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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 8/6/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fronemann (US Pub No. 2023/0017033) in view of Yoo (US Pub No. 2021/0218087), and Lee (US Pub No. 2014/0196916)
Regarding Claim 10, Fronemann et al. teaches a dividing wall assembly [plurality of 36 and 44, Fig. 1-2, 0030] for a battery housing [Entire Fig. 2, 0031], comprising:
a dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) that lies in a wall plane (The structure of 36 is the wall plane) spanned by a longitudinal direction (see annotated figure) and a vertical direction (see annotated figure) which is orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (see annotated figure),
wherein a battery interior [22, Fig. 1, 0030] surrounded by the battery housing [Entire Fig. 2, 0031] is sub-dividable by the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) into chambers (see annotated figure) delimited from one another [Fig. 1-2]
a conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030); and
a conductor rail (30, Fig. 1, 0030) received in the conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030) which is guided through the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) orthogonally to the wall plane (see annotated figure), wherein the conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030) is formed as one part with the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030);
wherein the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) is formed from the battery housing (Entire Fig. 2, 0031) and is attachable to the battery housing (Entire Fig. 2, 0031);
wherein the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) has a sandwich structure in an orthogonal direction (Fig. 1-2) to the wall plane (Fig. 1-2), and further comprising a sandwich core (44, Fig. 1, 0030)
The solid arrow is the longitudinal direction in figure 2, the dashed arrow is the vertical direction in figure 1 which is a cross-sectional view of figure 2, the rectangles are the chambers
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
746
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
812
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fronemann et al. is silent on the dividing wall is formed separately from the battery housing and is attachable to the battery housing and wherein a sandwich cores of the sandwich structure that includes a non-liquid mineral material or consists entirely of the non-liquid mineral material.
Yoo et al. teaches a dividing wall for a battery module used to divide batteries [Fig. 3, 0056], the dividing wall is shown to be formed separately in figure 2 [0057].
Since Fronemann et al. teaches the use of dividing wall for a battery module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the dividing wall of Fronemann et al. separately as shown by Yoo et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Lee et al. teaches the use of a coolant comprising solid coolant particles, such as alumina or silica [0068].
Since Fronemann et al. teaches the use of a coolant 40 in the cooling channels 44 [0030], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the coolant of Fronemann et al. with the coolant of Lee et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Fronemann et al. teaches wherein the conductor rail (30, Fig. 1, 0030) abuts at least indirectly in a form fit manner on the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) in the wall plane (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Fronemann et al. teaches wherein the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) comprises at least one non-conductive material [Devarakonda:, 0052], and the limitation of “wherein the dividing wall is an injection molded part” is/are considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 15, Fronemann et al. teaches a battery (24, Fig. 1, 0031), comprising: a battery interior surrounded by a battery housing (Entire Fig. 2, 0031); and the dividing wall assembly (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) disposed in the battery interior [fig. 1-2].
Fronemann et al. teaches a dividing wall assembly [plurality of 36 and 44, Fig. 1-2, 0030] for a battery housing [Entire Fig. 2, 0031], comprising:
a dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) that lies in a wall plane (The structure of 36 is the wall plane) spanned by a longitudinal direction (see annotated figure) and a vertical direction (see annotated figure) which is orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (see annotated figure),
wherein a battery interior [22, Fig. 1, 0030] surrounded by the battery housing [Entire Fig. 2, 0031] is sub-dividable by the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) into chambers (see annotated figure) delimited from one another [Fig. 1-2]
a conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030); and
a conductor rail (30, Fig. 1, 0030) received in the conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030) which is guided through the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) orthogonally to the wall plane (see annotated figure), wherein the conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030) is formed as one part with the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030);
wherein the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) is formed from the battery housing (Entire Fig. 2, 0031) and is attachable to the battery housing (Entire Fig. 2, 0031);
wherein the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) has a sandwich structure in an orthogonal direction (Fig. 1-2) to the wall plane (Fig. 1-2), and further comprising a sandwich core (44, Fig. 1, 0030)
The solid arrow is the longitudinal direction in figure 2, the dashed arrow is the vertical direction in figure 1 which is a cross-sectional view of figure 2, the rectangles are the chambers
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
746
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
812
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fronemann et al. is silent on the dividing wall is formed separately from the battery housing and is attachable to the battery housing and wherein a sandwich cores of the sandwich structure that includes a non-liquid mineral material or consists entirely of the non-liquid mineral material.
Yoo et al. teaches a dividing wall for a battery module use to divide batteries [Fig. 3, 0056], the dividing wall is shown to be formed separately in figure 2 [0057].
Since Fronemann et al. teaches the use of dividing wall for a battery module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the dividing wall of Fronemann et al. separately as shown by Yoo et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Lee et al. teaches the use of a coolant comprising solid coolant particles, such as alumina or silica [0068].
Since Fronemann et al. teaches the use of a coolant 40 in the cooling channels 44 [0030], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the coolant of Fronemann et al. with the coolant of Lee et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination above, modified Fronemann et al. teaches further comprising two cell modules (fig. 1-2) disposed in the battery interior [22, Fig. 1, 0030], wherein the dividing wall assembly (plurality of 36 and 44, Fig. 1-2, 0030) is disposed between the two cell modules (Fig. 1-2) such that the dividing wall assembly (plurality of 36 and 44, Fig. 1-2, 0030) sub-divides the battery interior into two chambers (Fig. 1-2) hermetically delimited from one another and wherein the
two cell modules (Fig. 1-2) are in electrically conductive contact with each other via the conductor
rail (1c) [Fig. 1-2, 0030-0031].
Regarding Claim 18, Fronemann et al. teaches a vehicle [Abstract], comprising: a battery (24, Fig. 1, 0030), wherein the battery (24, Fig. 1, 0030) includes: a battery interior [22, Fig. 1, 0030] surrounded by a battery housing (Entire Fig. 2, 0031); and the dividing wall assembly (plurality of 36 and 44, Fig. 1-2, 0030) disposed in the battery interior [Fig. 1].
Fronemann et al. teaches a dividing wall assembly [plurality of 36 and 44, Fig. 1-2, 0030] for a battery housing [Entire Fig. 2, 0031], comprising:
a dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) that lies in a wall plane (The structure of 36 is the wall plane) spanned by a longitudinal direction (see annotated figure) and a vertical direction (see annotated figure) which is orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (see annotated figure),
wherein a battery interior [22, Fig. 1, 0030] surrounded by the battery housing [Entire Fig. 2, 0031] is sub-dividable by the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) into chambers (see annotated figure) delimited from one another [Fig. 1-2]
a conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030); and
a conductor rail (30, Fig. 1, 0030) received in the conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030) which is guided through the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) orthogonally to the wall plane (see annotated figure), wherein the conductor rail housing (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030) is formed as one part with the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030);
wherein the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) is formed from the battery housing (Entire Fig. 2, 0031) and is attachable to the battery housing (Entire Fig. 2, 0031);
wherein the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) has a sandwich structure in an orthogonal direction (Fig. 1-2) to the wall plane (Fig. 1-2), and further comprising a sandwich core (44, Fig. 1, 0030)
The solid arrow is the longitudinal direction in figure 2, the dashed arrow is the vertical direction in figure 1 which is a cross-sectional view of figure 2, the rectangles are the chambers
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
746
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
812
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fronemann et al. is silent on the dividing wall is formed separately from the battery housing and is attachable to the battery housing and wherein a sandwich cores of the sandwich structure that includes a non-liquid mineral material or consists entirely of the non-liquid mineral material.
Yoo et al. teaches a dividing wall for a battery module use to divide batteries [Fig. 3, 0056], the dividing wall is shown to be formed separately in figure 2 [0057].
Since Fronemann et al. teaches the use of dividing wall for a battery module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the dividing wall of Fronemann et al. separately as shown by Yoo et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Lee et al. teaches the use of a coolant comprising solid coolant particles, such as alumina or silica [0068].
Since Fronemann et al. teaches the use of a coolant 40 in the cooling channels 44 [0030], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the coolant of Fronemann et al. with the coolant of Lee et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fronemann (US Pub No. 2023/0017033) in view of Yoo (US Pub No. 2021/0218087) and Lee (US Pub No. 2014/0196916) as applied above in addressing claim 10, in further view of Stojanovic (US Pub No. 2018/0026243)
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Fronemann et al. is silent on further comprising a protection cap arrangement (1d) for the conductor rail (1c) and a spacer (1d.3), wherein the protection cap arrangement (1d) together with the dividing wall (la) encloses the conductor
rail (1c), wherein the spacer (1d.3) lies in the wall plane (WE) and is disposed on the
protection cap arrangement (1d) in the vertical direction (H), and wherein the spacer (1d.3)
and an end face (S) of the dividing wall (1a) lying in the vertical direction (H) abut flush on each other in the vertical direction (H).
Stojanovic et al. teaches a protection cap [14, Fig. 2, 0047] for a battery module [0047-0048].
Since modified Fronemann et al. teaches the use of a battery module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the protection cap of Stojanovic et al. above the conductor rail of modified Fronemann et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Within the combination above, modified Fronemann et al. teaches further comprising a protection cap arrangement (Stojanovic: 14, Fig. 2, 0047) for the conductor rail (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030) and a spacer (50, fig. 1, 0030), wherein the protection cap arrangement (Stojanovic: 14, Fig. 2, 0047) together with the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) encloses the conductor rail (52, 48, Fig. 1, 0030), wherein the spacer (50, fig. 1, 0030) lies in the wall plane (Fig. 1-2) and is disposed on the protection cap arrangement (Stojanovic: 14, Fig. 2, 0047) in the vertical direction (see annotated figure), and wherein the spacer (50, fig. 1, 0030) and an end face (Fig. 1-2) of the dividing wall (36 and 44, Fig. 1, 0030) lying in the vertical direction (Fig. 1-2) abut flush on each other in the vertical direction (Fig. 1-2).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fronemann (US Pub No. 2023/0017033) in view of Yoo (US Pub No. 2021/0218087) and Lee (US Pub No. 2014/0196916) as applied above in addressing claim 16, in further view of Yang (US Pub No. 2024/0063458)
Regarding Claim 17, combination above, modified Fronemann et al. is silent on wherein the battery housing (2) has a respective pressure relief valve for each of the two chambers (7.1, 7.2).
Yang et al. teaches the use of a pressure relief value for a chamber of a battery housing [Fig. 1, 0025] for a vehicle [0026].
Since modified Fronemann et al. teaches a battery module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add the pressure relief value of Yang et al to the battery module of modified Fronemann et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for battery modules and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Fronemann (US Pub No. 2023/0017033), Yoo (US Pub No. 2021/0218087), and Devarakonda (US Pub No. 2022/0407145) are the closest prior art.
Modified Fronemann et al. teaches structural limitations of claims does not disclose the limitations of “further comprising a tolerance compensation mat (4) that is continuous over an entire length of the dividing wall (1a) in the longitudinal direction (L) and is disposed on an end face (S) of the dividing wall (1a) lying in the vertical direction (H), wherein the tolerance compensation mat (4) runs over the conductor rail (1c) when viewed in the vertical direction (H).”
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “further comprising a tolerance compensation mat (4) that is continuous over an entire length of the dividing wall (1a) in the longitudinal direction (L) and is disposed on an end face (S) of the dividing wall (1a) lying in the vertical direction (H), wherein the tolerance compensation mat (4) runs over the conductor rail (1c) when viewed in the vertical direction (H).”
Therefore; claim 10 is allowed once the limitations of claim 14 are incorporated into claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-18 have been considered but are moot because 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
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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
