Battery Module and Battery Pack Including the Same

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 Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 4 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the claim amendments “wherein a gas configured to be discharged through the discharge guide member flows in a direction opposite to a direction toward an adjacent battery module” fail to distinguish from the prior art of record. Specifically, the claim does not specify the directions relative to the battery module or the adjacent battery module in a specific manner which could preclude the operation of the prior art. As discussed during the interview, the directions should be established relative to longitudinal directions of the battery modules. For example, the scenario below is shown in the prior art: PNG media_image1.png 599 1029 media_image1.png Greyscale Similarly, the plan view of the prior art also shows a portion of discharged gas which flows in the claimed direction: PNG media_image2.png 624 867 media_image2.png Greyscale In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the prior art allows gas to travel in a direction of the adjacent battery modules, i.e. all of the discharged gas travels in the opposite direction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the rejection over the prior art of record is maintained and this action is FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Murai et al. (US Pub 2016/0099451 cited in IDS). In regard to claim 1, Murai et al. teach a battery module (modules 10a, 10b) comprising: a housing (including but not limited to cover 17, case 13) that houses a battery cell stack (cells 11) and includes a pair of holes (outlets 19) disposed opposite to each other formed through a first end plate and a second end plate (module case 13 on both sides, brackets 20 – see figure 3 for opposite outlet recesses 19a), the battery cell stack including a plurality of stacked battery cells 11; and a discharge guide member (passage part 23 connected to outlets 19 include recesses 19a) that forms a gas flow path partially through the housing, the discharge guide member 23 configured to cover a hole of the pair of holes (recesses 19a or outlets 19) (see figures 1-5, paragraphs [0028-0071]). PNG media_image3.png 618 915 media_image3.png Greyscale In regard to the amendment, a gas (see flow lines illustrated below) configured to be discharged through the discharge guide member 32 flows in a direction opposite to a direction toward an adjacent battery module (top module in figure below) as seen in annotated figures below: PNG media_image1.png 599 1029 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 624 867 media_image2.png Greyscale In any event, the amendments relate to functions and material worked upon (i.e. the discharged gas) by the apparatus, and the Examiner notes MPEP 2114 relating to Apparatus and Article claims – Functional Language: While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. >In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP 2115: "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In regard to claim 2, the housing comprises a module frame (see shape of 10a housing in figure 4 – including cover 17) that includes openings disposed opposite to an inner space for housing the battery cell stack, wherein the first end plate 13 and the second end plate 13 are coupled to the module frame (cover 17) and are configured to cover the openings, respectively, the pair of holes comprises a first hole (area covered by plate 13, including 19a) provided in the first end plate; and a second hole (covered by opposite plate 13, including 19a) provided in the second end plate, and the discharge guide member 23 is mounted in the housing and is configured to cover any one hole of the first hole and the second hole (figure 5 annotated above, paragraphs [0029-0056]). In regard to claim 10, the housing comprises a module frame 17 having an opening that houses the battery cell stack therein; and an end plate (module case 13) that is coupled to the module frame configured to cover the opening, and the pair of holes comprises a first hole 19a provided in the end plate; and a second hole 19a provided in a portion of the module frame disposed opposite to the end plate (figure 5 annotated above, paragraphs [0029-0056]). In regard to claim 3 and 11, wherein: the discharge guide member 23; comprises an inner cavity in communication with any one of the holes and an outlet port configured to expose the inner cavity to the outside of the housing, and comprises a cover (such as bracket 20) mounted on any one end plate of the first end plate and the second end plate (figure 5 annotated above, paragraphs [0029-0056]). In regard to claim 4 and 12, the module frame 17 has a square tubular shape including a pair of wide surfaces disposed opposite to each other and a pair of narrow surfaces disposed opposite to each other, and the cover 13 is mounted on any one of the end plates, the outlet port 19 disposed on at least one of the four wide or narrow surfaces of the module frame (figure 3, paragraphs [0053]). In regard to claim 5 and 13, an area of the outlet port 19a is smaller than an area of any one of the holes (in plate 13 (figure 2 – because of the presence of holder 12, paragraphs [0056]). In regard to claim 6 and 14, a gas discharge direction that is discharged through the outlet port from the inside of the housing, and a gas discharge direction that is discharged through the other one of the first hole and the second hole from the inside of the housing are configured to extend in the same direction (figure 6 – gas illustrated as arrows, paragraphs [0072]). In regard to claim 7 and 15, the cover comprises a first cover part (case 13) fixed to one of the end plates having a first inner space configured such that gas discharged through any one of the holes is guided in a first direction, and a second cover part (holder 12) connected to the first cover part and having that has a second inner space configured such that gas discharged through the first inner space is guided in a second direction and discharged through the outlet port (figure 2, paragraphs [0056]). In regard to new claim 20, while in figure 2 the second cover part 12 is shown as disposed on an lower surface of the module frame, and the second cover part is configured such that the gas discharged through the first inner space is guided in the second direction and discharged through the outlet port and along the lower surface of the module frame, the claims fail to set up an orientation for upper/lower and therefore the battery module of the prior art may be rotated such that the orientation below exists, such as during installation or repair of the battery module: PNG media_image4.png 362 758 media_image4.png Greyscale In regard to claim 8 and 16, the second cover part 12 is fixed to any one wide or narrow surface of the module frame 17 (figure 2, paragraphs [0056] – the entire module of the prior art is considered fixed together). In regard to claim 9 and 17, a flame arresting member (flow constricting holder 12) is mounted in at least one of the first hole, the second hole, and the outlet port (figure 2, paragraphs [0056]). In regard to claim 18 and 19, Murai et al. teach a battery pack comprising: a plurality of battery modules 10a, 10b according to claim 1 and 10; and a pack frame (frame member 30 and vehicle floor panel P) surrounding the plurality of battery modules (paragraph [0030]), wherein a first battery module 20a and a second battery module 20b aligned along one direction among the plurality of battery modules are disposed so that respective discharge guide members of the first and second battery modules face each other (figure 6 annotated below, paragraphs [0072-0077]). PNG media_image5.png 474 556 media_image5.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Jo et al. (US Pub 2020/0076025) is applicant’s own work that teaches similar venting structures for battery packs. Ochi et al. (US Pub 2016/0260946) teaches cooling gaps between stacked battery blocks (figure 1). US Pub 2014/0178721 newly cited, teaches a cooling structure and variable directions of gas exhaust. 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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, 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. /NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723