/DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections /of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. In response to the amendment received on 9/2/2026:
Claims 1-18 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-2 and 7 have been amended and Claims 14-18 are newly added.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment and are modified only to reflect new claim limitations. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPS5550518 (hereinafter “JP ‘518”).
Regarding Claim 1, JP ‘518 discloses a battery module configured to hold a plurality of battery cells, the battery module comprising a module case 1 having an internal space (collectively the spaces holding battery cells 3) and an opening (the top of the case 2 is part of the venting structure and the lower part of the case 2 is not part of the venting structure) leading to the internal space, and a venting structure configured to divide the plurality of battery cells accommodated in the internal space into a plurality of cell groups stacked in the first direction, each cell group comprising at least one battery cell 3, and provide an independent gas venting passage (gas chamber) 4 to each cell group (see entire disclosure and especially the annotated Fig. 1 below and para 0002).
PNG
media_image1.png
964
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JP ‘518 discloses wherein each independent gas venting passage extends in a second direction (since the gas venting passages are three dimensional and therefore extend in three directions including the second direction) and the passages are stacked in the first direction.
Regarding Claims 2-3, JP ‘518 discloses wherein the venting structure comprises a first venting structure configured to cover the opening of the module case and configured to divide the plurality of battery cells 3 into cell groups, and a second venting structure covering the first venting structure (from below) and configured to be coupled to the first venting structure (via ends of the venting structure where 10 is formed) to form a plurality of gas venting passages corresponding to the plurality of cell groups and configured to provide a gas movement path in a zigzag or meander shape (meeting Claim 3) (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
494
1014
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, JP ‘518 discloses in interpretation A wherein the first venting structure comprises a first plate configured to cover the opening and at least one blocking wall configured to extending downwardly from a first (lower/inner) surface of the first plate, divide the plurality of battery cells into the plurality of cell groups, and block gas movement between the plurality of cell groups (see annotated Fig above). Although JP ‘518 does not explicitly recite that gas movement is blocked between the cell groups, the skilled artisan would understand that JP ‘518 connects only three of the six cells together for exhaust venting via exhaust port 10. The cells from one cell group are not ventingly connected to the cells from the other cell group because of the presence of blocking walls.
In Interpretation B, which applies to the rejections of Claims 5-7 and 9-11 below, JP ‘518 discloses wherein the first venting structure comprises a first plate configured to cover the opening (seen below as the top surface of the housing 2) and at least one blocking wall (seen as a partition between cells 3) configured to extending downwardly from a first (lower/inner) surface of the first plate, divide the plurality of battery cells into the plurality of cell groups, and block gas movement between the plurality of cell groups (see annotated Fig below).
Regarding Claim 5, JP ‘518 discloses wherein the first plate has a plurality of gas inlets (exhaust pipes) 5 corresponding to the plurality of cell groups, and wherein each of the plurality of gas inlets 5 is configured to be provided a position adjacent to a corresponding cell group among the plurality of cell groups and lead to one gas venting passage among the plurality of gas venting passages.
Regarding Claim 6, JP ‘518 discloses wherein the first venting structure further comprises a partition structure configured to protrude upward from a second surface of the first plate and come into contact with the second venting structure to form the plurality of gas venting passages (see annotated Fig below).
PNG
media_image3.png
457
1092
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, JP ‘518 discloses wherein the second venting structure has a plurality of gas outlets corresponding to the plurality of gas venting passages (see annotated Fig below) since the second venting structure forms outlets for each cell via its downward protrusions to allow vented gas to move out of the passage toward 10.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, JP ‘518 discloses wherein the second venting structure comprises a second plate facing a second surface of the first plate, and a partition structure (formed integrally with the 2nd plate) configured to protrude from the second plate and come into contact with the second surface of the first plate so as to form the plurality of gas venting passages (see annotated Fig below).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, JP ‘518 discloses wherein a number of the plurality of cell groups is equal to a number of the independent gas venting passages (“a number” being TWO) and each of the two independent gas venting passages overlies a single cell group of the plurality of cell groups (see annotated Fig. above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 7, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS5550518 (hereinafter “JP ‘518”) in view of Kim US PG Publication 2016/0218388.
Regarding Claim 7, JP ‘518 discloses the claimed battery module as described in the rejection above of Claim 6, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. JP ‘518 fails to specifically disclose wherein the second venting structure has an insertion groove configured such that at least a portion of the partition structure is inserted into and comes into contact with the insertion groove. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module design, Kim discloses wherein an upper body (e.g. a top cover) 146 of a battery module includes projections (bolts) 146a that couple into bolt insertion grooves 122c in order to connect battery module parts together (see e.g. Fig 5; paras 0035, 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the venting structure of JP ‘518 such that the second venting structure has an insertion groove configured that at least a portion of the partition structure is inserted into and comes into contact with the insertion groove because Kim teaches that projections/grooves are useful in a battery module housing to couple parts together and 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. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 11, JP ‘518 fails to specifically disclose wherein the module case has at least one guide groove configured such that an edge portion of the at least one blocking wall is inserted into and guided by the at least one guide groove. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module design, Kim discloses wherein an upper body (e.g. a top cover) 146 of a battery module includes projections (bolts) 146a that are guided into bolt insertion grooves 122c in order to connect battery module parts together (see e.g. Fig 5; paras 0035, 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the venting structure of JP ‘518 such that the module case has at least one guide groove configured such that an edge portion of the at least one blocking wall is inserted into and guided by the at least one guide groove because Kim teaches that projections/grooves are useful in a battery module housing to couple parts together and 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. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 14, JP ‘518 discloses the claimed battery module as described in the rejection above of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. JP ‘518 discloses wherein the venting structure comprises a first plate and a second plate spaced from the first plate in a third (up-down) direction (see annotated Fig below)
PNG
media_image4.png
458
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
but fails to specifically disclose wherein the first plate and the second plate have cooperating partitions and grooves to form walls between the independent gas venting passages. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module design, Kim discloses wherein an upper body (e.g. a top cover) 146 of a battery module includes projections (bolts) 146a that couple into bolt insertion grooves 122c in order to connect battery module parts together (see e.g. Fig 5; paras 0035, 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the venting structure of JP ‘518 such the first plate and the second plate have cooperating partitions and grooves to form walls between the independent gas venting passages because Kim teaches that projections/grooves are useful in a battery module housing to couple parts together and 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. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 15, JP ‘518 discloses wherein the cooperating partitions and grooves are aligned with blocking walls of the battery module in the third direction (see annotated Fig above) and does not specifically disclose wherein a plurality of blocking walls separate the plurality of cell groups. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of cells in each cell section of the battery module of modified JP ‘518 such that each blocking wall in the module case separates a plurality of cell groups in order to provide the most energy storage possible (by increasing the number of battery cells used) since the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
7. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS5550518 (hereinafter “JP ‘518”) in view of Workman US PG Publication 2013/0043826.
Regarding Claims 12-13, JP ‘518 discloses the claimed battery module as described in the rejection above of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. JP ‘518 discloses wherein the battery is a lead-acid battery, but fails to specifically disclose wherein the battery is part of a battery pack or wherein the battery module is part of a vehicle. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module design using lead-acid battery cells, Workman teaches that a lead-acid battery module is useful in a battery pack that is used in a vehicle (e.g. rechargeable via a vehicle’s 12 VDC connection (see e.g. paras 0018, 0055, 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the battery module of JP ‘518 in a battery pack in a vehicle because Workman teaches that this type of technology is useful in such an application and 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. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JPS5550518 (hereinafter “JP ‘518”).
Regarding Claim 16, JP ‘518 discloses wherein the cooperating partitions and grooves are aligned with blocking walls of the battery module in the third direction (see annotated Fig above) and does not specifically disclose wherein a plurality of blocking walls separate the plurality of cell groups. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of cells in each cell section of the battery module of modified JP ‘518 such that each blocking wall in the module case separates a plurality of cell groups in order to provide the most energy storage possible (by increasing the number of battery cells used) since the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
JP ‘518 further discloses wherein the venting structure comprises a first plate and a second plate spaced from the first plate in a third (up-down) direction (see annotated Fig below)
PNG
media_image5.png
562
493
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and because the set of walls between the independent gas venting passages extend together the second direction and are aligned in the third direction with a respective blocking wall of the plurality of blocking walls, then Claim 16’s structure is met. There is no requirement in the claim that an individual wall aligns with a respective blocking wall.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the rejection above, including an explanation of how the previously cited prior art teaches the structure of Claim 1 wherein each independent gas venting passage extends in a second direction while being stacked in the first direction.
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
