in view of Honda et al. such that it is approximately 0.27 m² as taught by Glaspie in order to improve insulation and extend battery life as suggested by Glaspie
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights