BATTERY PACK WITH IMPROVED SAFETY

§103 §112

DETAILED ACTION 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 . Drawings 2. The drawings are objected to because:A) Within Fig. 12, the right side “120” points to the blocking member instead of the end plate on the right side. The right side “120” should have a line pointing to the right side end plate 120. B) “an upper surface of the pack case” should be annotated with a reference numeral that is added to each of the specification and the drawings. MPEP 608.01(o): The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. It appears based on the Examiner’s best understanding of the invention, that the “upper surface of the pack case” that meets the requirements of claim 1 of being opened and having the fire-fighting tank 400 “covering” the upper surface of the pack case” is the surface pointed to below within Fig. 9. It is noted that the Examiner does not see how any other upper surface of the pack case 300 meets the requirements presented: PNG media_image1.png 495 580 media_image1.png Greyscale Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “an upper surface of the pack case” should be annotated with a reference numeral that is added to each of the specification and the drawings. MPEP 608.01(o): The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 4. Claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 5 recites “a vertical direction” however this has previously been defined. Accordingly, the claims fails to invoke proper antecedent basis and this should be corrected to “the vertical direction.” Claim 14: the comma after “thinned” is incorrect and should be deleted. Claim 15: the fragile parts should be corrected to invoke full and proper antecedent basis in each instance where they occur. Claim 16: “the battery cells” should be corrected to invoke full and proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5. 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. 6. Claim 2, claim 6, claim 8, claim 9, claim 10, claim 13; claim 14; claim 15, and claim 17; are 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 2 recites “the battery cell” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 2 recites “the fire extinguishing agent” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 6 recites “wherein lower ends of the plurality of first through holes are opened at lower ends of the support plate.” It is not clear how the support plate has plural lower ends. The claim then goes on to define “…wherein a lower end of the support plate…” in the next line. It is not clear if this is a [second] lower end or a failure in invoking proper antecedent basis to one of the alleged “lower ends of the support plate.” Claim 6 recites the relative terminology of “closely contacted” which renders the claim indefinite as there is no standard in the specification or the prior art for delineating the metes and bounds of the term “closely.” Claim 6 recites “the lower surface of the pack case” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claim 6 first requires the lower ends of the plurality of first through holes are opened (lines 1-2) and then requires the lower ends to have a clogged shape. It is not clear which of the two alternatives is required, or if the “wherein” clause is required to be met with one or the other or both. Furthermore, if the lower ends have a clogged shape, the “through holes” are not a through hole. The claim thus recites contradictory requirements. Claim 6 is highly indefinite for the multitude of reasons outlined. Claim 8 recites that “opposite ends of the plurality of second through holes each have a clogged shape. If the opposite ends are clogged, the “through hole” is not a through hole. The claim is thus indefinite as it recites contradictory requirements. Claim 9 recites “the first through hole” in lines 1-2, wherein there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 9 recites, “the second through hole…” in line 4, wherein there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 10 recites, “the swelling pad” in line 3, wherein there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The parent claim (claim 3) recites “a pair of swelling pads” such that is not clear if this feature is applied to each of the swelling pads present or just one. Claim 10 recites the relative terminology of “a soft plastic” which renders the claim indefinite as there is no standard in the specification or the prior art for delineating the metes and bounds of the term “soft.” Claim 13 recites the feature, “the fire extinguishing agent” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 14 recites the feature, “the fire extinguishing agent” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 14 recites the feature, “the battery cell” in the final line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 14 recites the feature, “the base plate” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 15 recites, “the fragile part” and “the battery cell” in the final two lines; there is insufficient antecedent basis for both limitations. Claim 17 defines constituents within the claim body that are not within the scope of the preamble. For example, one could not claim “A desk of claim 1, wherein a plurality of desks are provided…” The plurality of desks is outside the scope of “a desk.” The same is true in the instant claim 17: a plurality of battery packs is outside the scope of “a battery pack” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner recommends: “A stacked structure of battery packs” (see P150 of the PGPUB for support) as a preamble that follows with the claiming of a plurality of battery packs of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. The claims will be examined as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes; however, claims 6, 8 and 17 are indefinite to the point of precluding prior art application. 7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 8. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites “an energy storage system” comprising the battery pack of claim 1. A battery pack is an energy storage system. The claim provides no further requirements. Accordingly, the claim is non-limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 9. 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. 10. Claims 1-2, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2021/0328304) in view of Hu et al. (US 2011/0159340). Regarding claim 1, You teaches a battery pack (at least Figs. 1-3) comprising: a cell module assembly (see Fig. 1) including a battery cell stack (see Fig. 1) in which a plurality of battery cells 1 are stacked in a first direction (L direction) and each battery cell 1 is erected in a vertical direction (H direction); a lower box 21 (“pack case”) housing the cell module assembly (see Figs. 1-3), an upper surface of the pack case being opened (see Fig. 1); and an upper box 22 including “a fire-fighting tank” [created by way of lower plate 222 mating with upper plate 221 to create an extinguishing space S holding fire extinguishing agent 3 therein (see Figs. 2-121)] located above the cell module assembly (see Figs. 3-3) and covering the upper surface of the lower box 21 (“pack case”). You fails to disclose: “a plate-shaped blocking disposed between adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells and erected in [the] vertical direction; wherein the blocking member includes a plurality of openings at its upper end, and an inside of the blocking member includes an empty space connected to the plurality of openings.” In the same field of endeavor, Hu teaches analogous art in the same field of endeavor of a battery pack (P2), Hu teaching a cell module assembly including a battery cell stack in which a plurality of cells 502 are stacked in a first direction and each battery cell is erected in a vertical direction (see Fig. 5, among others), a pack housing 500 (“pack case”) housing the cell module assembly (Fig. 5; P47-51), wherein Hu teaches it is a known technique and construct to provide a composite heat conduction plate 510 that has a plate-shape (i.e., “a plate-shaped blocking member”) (see Figs. 5-6) between adjacent cells 502 of the plurality of battery cells that is erected in [the] vertical direction, wherein the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) includes a plurality of openings (see top side of Fig. 5 or right side of Fig. 6) at its upper end (see Fig. 5), and an inside of the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) includes internal spaces 606 (“an empty space2,3”) connected to the plurality of openings. Figs. 5 and 6 of Hu are reproduced below for convenience: PNG media_image2.png 367 439 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 280 485 media_image3.png Greyscale Hu teaches that the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) is a protective structure for thermal dissipation and preventing thermal runaway diffusion in a battery system so as to provide safety protection of thermal runaway of the entire battery module caused by the diffusion of thermal runaway of one of the unit cells in the battery system (P2, 10). Hu also teaches that the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) has a heat conduction/dissipating function and can solve the uneven battery temperature and overheat inside the module so as to extend the cycle life of the lithium battery module(P10-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery pack of You with the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) in the location claimed and having all the structure recited within the claim given Hu teaches the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) is a protective structure for thermal dissipation and preventing thermal runaway diffusion in a battery system so as to provide safety protection of thermal runaway of the entire battery module caused by the diffusion of thermal runaway of one of the unit cells in the battery system (P2, 10), and also has the advantage of providing a heat conduction/dissipating function and can solve the uneven battery temperature and overheat inside the module so as to extend the cycle life of the lithium battery module(P10-14). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). Regarding claim 2, You as modified by Hu appears to teach all of the structure necessary to achieve the functionality claimed. Hu teaches the component 604 held within internal spaces 606 (“the empty space”) may be a liquid such as water (P51). There appears to be no reason that when a thermal event occurs in one of the plurality of battery cells, the fire extinguishing agent 3 provided from the fire-fighting tank (that melts or breaks open to release the fire extinguishing agent 3) (P30) could not flow into the internal spaces 606 (“empty space”) inside the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) through the plurality of openings of the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”). Regarding claim 13, You teaches wherein the fire extinguishing agent may be a solid or a fire extinguishing fluid (P42). There are only two options for a fluid (liquid or gas) such that selecting a liquid is held prima face obvious from the genus of “fluid” of which there are only two species. Regarding claim 18, You teaches a battery pack. A battery pack is “an energy storage system” such that the claim is met (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being a non-limiting claim). 11. Claims 3-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2021/0328304) in view of Hu et al. (US 2011/0159340) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0327254). Regarding claim 3, You as modified by Hu teaches the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) comprises a structural support 602 (“a support plate”) and a pair of heat conduction layers 602 that may be formed of metal materials (P50). Hu does not teach, “a pair of swelling pads” is provided on opposite surfaces of the structural support 602 (“support plate”). In the same field of endeavor of a battery pack including intervening blocking members between adjacent cells, Kim teaches it is a known technique to provide a pair of swelling layers 450 (“swelling pads”) on opposite surfaces of a support/middle plate 410 that is located between adjacent batteries (Fig. 13, reproduced below; P90). Kim teaches that the layer 450 will expand when there is a rapid rise of temperature due to thermal runaway occurring such that the cells adjacent to one another are pushed further away from one another for prevention of thermal propagation to an adjacent cell: PNG media_image4.png 475 428 media_image4.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to apply the known technique and construct of Kim detailed above to the the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”) of modified You/Hu in order to provide and achieve the predictable, advantageous result detailed above. Regarding claim 4, You as modified by Hu teaches wherein the support plate (relying collectively upon the supports 602 and noting that Hu teaches the layers 600 and supports are taught as being formed through extrusion, injection, or other suitable methods such that 600/602/600 would be understood as single, integral entity in such a case – P49) comprises a plurality of internal spaces 606 (“a plurality of first through holes”) that are formed by penetrating the support plate in one direction from the plurality of openings, and wherein an inside of the plurality of first through holes is the empty space inside the composite heat conduction plate 510 (“blocking member”). It is noted that the italicized language is product-by-process language, the court holding: “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). The structure implied by the product-by-process claim appears to be fully met by Hu. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from that claimed. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113. It is noted that the support plate (relying collectively upon the supports 602 and noting that Hu teaches the layers 600 and supports are taught as being formed through extrusion, injection, or other suitable methods such that 600/602/600) would be understood as single, integral entity in such a case (P49). In the instance this is argued, it is also noted that has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179) such that providing 600/602/600 as an integral support plate is held prima facie obvious in view of the case law cited. Regarding claim 5, You as modified by Hu teaches wherein the plurality of plurality of internal spaces 606 (“a plurality of first through holes”) extend in the vertical direction of the support plate (600/602/600), the plurality of first through holes being arranged in a line in parallel to each other (see Figs. 5-6). Regarding claim 10, You as modified by Hu teaches wherein the support plate is made of metal or stainless steel (P50). You/Hu as modified by Kim teaches that a foaming coating layer may be used for the swelling layers that responds to temperature can be “appropriate selected and used” (P90) but does not name “a silicone material or “a soft plastic material.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would be immediately apprised of such options for the swelling layers, the courts holding that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Regarding claim 11, the entire claim is product-by-process language that does not lend any additional structure to the product claimed. Accordingly, the construct of You as modified by Hu meets all structure presented, wherein the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Regarding claim 12 You as modified by Hu teaches wherein the support plate may be formed through casting, extrusion, injection, etc. (P49), werhein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as options that provide an “integrally formed” entity. Additionally, it is also noted that has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179) such that providing 600/602/600 as an integral support plate is held prima facie obvious in view of the case law cited. 12. Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2021/0328304) in view of Hu et al. (US 2011/0159340) and Kim et al. (US 2023/0327254) as applied to at least claims 1, 3, and 4 above, and further in view of Halsey et al. (US 2018/0358671). Regarding claims 7 and 9, You as modified by Hu fails teaches wherein the support plate support plate (600/602/600; i.e., conductive composite plate 510) further comprises a plurality of second through holes [one could label left-side through-holes as “a first plurality of through holes” and right side through holes as “a second plurality of through-holes”). You as modified by Hu fails to teach a configuration in which there are a first plurality of through holes and a second plurality of through holes that extend in mutually different directions and intersect each other, and wherein an inside of the plurality of first through holes and the plurality of second through holes is an is the empty space inside the blocking member. The courts have held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Halsey teaches analogous art of a battery pack including “a blocking member” (chassis 20) performing the same functionality of preventing thermal runaway that is disposed between adjacent battery cells that includes a plurality of first vertical through holes 80 that extend in mutually different direction from a plurality of second horizontal through holes 84 and intersect with one another to define an empty space inside the blocking member (chassis 20) (see Figs. 2, 4, 7 – reproduced below; entire disclosure relied upon). The horizontal through holes 84 allow for the cooling fluid provided through the chassis 20 (“blocking member”) to be more evenly distributed (P36). The configuration further meets claim 9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the support plate (600/602/600; i.e., conductive composite plate 510) with the design and horizontal, intersecting second through holes 84 of Halsey in order to provide the predictable result of more evenly distributing the fire extinguishing agent therein. Figs. 2, 4, and 7 of Halsey are below: PNG media_image5.png 811 468 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 510 709 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 477 699 media_image7.png Greyscale 13. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2021/0328304) in view of Hu et al. (US 2011/0159340) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022/108286)4 (using US 2023/0249017 as an English language family member and translation thereof). Regarding claims 14-15, You teaches wherein the fire-fighting tank comprises: an internal space S that houses [a] fire extinguishing agent. You fails to teach a plurality of fragile parts where the thickness of [a] base plate of the fire-fighting tank is thinned, so as to be melted and opened by a thermal event of the battery cell (claim 14), wherein the fragile parts have a linear shape and are arranged in parallel with one edge of the fire-fighting tank, the fragile parts being arranged in parallel with each other, and wherein a longitudinal direction of the fragile part and a longitudinal direction of the battery cell are orthogonal to each other (claim 15). In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a water tank 300 (“fire extinguishing tank”) above a plurality of battery cells with a plurality of through holes having sealing members added 320 that melts to open the hole and introduce the water (“fire extinguishing agent”) to the cells (P84). The plurality of through holes with the sealing members therein 320 read on the claimed features above of a “plurality of fragile parts where the thickness of the base plate 220 would be thinned (i.e, zero compared to the original base plate where the holes are located) (see Figs. 1-8; P84; entire disclosure relied upon). The holes/sealing parts are not shown to have a “linear shape” however the change in form or shape without, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the fire-fighting tank of You to have the above features of Kim, and to select an appropriate shape thereof (i.e., linear versus circular) in order to provide the predictable results of allowing specific locations of water (“fire extinguishing agent) entry onto/into the cell module assembly and/or cell(s). 14. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2021/0328304) in view of Hu et al. (US 2011/0159340) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2020/0176745). Regarding claim 16, You does not teach the features claimed. The features are considered a well-known, standard construct in the art for provide a cell module assembly with the necessary electrical and structural entities to form the module as taught by Lee. Lee teaches analogous art of a manner in which to electrically and structurally hold a plurality of cells together including: a pair of busbar housings disposed on a front surface and a rear surface surface of the battery cell stack; and a pair of end plates disposed in parallel to the battery cells at both side end parts of the battery cell stack, wherein a pair the pair of end plates are connected between the pair of busbar housings (see Figs. 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the cell module array of You with the above constituents as taught by Lee in order to provide a known manner in which to electrically and structurally connect a plurality of battery cells to one another. Conclusion 15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. At least claim 1 could also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in a similar manner as is done above by way of Sugeno (US 2019/0334143) in view of Kozu (US 2011/0293986). Sugeno teaches all the structure of claim 1 except the blocking member: PNG media_image8.png 424 464 media_image8.png Greyscale Kozu teaches the following holder 3 (“blocking member”) (truncated Fig. 2) with a plurality of openings at its upper end with an inside of the holder 3 (“blocking member”) including an empty space connected to the plurality of openings (that is filled with a phase change material 4): PNG media_image9.png 266 368 media_image9.png Greyscale Lian et al. (US 2019/0168037) teaches the following construct (pertinent to a fire-fighting tank located above a cell module assembly and covering an upper surface of the pack case): PNG media_image10.png 323 413 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 309 452 media_image11.png Greyscale The following prior art references pertain to “blocking members” in the location as claimed: Yoshida et al. (US 2011/0223452): PNG media_image12.png 601 530 media_image12.png Greyscale PNG media_image13.png 456 485 media_image13.png Greyscale and Hamada et al. (US 2006/0246348). Conclusion 16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BILLIET whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST. 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 C Tavares-Crockett can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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. /AMANDA J BILLIET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 1 There are multiple embodiments, all of which read on the limitation 2 “An empty space” can be interpreted as one or more empty spaces as is standard practice of terms, and is also consistent with what the instant application teaches in the embodiments of Figs. 13-16 in which there are technically multiple “empty spaces” respectively connected to a respective opening 3 It is noted that while Hu teaches there may be a heat insulation layer 604 filled into the internal spaces 606 that may be a solid material or a liquid such as water (P50-51), the claims do not limit the “empty space” from being filled with another entity. For example, the instant application describes pack 300 as having “an empty space formed therein” that can house the cell module assembly (P81). As another analogous claim construct, the instant application claims “an upper surface of the pack case being opened,” however, it is subsequently shut by other entities. So while there is an opening, it then has materials placed thereon. 4 Cited by the JP Office in counterpart to 19/162,715 claiming the same/similar subject matter within the independent claim; double patenting will be monitored against this application. Copending application 18/689,162 also recites similar/same subject matter in the claim set. Any prior art applied to these claims would appear “material to patentability” to claims 14-15 (see MPEP 2001, Duty of Disclosure).