DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species (i) and (iii) in the reply filed on September 8th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is not a serious search burden on the examination of all of the 19 originally filed claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a battery module comprising barrier material layers that are smaller than the sides of the prismatic battery cells and a battery module comprising barrier material layers that are the same size of the prismatic battery cells would require completely different structures. And, therefore, would inflict a serious search burden upon the examiner to search simultaneously for two separate battery modules as these species will require separate and innumerable searches to properly address the patentability of each species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, the claims under consideration are 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13, and 15-18.
Claims 3, 5, 12, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species (ii) and (iv), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on December 13th, 2024 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
The limitation “battery module/pack” as seen in at least line 1 of Claim 1 is interpreted to mean either a battery module or a battery pack.
The limitation “a flat plate with a raised portion contacting a first side” as seen in at least line 6 of Claim 1 is able to be interpreted as both:
a flat plate having a raised portion, wherein the flat plate contacts a first side.
a flat plate having a raised portion, wherein the raised portion contacts a first side.
The limitation “monotonically increases” as seen in at least line 2 of Claim 8 is interpreted to mean never increasing.
Prior Art
Yoo US PG Publication 2023/0291026 (“Yoo”)
Nakahara US PG Publication 2021/0016668 (“Nakahara”)
Schuler EP3944401 (“Schuler”)
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 2 and 10-11, 13, and 15-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation “sides of the M prismatic battery cells.” It is wholly unclear as to whether these sides include or are in reference to the “first side” of a first one of the M prismatic battery cells and of a last one of the M prismatic battery cells as defined in lines 6-13 of Claim 1, from which Claim 2 depends, or are entirely different sides.
Claim 10, lines 8-9 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the first end plate and the second end plate includes an adjustable end plate.” It is wholly unclear as to whether the adjustable end plate is incorporated within at least one of the first end plate or the second end plate or if the adjustable end plate is an end plate in addition to the first end plate and the second end plate.
Claim 10, lines 9 and 11 refer to a “plate” included in an adjustable end plate. This limitation is unclear as the claim goes on to state, “wherein the plate contacts a side of an outer one of the M prismatic battery cells” (lines 11-12). It is wholly unclear whether this plate in lines 9 and 11-12 is a face of the adjustable end plate or is an extra plate comprised within the adjustable end plate.
Claims 11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Further clarification is required.
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 1-2, 4, 7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo US PG Publication 2023/0291026.
Regarding Claim 1, Yoo discloses a battery module 100 (corresponding to the instantly claimed battery module/pack) (Abstract, [0065], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
M prismatic battery cells (e.g., 2100) ([0011], [0066], [0122]) each including a battery cell core comprising at least electrode assembly (e.g., 2120) ([0114]) arranged in pouch 2110 (prismatic enclosure) (Fig. 7, [0114]);
N barrier material layers as defined within protective member 2200 and comprising at least one heat insulating member 2210 and one compression member 2220 between adjacent ones of the M prismatic battery cells 2100 (i.e. 2100a and 2100b) (Fig. 6, [0123]), where M and N are both at least 2 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the instantly claimed range of integers greater than one) (Fig. 6, [0026], [0123]);
a first end plate 300 including a flat plate with a raised portion as defined by the contact protrusion within the insertion groove 310 contacting a first side of a first one of the M prismatic battery cells (i.e. in the instance wherein the optional heat insulating member 320 is not disposed between the sub-module 200 and the end plate 300) (Fig. 3, [0084], [0227]-[0230]); and
a second end plate 300 including a flat plate with a raised portion as defined by the contact protrusion within the insertion groove 310 contacting a first side of a last one of the M prismatic battery cells (i.e. in the instance wherein the optional heat insulating member 320 is not disposed between the sub-module 200 and the end plate 300) (Fig. 3, [0084], [0227]-[0230]),
wherein the raised portion of the first end plate is smaller in length and width than the first side of the first one of the M prismatic battery cells (Fig. 24, [0256]), and
wherein the raised portion of the second end plate is smaller in length and width than the first side of the last one of the M prismatic battery cells (Fig. 24, [0256]).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Yoo
PNG
media_image2.png
653
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 21 of Yoo
Regarding Claim 2, Yoo teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 1, and Yoo discloses wherein the N barrier material layers are smaller in length and width than sides of the M prismatic battery cell (i.e. the N barrier material layers are the size of the cell body portion 2111 which is only a part of the battery cell 2100) ([0114], [0125]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoo teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 1, and Yoo discloses wherein the N barrier material layers comprise aerogel ([0124]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoo teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 1, and Yoo discloses wherein a surface between edges of the first end plate and the raised portion is sloped (which meets the instantly claimed limitation of at least one of filleted, beveled, chamfered, and sloped)1 (Fig. 24, [0257]-[0258]).
1 The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 17, Yoo discloses a battery module 100 (corresponding to the instantly claimed battery module/pack) (Abstract, [0065], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
M prismatic battery cells (e.g., 2100) ([0011], [0066], [0122]) each including a pouch 2110 (prismatic enclosure) (Fig. 7, [0114]) and a battery cell core comprising at least electrode assembly (e.g., 2120) ([0114]), wherein the prismatic enclosure includes a lid (formed by an exterior material), a bottom, a narrow side, wide faces, and edges ([0114]-[0119]);
N barrier material layers as defined within protective member 2200 and comprising at least one heat insulating member 2210 and one compression member 2220 between adjacent ones of the M prismatic battery cells 2100 (i.e. 2100a and 2100b) (Fig. 6, [0123]), where M and N are both at least 2 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the instantly claimed range of integers greater than one) (Fig. 6, [0026], [0123]);
a first end plate 300 (Fig. 3, [0084], [0227]-[0230]); and
a second end plate 300 (Fig. 3, [0084], [0227]-[0230]),
wherein the N barrier material layers are smaller in length and width than the wide face along the side of an outer one of the M prismatic battery cell (i.e. the N barrier material layers are the size of the cell body portion 2111 which is only a part of the battery cell 2100) ([0114], [0125]).
Regarding Claim 18, Yoo teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 17, and Yoo discloses wherein the N barrier material layers comprise aerogel ([0124]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo US PG Publication 2023/0291026 in view of Nakahara US PG Publication 2021/0016668.
Regarding Claim 1, Yoo discloses a battery module 100 (corresponding to the instantly claimed battery module/pack) (Abstract, [0065], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
M prismatic battery cells (e.g., 2100) ([0011], [0066], [0122]) each including a battery cell core comprising at least electrode assembly (e.g., 2120) ([0114]) arranged in pouch 2110 (prismatic enclosure) (Fig. 7, [0114]);
N barrier material layers as defined within protective member 2200 and comprising at least one heat insulating member 2210 and one compression member 2220 between adjacent ones of the M prismatic battery cells 2100 (i.e. 2100a and 2100b) (Fig. 6, [0123]), where M and N are both at least 2 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the instantly claimed range of integers greater than one) (Fig. 6, [0026], [0123]);
a first end plate 300 (Fig. 3, [0084], [0227]-[0230]); and
a second end plate 300 (Fig. 3, [0084], [0227]-[0230]).
Yoo fails to explicitly disclose a raised portion of the first and second end plates.
However, Nakahara discloses a pair of end plates disposed at end surfaces of a battery stack (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Nakahara teaches the use of a bind bar 4 having a rectangular shape coupled to and being smaller than end plates 3 with a predetermined thickness and disposed on side surfaces 2C of battery cells via a rectangular main body corner plate 42A formed at a right angle of the main body 40 of the bind bar 4 in order to sufficiently couple the battery cell stack and the end plates together (Fig. 1, [0024], [0030], [0042]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module/pack of Yoo such that the first end plate and the second end plate each comprise a rectangular raised portion contacting a first side of a first one of the M prismatic battery cells and a first side of a last one of the M prismatic battery cells such that the raised portion is smaller than and thinner than the end plates in order to sufficiently couple the battery cell stack and the end plates together, as taught by Nakahara.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the end plates of Yoo in view of Nakahara are smaller in length and width than the first side of the M prismatic battery cells (Yoo [0091], [0125], [0227]) and the raised portions are smaller than the end plates, than the raised portions are smaller in length and width than the M prismatic battery cells.
PNG
media_image3.png
637
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 of Nakahara
Regarding Claim 6, Yoo in view of Nakahara teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Yoo in view of Nakahara discloses wherein the raised portion of the first end plate has a rectangular cross section (Nakahara [0042]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoo in view of Nakahara teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Yoo in view of Nakahara discloses wherein a surface between edges of the first end plate and the raised portion is sloped at a right angle (which meets the instantly claimed limitation of at least one of filleted, beveled, chamfered, and sloped)1 (Nakahara [0042]-[0048]).
1 The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoo in view of Nakahara teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 1, while Yoo in view of Nakahara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the raised portion includes a curved surface having a thickness that monotonically increases from first and second edges of the first end plate to a center of the first end plate – Yoo discloses that the shape of the materials surrounding the end plates are not limited ([0257]-[0258]) and Nakahara discloses wherein the thickness of the material forming the raised portion to have a sufficient tensile strength ([0042]).
Therefore, it is considered an obvious expedient to determine an appropriate shape of the raised portion of Yoo in view of Nakahara and a thickness that it forms relative to the end plate in order to optimize its purpose of achieving a desired tensile strength. Accordingly, absent objective evidence that the curvature and thickness creates a new or unexpected result, the feature is considered routine experimentation1,2.
1 The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, the specific shape and thickness made relative to the end plate is considered obvious to try based on the findings above, wherein the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding Claim 9, Yoo in view of Nakahara teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 1, and Yoo discloses wherein the prismatic enclosure includes a lid (formed by an exterior material), a bottom, a narrow side, wide faces, and edges ([0114]-[0119]);
and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Yoo in view of Nakahara discloses wherein the raised portion has a length shorter than a length (which encompasses the claimed range of 7mm to 20mm shorter)2,3 between the edges of the wide faces of the prismatic enclosure (defining the wide face of the prismatic enclosure) and a width that is shorter (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 4mm to 16 mm shorter)2,3 than a width between the edges of the wide faces of the prismatic enclosure (defining the narrow side) (Nakahara [0042]-[0048]).
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
3 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 10-11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo US PG Publication 2023/0291026 in view of Schuler EP3944401 (machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoo discloses a battery module 100 (corresponding to the instantly claimed battery module/pack) (Abstract, [0065], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
M prismatic battery cells (e.g., 2100) ([0011], [0066], [0122]) each including a battery cell core comprising at least electrode assembly (e.g., 2120) ([0114]) arranged in pouch 2110 (prismatic enclosure) (Fig. 7, [0114]);
N barrier material layers as defined within protective member 2200 and comprising at least one heat insulating member 2210 and one compression member 2220 between adjacent ones of the M prismatic battery cells 2100 (i.e. 2100a and 2100b) (Fig. 6, [0123]), where M and N are both at least 2 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the instantly claimed range of integers greater than one) (Fig. 6, [0026], [0123]);
a first end plate 300 (Fig. 3, [0084], [0227]-[0230]); and
a second end plate 300 (Fig. 3, [0084], [0227]-[0230]).
Yoo fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first end plate and the second end plate includes an adjustable end plate.
However, Schuler discloses a battery module comprising a plurality of prismatic battery cells and end plates that abut at least one of the battery cells ([0009], [0024], entire disclosure dependent upon). Schuler teaches a cavity within the end plates to accommodate a tensioning device comprising a moveable stop, a spring, and compression straps that runs across the wide face of the end plate for adjusting the tension to maintain the support of the end plates of the battery module (Figs. 19-20, [0029]-[0030], [0069]-[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module/pack of Yoo such that the at least one of the first end plate and the second end plate is an adjustable end plate, wherein the end plate defines a cavity, a moveable stop comprising a front plate arranged in the cavity, and an adjustment device, such as compression straps, configured to move the moveable plate relative to the end plate, wherein the end plate contacts a side of an outer one of the M prismatic battery cells in order to maintain the support of the end plates on the battery module, as taught by Schuler.
PNG
media_image4.png
590
1152
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 20 of Schuler
Regarding Claim 11, Yoo in view of Schuler teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 10, and Yoo discloses wherein the N barrier material layers are smaller in length and width than sides of the M prismatic battery cell (i.e. the N barrier material layers are the size of the cell body portion 2111 which is only a part of the battery cell 2100) ([0114], [0125]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yoo in view of Schuler teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 10, and Yoo discloses wherein the N barrier material layers comprise aerogel ([0124]).
Regarding Claim 15, Yoo in view of Schuler teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 10, and Yoo discloses wherein the end plate has a length and width smaller than sides corresponding to wide faces of the prismatic enclosure ([0091], [0125], [0227]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the end plate of Yoo in view of Schuler is smaller in length and width than the prismatic enclosure and the moveable plate is comprised within the end plate (Schuler Figs. 19-20, [0029]-[0030], [0069]-[0070]), then the moveable plate would have a length and width smaller than sides corresponding to wide faces of the prismatic enclosure.
Regarding Claim 16, Yoo in view of Schuler teaches the instantly claimed battery module/pack according to Claim 10, and Yoo discloses wherein the prismatic enclosure includes a lid (formed by an exterior material), a bottom, a narrow side, wide faces, and edges between sides of the prismatic enclosure ([0114]-[0119]); and Yoo discloses wherein the end plate has a length and width smaller than sides corresponding to wide faces of the prismatic enclosure ([0091], [0125], [0227]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the end plate of Yoo in view of Schuler is smaller in length and width than the prismatic enclosure and the moveable plate is comprised within the end plate (Schuler Figs. 19-20, [0029]-[0030], [0069]-[0070]), then the moveable plate would have a length that is shorter than a length (which encompasses the claimed range of 7mm to 20mm shorter)2,3 between the edges of the wide faces of the prismatic enclosure (defining the wide face of the prismatic enclosure) and a width that is shorter (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 4mm to 16 mm shorter)2,3 than a width between the edges of the wide faces of the prismatic enclosure (defining the narrow side) (Nakahara [0042]-[0048]).
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
3 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights