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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 890 048 A1, a copy of which was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 27, 2024, and further in view of Lee (US 9,614,208), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 27, 2024.
Regarding independent claim 1, EP ‘048 discloses a battery pack (see abstract; paragraphs [0011]-[0037]; and Figures 1 and 2), in which the battery pack comprises the following structural features (in referring to Figure 2):
a plurality of battery cells (14) – see abstract; paragraphs [0012] and [0014]-[0018]; and Figure 2;
a first heat shielding member in the form of a bus bar plate (28) arranged to cover a (top) side of a battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (14) where a vent (safety valve (24)) is formed (see paragraphs [0016]-[0018], [0022], and [0023]; and Figure 2); and
a rigid member (in the form of a combination of bus bars (42) and top cover (60)) coupled to an outer surface of the first heat shielding member (28), wherein the rigid member (42,60) comprises a metal plate (bus bars (42) made of a metal such as copper or aluminum – see paragraphs [0022]-[0024]) and an insulating member (top cover (60) made of an insulating resin) covering the metal plate (42) – see paragraphs [0025] and [0037]; and Figure 2.
Although EP ‘048 discloses both the vent (safety valve (24)) and the first heat shielding member (bus bar plate (28)), EP ‘048 does not explicitly disclose the new limitation “wherein the first heat shielding member covers the vent of the battery cell” of independent claim 1.
However, Lee discloses a battery pack (see abstract; column 4, line 7 through column 7, line 7; and Figures 1-5), in which the battery pack (1) has at least one battery module (100) that further includes a plurality of battery cells (10) and vents (13) covered by a degassing cover (123) that serves as a heat shielding member and is located above the plurality of battery cells (10), wherein the degassing cover covering the vent(s) of the battery cell(s) is advantageous for reducing excess gas pressure and heat from building in a region adjacent the plurality of battery cells, thus extending battery life (see column 4, lines 7-15 and 55-62; column 5, lines 47-64; and column 6, lines 17-24 and 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the orientation of the vent and the first heat shielding member in the battery pack disclosed by EP ‘048, by using an arrangement of the vent(s) to be covered by a degassing cover serving as the heat shielding member, as taught by Lee, in order to reduce excess gas pressure and heat from building in a region adjacent the plurality of battery cells, thus extending battery life (Lee; column 4, lines 7-15 and 55-62; column 5, lines 47-64; and column 6, lines 17-24 and 38-41).
Regarding claim 2, EP ‘048 discloses that the rigid member (42,60) includes a metal plate made of aluminum, since bus bars (42) are disclosed as being made of a metal such as copper or aluminum (see paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, although the combined teachings of EP ‘048 and Lee discloses and/or suggests the features of the battery pack of independent claim 1 above, the combined teachings of EP ‘048 and Lee do not explicitly disclose that the first heat shielding member and the second heat shielding member comprise either of mica or aerogel. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modification of the type of material for use in heat shielding would have been obvious to try by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (from various types of heat shielding materials), with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of optimization of heat protection of one or more components of the battery pack from excess temperatures. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, EP ‘048 discloses that the insulating member (60) is integrally formed to surround at least one side of the rigid member (42,60) comprising a metal plate – see paragraphs [0022]-[0025]; and Figure 2.
Regarding claims 5-7, EP ‘048 discloses that the rigid member (42,60) comprises a central step (in the form of a side wall (36) – see Figure 2) including protrusions protruding on a side opposite to a side facing the battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (14), in which the central step is formed in two rows, extends along a direction in which the battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (14) are arranged, and is formed along a protrusion shape of the metal plate (42) – see Figure 2.
Regarding claim 8, EP ‘048 discloses that the rigid member (42,60) comprises an edge step (protruding edges of the first heat shielding member in the form of the bus bar plate (28)) including protrusions protruding on a side opposite to a side facing the battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (14) with respect to both edge regions on the basis of a width of the battery cell (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, although the combined teachings of EP ‘048 and Lee discloses and/or suggests the features of the battery pack of the combination of claims 1 and 8 above, the combined teachings of EP ‘048 and Lee do not explicitly disclose that the edge step has a same height as a central step formed at a center of the rigid member. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modification of dimensions of the edge step and the central step would have been obvious to try by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (from three options of height being larger, smaller, or the same dimension), with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of optimizing compactness of the battery pack. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of heights of the edge step and the central step with respect to one another, since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, EP ‘048 discloses that the rigid member (42,60) comprises a central step (in the form of a side wall (36) of Figure 2) formed on both sides of the vent (24) of the battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (14), and an edge step (in the form of protruding edges of the bus bar plate (28) as the first heat shielding member of Figure 2) formed on both edges on the basis of a width of the battery cell, and the battery pack further comprises a second heat shielding member (in the form of each side wall (36) surrounding an opening (32) with a duct top plate (34) – see paragraph [0022]; and Figure 2) in an area between the central step and the edge step (see paragraph [0022]; and Figure 2).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment and replacement drawing sheets received by the USPTO on July 29, 2026. The replacement drawing sheets overcome the prior objections to the drawings, and the amendment overcomes the prior objection to the abstract. Although the applicants’ amendment to independent claim 1 overcomes the prior 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed April 29, 2026, a new 35 USC 103 rejection is provided for all claims of record in view of the reference to Lee (US 9,614,208). Claims 1-11 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference to Lee (US 9,614,208) in the above 35 USC 103 rejection, and thus the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 October 8, 2026
