DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021-028999, filed on 02/25/2021.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended since the nonfinal office action dated April 6th, 2026, and the added limitations of claims 2-6 are as originally presented.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments. The arguments of the applicant are summarized below.
5. Regarding claim 1, applicant amended the claim adding in additional limitations not presented in the claim. The limitations of “a coupling wall portion that is apart from the holder body via a clearance…” and the distinction that the convex extension portions protrude from an outer wall “of a coupling wall portion” are newly added. Figure 2 of the instant application, and paragraphs 24 and 36 of the instant specification support these limitations. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, and thus inherit the same additional limitation.
6. Applicant argues that Juergen, Seo, and Yoneda, from the previous office action, do not teach the additional limitation. The examiner agrees Juergen, Seo, and Yamada do not teach the added limitation. However, new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments have been found and are outlined below.
7. Claim 7 has been amended to overcome the objections stated in the previous office action. The amendments to claim 7 overcome the previous objection and the objection of claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “...formed at each of line-symmetric locations” should be reworded to avoid confusion, as it appears an article before the phrase “line-symmetric locations” has been removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 20220376365 A1, claiming priority to April 9th 2020; Henceforth, Jeon) in view of Juergen et al. (EP 3316343 A1; Henceforth, Juergen).
13. Jeon teaches a battery module ([0012]) comprising a cell holder that holds a plurality of unit cells (Figure 6, reproduced below depicts the cell holder; elements 211 and 213; Figure 4, reproduced below depicts a unit cell), and a case that holds the cell holder (Figure 10, reproduced below). The cell holder has a holder body portion (Figure 6, elements 211 and 213) and a coupling wall that is detached from the holder body via a clearance (Figure 9, annotated below). The coupling wall has extension portions (Figure 9, below) that extend towards the inner wall of the casing (Figure 11, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, reproduced from Jeon.
PNG
media_image2.png
845
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 9, reproduced from Jeon, annotated by the examiner.
PNG
media_image3.png
366
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
502
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figures 4 (left) and 10 (right), reproduced from Jeon.
PNG
media_image5.png
797
317
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 11, reproduced from Jeon.
14. Jeon does not explicitly teach the extension portions are convex nor abut the internal wall of the case.
15. Juergen teaches a battery pack (Figure 4, reproduced below) comprising a cell holder that holds a plurality of cells (Figure 3, annotated below) and a casing that holds the cell holder (Figure 4, annotated below), wherein the cell holder includes a holder body portion that holds a plurality of unit cells (Figure 3, below). The holder body portion includes convex extensions that extends so as to protrude towards an inner wall portion of the casing (Figures 3, 5 and 6, annotated below, elements 104 and 105). Juergen teaches having the extension portions on all sides of the battery module housing prevents mechanical shocks to the outer casing from being transmitted to the battery cells, electrical contacts and/or electronics ([0005]).
PNG
media_image6.png
641
699
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, reproduced from Juergen, annotated by the examiner.
PNG
media_image7.png
635
848
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 4, reproduced from Juergen, annotated by the examiner.
PNG
media_image8.png
518
633
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 5, reproduced from Juergen.
PNG
media_image9.png
471
869
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, reproduced from Juergen, annotated by the examiner.
16. 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 battery module of Jeon by utilizing convex extension portions that abut the inner wall of the battery case, as taught by Juergen in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to utilize extension portions to contact each side surface of the inner wall of the battery casing, to prevent mechanical shocks to the outer casing from being transmitted to the battery cells, electrical contacts and/or electronics (Juergen: [0005]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the convex shape of the damping elements of Juergen is needed to contact the curved inner surface of the battery case, in order to be flush, as shown in Figure 5. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that utilizing convex extension portions in the system of Jeon would have predictably allowed the extensions to abut the inner side surface of a curved battery pack such that it is flush with the surface, as it would be performing the same function as it had in the system of Juergen.
17. Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein another abutting extension portion that abuts the inner wall of the casing is provided at a position on the holder body portion 180° apart from a position where the abutting extension portion is provided.
18. Jeon and Juergen teach the battery pack of claim 1. Jeon teaches extension portions that are provided at a positions on the holder body portion 180 degrees apart from another position where the extension portions are provided (Figures 8 and 9, below). Juergen teaches that the abutting damping elements are positioned on the holder body portion 180 degrees apart from a position where the abutting extension portion is provided (Figure 5, above).
PNG
media_image10.png
696
474
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
845
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8, reproduced from Jeon, annotated by the examiner.
19. 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 battery module of Jeon by utilizing convex extension portions that abut the inner wall of the battery case, as taught by Juergen in the same field of endeavor, at positions where another abutting extension portion is positioned 180° apart, for the reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
20. Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the casing includes a corner portion that is bent at a predetermined angle, and the convex extension portion includes a corner abutting extension portion that abuts an inner wall of the corner portion.
21. Jeon and Juergen teach the battery pack of claim 1. Jeon teaches a corner portion (Figure 9, above, within the highlighted region) that is angled to match a predetermined angle of an angled region within the battery case (Figure 12, reproduced below). Juergen teaches the abutting damping elements abut the inner wall of the battery casing (Figure 5, above).
PNG
media_image11.png
661
928
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Figure 12, reproduced from Jeon.
22. 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 battery module of Jeon by utilizing convex extension portions that abut the inner wall of the battery case, as taught by Juergen in the same field of endeavor, where the corner extension portion abuts an angled portion of the battery case, for the reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
23. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon and Juergen, as applied to claim 1, above, further in view of Murayama (US 20200251697 A1; Henceforth, Murayama).
24. Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the convex extension portion is formed at each of line-symmetric locations on the holder body portion.
25. Jeon and Juergen teach the battery pack of claim 1. They do not teach that the convex extension portion is formed at each of line-symmetric locations on the holder body portion.
26. Murayama teaches a battery pack ([0006]) comprising a housing, a battery stack housed in the housing, a plurality of prismatic battery stacked in the battery stack, and a housing-side end plate structure ([0006] and Figure 1, annotated below). Murayama teaches the housing-side end plate structure has extension portions ("protruding structures, including a first protruding portion and a second protruding portion", [0032], and Figure 2, reproduced below) that contact grooves in the inner wall of the housing ([0032]), and are substantially symmetric with each other ([0032]). The examiner notes these sets of protruding structures occur at each line-symmetric position of the battery case (Figure 1, below). Murayama teaches this configuration positions the battery stack in two directions, that is, in the X direction and in the Y direction but also so that the housing can receive a bending moment generated in housing-side end plate in a dispersed and attenuated state and hence, it is possible to efficiently eliminate strain generated on housing-side end plate ([0037]).
PNG
media_image12.png
781
794
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Murayama.
PNG
media_image13.png
359
613
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from Murayama.
27. 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 battery module of Jeon and Juergen by utilizing convex extension portion is formed at each of line-symmetric locations on the holder body portion, as taught by Murayama in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to utilize extension portions to contact each side surface of the inner wall of the battery casing at each line symmetric position, to not only position the battery stack in the X and Y directions, but also so that the housing can receive a bending moment generated in housing-side end plate in a dispersed and attenuated state and hence, it is possible to efficiently eliminate strain generated on housing-side end plate ([0037]). This is consistent with the motivation taught by Juergen ([0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that forming the convex extension portions at each line-symmetric location on the holder body portion, as taught by Murayama, in the system of Jeon and Juergen would have predictably led to a configuration that could both position the battery stack and minimize shock, as it would be performing the same function as it had in the system of Murayama.
28. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon and Juergen, as applied to claim 1, above, further in view of Park et al. (WO 2022085937 A1; Henceforth, Park).
29. Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the convex extension portion includes a non-abutting extension portion that protrudes by a smaller amount than the abutting extension portion and does not abut the internal wall of the casing, and the non-abutting extension portion positions a harness that is electrically connected to electrodes of the unit cells.
30. Jeon and Juergen teach the battery pack of claim 1. They do not teach that the convex extension portion includes a non-abutting extension portion that protrudes by a smaller amount than the abutting extension portion and does not abut the internal wall of the casing, and the non-abutting extension portion positions a harness that is electrically connected to electrodes of the unit cells.
31. Park teaches a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells, with a cell frame including a side-wall portion (Abstract). The side-wall portion contains two pillars that include reinforcing ribs configured to extend the sidewall portion ( [0026]), which is angled (Figure 1, reproduced below). Park teaches a non-abutting extension portion that protrudes by a smaller amount than the abutting extension portion and does not abut the internal wall of the casing, (Figures 3 and 4, reproduced below, element 134a) and the non-abutting extension portion positions a harness that is electrically connected to electrodes of the unit cells (Figures 3 and 4, below, element 120). The motivation for this is to fix the wiring in position, and protect the wiring from external impacts ([0067]).
PNG
media_image14.png
547
690
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Park, annotated by the examiner.
PNG
media_image15.png
416
336
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
248
454
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Figures 3 (left) and 4 (right), reproduced from Park, annotated by the examiner.
32. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a battery as taught by Jeon and Juergen in claim 1, further using non-abutting extension portions that protrude by a smaller amount and does not abut the internal wall of the casing so that the non-abutting extension can position a harness that is electrically connected to electrodes of the unit cells, as taught by Park. The technique of having an outer convex portion to protrude farther than a non-abutting portion so that the non-abutting portion can fix wiring is known in the same field of endeavor, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the introduction of this technique to the battery of Jeon and Juergen would predictably result in a space where an electrical harness can be positioned such that there would be less damage to wiring from external forces, as it would be providing the same function previously taught by Park. There would have been a motivation to use a non-abutting portion to fix wiring in place and mitigate damage to the wiring from external forces, as taught by Park, while using an abutting portion contacting the outer casing to dampen the impact of mechanical forces on the housing, electrical contacts and the battery cells, as motivated by Juergen.
33. Regarding claim 6, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 5, wherein the cell holder includes a first holder and a second holder that abut each other, and the harness is routed along an abutting surface between the first holder and the second holder.
34. Jeon, Juergen, and Park teach the battery pack of claim 5. Jeon teaches the cell holder may be composed of a first cell holder and a second cell holder (Figure 6, above, elements 211 and 213), but does not teach a harness routed between the abutting surface between the first holder and the second holder. Park teaches the cell frame (Figure 1, above, element 130) may include a first frame and a second frame (Figure 2, reproduced below, elements 131 and 132). The first and second frame abut each other and the wiring is routed between the two frames (Figures 1 and 2). Park motivates this configuration, with fixing portions (Figures 3 and 4, elements 134a and 134b), one on each frame, as a means to doubly cover and protect the wiring from external impacts, and from preventing the wiring from easily getting loose from the fixing portions ([0067]).
PNG
media_image17.png
395
733
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from Park.
35. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery taught by Jeon, Juergen and Park by using a cell holder that includes a first holder and a second holder that abut each other and the harness is routed along an abutting surface between the first holder and the second holder, as taught by Park. Park demonstrates precedent in the field to utilize an outer convex portion to protrude farther than a non-abutting portion so that a non-abutting portion can fix wiring as a means to doubly cover and protect the wiring from external impacts, and from preventing the wiring from easily getting loose from the fixing portions ([0067]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the introduction of this technique to the battery of Jeon, Juergen and Park would result in a space where an electrical harness can be positioned such that there would be less damage to wiring from external forces, as it would be providing the same function previously taught by Park. There would have been a motivation to route wiring along an abutting surface between a first holder and the second holder to doubly cover and protect the wiring from external forces, as taught by Park, while preventing the wiring from easily getting loose from the two fixing portions.
36. Regarding claim 7, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 6, wherein the non-abutting extension portion includes: a bent portion that extends in a direction toward the first holder, or a bent portion that extends in a direction toward the second holder, and the harness passes through the bent portion.
37. Jeon, Juergen, and Park teach the battery pack of claim 6. Park teaches the non-abutting extension portion includes a bent portion bent that extends in a direction towards the first holder or a bent portion that extends towards the second holder (Figures 1, 3 and 4, above), and the harness passes through the bent portion (Figures 1, 3 and 4, above). They motivate this configuration, with fixing portions (Figures 3 and 4, elements 134a and 134b), one on each frame, as a means to doubly cover and protect the wiring from external impacts, and from preventing the wiring from easily getting loose from the fixing portions ([0067]).
38. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery taught by Jeon, Juergen and Park by including a bent portion that extends in a direction toward the first holder, or a bent portion that extends in a direction toward the second holder, and the harness passes through the bent portion, as taught by Park.
39. Park demonstrates precedent in the field to utilize an outer convex portion to protrude farther than a non-abutting portion so that a non-abutting portion can fix wiring as a means to doubly cover and protect the wiring from external impacts, and from preventing the wiring from easily getting loose from the fixing portions ([0067]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the introduction of this technique to the battery of Jeon, Juergen and Park would result in a space where an electrical harness can be positioned such that there would be less damage to wiring from external forces, as it would be providing the same function previously taught by Park. There would have been a motivation to include a pair of bent portions in the non-abutting portion to constrain the wiring and protect the wiring from external forces, as taught by Park, with each bent portion oriented towards the other frame, so that they would overlap and doubly cover the wiring.
Conclusion
40. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kano (US 20150222131 A1).
41. Kano teaches a battery holder, formed of two components, including a plurality of battery cells, in an external case (Figure 1). Kano teaches an embodiment where the bottom of the battery holder has convex protrusions extending from a wall that is separated by a clearance from the main body portion (Figure 19).
PNG
media_image18.png
559
524
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
579
612
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 and 19, reproduced from Kano.
42. 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).
43. 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.
44. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
45. 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.
46. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
47. 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.
/RPM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights