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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 2017/0373287) in view of Dao (US 2021/0184196).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a battery pack comprising:
a pack case (7, 8); and
two cell module assemblies including a first cell module assembly and a second module assembly (see two modules 20 and 21 in annotated Fig. 7 blow, for example), each of the two cell module assemblies having horizontally arranged cylindrical battery cells (2, see Fig. 7 where the cells are arranged horizontally) and respective first and second cell frames (30 and 31) accommodating the respective cylindrical battery cells (see Fig. 3 where each cylindrical cell 2 is held inside frames 30 and 31), and being integrally accommodated in the pack case (the cells are integrated into the pack case/battery pack),
wherein the two cell module assemblies are configured such that top caps of the cylindrical battery cells of the first cell module assembly face top caps of the cylindrical battery cells of the second sell module assembly at a center of the pack case (see paragraphs 22-23 along with Fig. 3 which discloses that the positive electrode terminals/top caps 2 of each module face each other) with an empty space therebetween defining a safety distance therebetween (there is a gap between frames 30 and 31 which act as a gas flow path/exhaust path 10 for the cells to release gas in the event of a release, see paragraph 21) .
wherein a bottom surface of the battery can of each cylindrical battery cell of the first cell module assembly faces a first wall surface of the pack case, and a bottom surface of the battery can of each cylindrical battery cells of the second cell module assembly faces a second wall surface of the pack case (see annotated Fig. 7 below which illustrates the wall surfaces which are adjacent to the bottom surfaces of the battery can), the second wall surface being at an opposite side of the pack case from the first wall surface (the wall surfaces are on opposite sides of the pack case, as illustrated in annotated Fig. 7 below), and the first and second walls being perpendicular to axes of the cylindrical battery cells (cell axes are perpendicular to the first and second walls, as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 below).
Yamashita teaches that the empty space extends vertically to communicate with vent hole (310), but teaches that the vent hole is defined through a top plate of the case (see Fig. 7 where vent hole 310 extends upward through the top plate) rather than the claimed bottom plate of the pack case.
Dao also discloses a battery vent system (see abstract).
Dao, like Yamashita, discloses that gases generated inside a cell need venting through a venting passage (see paragraph 17). Dao goes on to teach that the location of the venting passage to allow gases to exit a battery pack can be located on any surface of the battery pack, the top, the bottom or the sides (see paragraph 17).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place the exhaust vent of Yamashita on the lower plate, as suggested by Dao in order to vent the gases generated in the cells in the downward direction. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known vent location for another to yield entirely predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
1018
1147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita teaches a gap/exhaust passage that exists between the battery modules, but is silent regarding the exact dimensions of the passage. More specifically, Yamashita does not teach the safety distance is at least 5 mm.
However, such a dimension is dependent on the size of the battery pack of Yamashita. As such, increasing the size of a battery pack would naturally lend itself to increasing the size of all components of the battery pack, including the exhaust passage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at an exhaust passage that is greater than 5mm in a scenario where the size of the battery pack is increased to a large size. Such a modification would be made by one of ordinary skill to increase the output/capacity of the battery while utilizing the same dimensions of the battery.
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita further discloses
wherein one surface of the first cell frame to which the top cap of the cylindrical battery cell is exposed in the first cell module assembly and one surface of the second cell frame to which the top cap of the cylindrical battery cell is exposed in the second cell module assembly are spaced apart by the empty space defining the safety distance (see Fig. 7 where the frames 30, 31 hold the top caps facing the spaced exhaust passage 10).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita further discloses the cylindrical battery cells are accommodated in the cell frame so that the top caps all face the same direction (see Fig. 2 which illustrates all cylindrical batteries in each module facing the same direction and being accommodated in the cell frames, such as 306).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita further discloses respective cell frame is provided to be open at one side thereof (see Fig. 2 which illustrates cell frames 30 and 31 along with the corresponding opening on one side such that cells can fit in accommodating portions 306) and comprises:
an accommodating portion (as depicted in annotated Fig. 2 below) configured to form a space for accommodating the battery cells upright and to have a height corresponding to the length of the battery cells (the accommodating portion depth is equivalent to the height of the battery cell, and can be seen in Fig. 7);
an upper plate portion (as depicted in annotated Fig. 2 below) covering the top cap of each cylindrical battery cell (see annotated Fig. 2 below where the upper plate portion covers the top cap-side of the cylindrical cells); and
an opening exposing the bottom surface of the battery can of each cylindrical battery cell (as depicted in annotated Fig. 2 below) to an opposite surface of the cell frame from the upper plate portion (see Fig. 2 where the portion of the frame that exposes the bottom of the battery cell is on the opposite side of the frame from where the upper plate portion is located), wherein the upper plate portion comprises terminal connection holes that partially expose the top cap of the battery cell or the upper edge of the battery can of the battery cell. (see Fig. 2 which illustrates holes in the upper plate portion for connecting the cells to a busbar).
PNG
media_image2.png
889
1161
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 12, Yamashita further discloses metal bus bar plates are attached to the outer surface of the upper plate portion of the cell frame (such as busbar plates 31a, b and 4a, b which are located on either side of the battery cells), and wherein the bus bar plates are wire-bonded to an upper edge of the battery can or the top cap of each of the battery cells exposed through the terminal connection holes (see Fig. 2 which illustrates the cells are connected/bonded to busbar plates).
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita further discloses a cell spacer that surrounds all or part of the periphery of the lower end of the battery can and is coupled to the opening of the cell frame (see cell spacers defined by the holes 56 formed in plate 5, for example, that are coupled/integral with the cell frame 5,31).
Regarding claim 14, Yamashita further discloses a thermally conductive member (7) where one side is in contact with the bottom surface of the battery can (see Fig. 6) and the other side is in contact with the wall surface of the pack case (the conductive member 7 is in contact/integral with the wall surface of the pack case which is the outer surface of plate 7).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 2017/0373287) and Dao (US 2021/0184196) in view of Wang (US 2019/0058333).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita discloses a battery pack with a cover and a bottom plate (the cover is at the opposite end of the bottom plate, as defined in the rejection of claim 4 above), but Yamashita does not teach the claimed middle case.
Wang also discloses a battery pack (see abstract).
Wang teaches a battery module (310) that comprises battery cells and teaches a cover (120) and a bottom plate (130) along with a middle case (110). Wang teaches this middle case as a housing that completely encloses the battery module while also providing a control panel (112) on the exterior of the housing in order to provide energy inputs and outputs for the battery module (paragraph 26).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the middle case of Wang to the battery pack of modified Yamashita in order to enclose the battery module while also providing a control panel on the exterior of the housing in order to provide energy inputs and outputs for the battery module.
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita further discloses the middle case comprises:
a first wall surface and a second wall surface that face the bottom surface of the battery can of the cylindrical battery cell and extend along the longitudinal direction of the pack case in parallel with each other (the first and second wall surfaces are the surfaces of the middle case of modified Yamashita that are adjacent to the sides of the battery pack which face the bottom surface of the battery cans, the bottom surface of the battery cans is illustrated in annotated Fig. 7 above); and
a third wall surface and a fourth wall surface that cover both sides of the empty space formed between the one surface of the first cell frame and the one surface of the second cell frame while being spaced apart from both sides of the empty space by a predetermined distance and extend along the longitudinal direction of the pack case in parallel with each other (the third and fourth walls of the middle case of modified Yamashita are the remaining two walls of the middle case that cover the exhaust passage 10/empty space of modified Yamashita and it is spaced apart from the sides of the empty space by a predetermine distance, which is whatever distance is used to assemble the battery pack of modified Yamashita).
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita, as modified by Wang, further teaches a bottom plate (500 of Wang) coupled to the inside of the middle case (see Fig. 7 of Wang which illustrates the coupling of the bottom plate 500 and the middle case 110) that covers and supports the lower ends of the two cell module assemblies facing the lower cover (see Fig 4 of Wang where the battery pack 300 is held and supported by the bottom plate 500).
Yamashita teaches a gas exit at the bottom of the battery pack, but modified Yamashita does not teach a gap in the bottom plate to allow of passage of the gas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the gap/hole in the bottom plate of modified Yamashita in order to exhaust the gases that evolve and pass through the exhaust gas passage of Yamashita.
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita further discloses the venting portion comprises a venting cap that is press-fitted to a through hole in the bottom plate (see Fig. 7 where the venting cap 10a is press fitted by joining parts 300 and 310 together and forms a through hole, or a passage through the bottom plate to the outside).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 2017/0373287) and Dao (US 2021/0184196) in view of Wang (US 2019/0058333) and further in view of Bauer (US 2012/0247338).
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita teaches a venting cap and a cap body (as disclosed above) but is silent regarding a membrane within the cap body that is impermeable to liquid and permeable to gas.
Bauer also discloses a battery (see abstract).
Bauer, like Yamashita, teaches the release of gasses that are generated in a battery cell (see abstract). Bauer teaches the inclusion of a gas permeable, liquid impermeable membrane to allow for the release of gas while preventing liquid from permeating (see abstract). Bauer teaches such a configuration in order to prevent the leak of electrolyte/battery acid outside of the battery pack (paragraph 5).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the membrane of Bauer in the battery pack of modified Yamashita in order to allow for the release of gasses generated in the battery while preventing electrolyte from leaking out of the battery pack.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 2017/0373287) and Dao (US 2021/0184196) in view of Flannery (US 2022/0006135).
Regarding claim 15, Yamashita is silent regarding a potting glue. More specifically, Yamashita does not teach: a potting glue is applied to the outer surface of the upper plate portion of the cell frame, so that the top cap and the upper edge of the battery can are covered with the potting glue.
Flannery also discloses a battery cell pack (see abstract).
Flannery, like Yamashita, teaches cylindrical shells fixed within a battery pack (Fig. 13). Flannery goes on to teach a potting means is used to thermally protect a battery cell from the thermal events of nearby battery cells (paragraphs 38-39) while also providing a securing function of the battery cell (paragraph 38).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the potting means of Flannery to the outer surface of the upper plate/busbar of Yamashita in order to adhere the busbar into contact with the battery cells while also providing thermal protection of the cell from thermal events.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 2017/0373287) and Dao (US 2021/0184196) in view of Flannery (US 2022/0006135).
Regarding claims 16-17, Yamashita discloses a battery pack but is silent regarding its use. More specifically, Yamashita does not teach an electric bike/vehicle with the claimed battery pack.
Seo also discloses a battery pack (see abstract).
Seo teaches utilizing a battery pack to power a bike/vehicle (paragraph 3).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the batter pack of Yamashita in an electric bike/vehicle, as suggested by Seo, in order to power a vehicle/bike.
Relevant Prior Art
JP 2021022544 A - Discloses two cylindrical cell modules that are each contained in a respective frame, as claimed, but this document does not teach the claimed orientation of the top caps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Yamashita, does not teach an empty space between the modules that is a single, continuous and undivided empty space extending between the top caps of the first and second module assemblies. Yamashita teaches the inclusion of a thermal diffusion plate in between the modules such that the exhausted gas from the cells impinges on the plate rather than the cells of the opposite module. Yamashita expressly teaches away from removing this sheet as doing so would damage the cells that the hot exhaust gases impinge upon .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 1-2, Applicant argues that Yamashita does not teach a “pack case” because Yamashita only teaches two plate-shaped covers 7 and 8. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument because Applicant appears to be arguing an interpretation of “pack case” that is too narrow and not given its broadest reasonable interpretation. In other words, Applicant is arguing limitations from the drawings and specification (such as the structure of a “pack case”) that are not present in the claims.
On page 2, Applicant argues that Yamashita does not teach the “empty space” of claim 1. The Office respectfully disagrees. In claim 1, Applicant claims an empty space is located between the two cell module assemblies. This is precisely what Yamashita teaches even with a plate located between the modules. There is still an empty space located between the modules that facilitates flow of released gases, similar to the claimed function of the empty space.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly amended limitations. These limitations are addressed in the rejections above.
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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights