DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted January 11, 2024, July 22, 2025, September 16, 2025, and November 6, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites “close contact” but the term “close” is a relative term that is not defined in the instant specification such that the skilled artisan would be instructed in how to avoid infringing on the claimed subject matter. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as “in contact with”.
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 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.
6. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 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, 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
600
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 7 and 11 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.).
8. 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.).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights