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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of operating a battery bank, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, drawn to a battery module/battery pack in the reply filed on 07/21/2021 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (KR 20180038291A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Park discloses a battery module assembly comprising (see Fig. 1 [0026]-[0028]): a battery module (10 [0028]) having a plurality of battery cells received therein; a fire detection sensor (70a, 70b, 20c, 70d) provided outside the battery module; a cover member (20) configured to receive the battery module (10) and the fire detection sensor(70a, 70b, 20c, 70d [0042][0033]); and a pump (40 [0035]) connected to the cover member, the pump being configured to discharge air ([0057]-[0059]) in the cover member (20) to an outside of the cover member upon receiving a fire signal from the fire detection sensor and a cover body (20) and an extension portion (See piping [0036] that connects 40) configured to connect the cover body (20) and the pump (40) to each other
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20180038291A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Park does not disclose multiple battery module assemblies in the storage container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the number of battery modules assemblies of Park to include multiple battery assemblies because it would increase the amount of energy output.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR101238062 B1, Machine Translation) in view of Park (KR 20180038291A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery module assembly (See 10 in Fig. 2 [0077]-[0093]) comprising: a battery module (stack of batteries B shown) having a plurality of battery cells (B); a fire detection sensor (30 [0082]) provided outside the battery module(stack of batteries B shown); a cover member (10) configured to receive the battery module(stack of batteries B shown) and the fire detection sensor (30); and a pump (extraction fan [0090]) connected to the cover member, the pump being configured to discharge air in the cover member to an outside of the cover member upon a fire.
Lee does disclose that the exhaust fan operates in the event of a fire and discloses that there is a sensor and a controller which outputs signals in the event of a fire ([0084]-[0088]) but does not explicitly indicate receiving a fire signal from the fire detection sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the exhaust fan of Lee to operate once receiving a signal from a controller which has received a signal from the fire sensor because Lee discloses that the exhaust fan should operate upon the occurrence of a fire.
However, Lee does not disclose that the battery module has batteries received therein.
Park discloses a battery module (10) which have batteries received therein ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the battery module of Lee so that the batteries are received therein as disclosed by Park because as disclosed by Park batteries can be received therein in a battery module housed in a storage container.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Lee does not disclose multiple battery module assemblies in the storage container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the number of battery modules assemblies of Lee to include multiple battery assemblies because it would increase the amount of energy output.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR101238062 B1, Machine Translation) in view of Park (KR20180038291A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and in further view of Koo (KR102341681B1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lee discloses that an air flow path is in the battery module assembly purpose but does not disclose what establishes the air flow during normal operation ([0079]).
In addition, Lee discloses that the cover member comprises a cover body (casing portion 10 [0078] and an additional exhaust fan for discharging air during a fire [0090] , however, Lee does not disclose the particulars of the exhaust fan.
Koo (see Fig. 2) discloses a battery module assembly for an electrical vehicle similar to Lee and also discloses that air can be discharged from the assembly through a blower fan (610) in the event of a fire which is connected to the cover member through an extension portion (600) ([0045]).
Koo discloses that a pump has both a blower fan (610) which operates during a fire ([0045]) and a vacuum pump (620) which operates during exhausting not under a fire condition ([0043]) which will establish an air flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the exhaust fan of modified Lee by having it be connected through an extension portion as disclosed by Koo and additionally coupling it with a vacuum pump as disclosed because Koo discloses that this type of connection functions to connect an exhaust fan and vacuum pump which operates in case of a fire or in a case of establishing air flow in a storage container both desired by Lee and is the type of pump which is coupled to a storage container used in a battery system for an electric vehicle.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR101238062 B1, Machine Translation) in view of Park (KR20180038291A, Machine Translation) in further view of Koo (KR102341681B1, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 2 above and in further view of Borsheim (US 2021/0036283 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lee discloses that the batteries power the electric vehicle, but does not disclose details of the electrical wiring.
Borsheim discloses a storage container (see 1 in Fig. 1B and 1A) which houses modules wherein a first side of a battery module (1) has a connection portion (10 and 25 [0028]) extends from the container which provides power from batteries to the external loads ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the batteries of modified Lee by providing connection portions as disclosed by Borsheim because it will allow for power cable to power external load which is desired by Lee.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the connection portion of modified Lee be run through openings or through-holes in the casing because doing so would allow for easier routing of wiring and less wiring material used.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lee discloses wherein the cover body (10) has an opening for entry and exit of the battery module (see where 20 is placed), and wherein the opening has an opening and closing door (see Fig. 2 20 [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lee discloses a door unit (20 see Fig. 2 [0080]) that is mounted inside the duct/cover body.
Borsheim discloses that a damper (7a) that controls air flow can be mounted on an outer surface of a duct (22) and shuts air flow to the duct when there is a fire ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the door unit of modified Lee so that it is mounted to an outer surface of a duct as disclosed by Borsheim because Borsheim discloses that mounting a damper to an outer surface of a duct can effectively shut the opening to intaking air.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the size of the door of modified Lee which is mounted to an outer surface of the duct so that it is larger than the size of the opening in the cover body because it would allow for the cover body to be effectively sealed.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, modified Lee (See modification of Koo above, mapping done to Koo). discloses that the pump has both a blower fan (610) which operates during a fire ([0045]) and a vacuum pump (620) which operates during exhausting under normal condition operation ([0043]).
In addition, Lee discloses wherein the opening and closing door is a check valve door configured such that the opening is closed when the pump suctions air from the cover member and the opening is opened when the pump supplies outside air into the cover member ([0081][0090]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR101238062 B1, Machine Translation) in view of Park (KR20180038291A, Machine Translation) in view of Koo (KR102341681B1, Machine Translation) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Yokoyama (US 2011/0195291 A1).
Regarding claims 7-9, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee does not disclose that the cover body and the extension portion is formed of flame-resistant polyethylene terephthalate material.
Yokoyama discloses that a housing material (2, see Fig. 1 [0027]) used to house batteries (3 and 4) can be formed of flame resistant resins such as flame-resistant polyethylene terephthalate [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cover body and the extension portion of modified Lee by making them out of heat-resistant materials as disclosed by Yokoyama because doing so will prevent fire from spreading which is the purpose of Lee.
With regards to “wherein each of the cover body and the extension portion is flexible” the structure of the cover body and the extension portion and materials which form the structures of modified Lee are the same as instantly claimed and therefore will have the same property of wherein each of the cover body and the extension portion is flexible.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
