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 Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted 03/25/2024 was received and has been examined on its merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 03/25/2024, 04/22/2025, 06/24/2025, 09/09/2025, and 04/23/2026 were received and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the protrusion extending from one of the facing battery modules must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Battery Pack Comprising Gaps Between Modules, And Energy Storage System And Vehicle Including The Battery Pack.
Claim Interpretation
New claims 11-12 were added as a preliminary amendment, with support added to the amended specification, as no wording to support claims 11-12 were in the original specification. However, examiner believes there is ample support for the subject matter of claims 11-12 in the figures, specifically Fig. 2 (for the protrusion of the modules of claim 12) and Fig. 4 (for the gap being an empty space of claim 11). For clarity of the record and to avoid any 112(a) issues for new matter, examiner recommends amending the figures and specification with reference numerals clearly indicating the empty space of claim 11 (Fig. 4) and the battery module protrusion of claim 12 (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hisano et al. (U.S. 20150214521; referenced in IDS submitted 06/242025).
With respect to claim 1, Hisano discloses a battery pack (100) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of battery modules (10a, 10b,…10k, 10i), each battery module (10a-i) having at least one battery cell (1a-1f) and arranged side by side with each other so that at least one predetermined gap (21 – flow channel) is formed between facing battery modules of the plurality of battery modules (10a-10i) (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 2, Hisano discloses the at least one predetermined gap (21) acts as an air curtain (Fig. 3; [0031]).
The limitation which states “capable of preventing thermal runaway between the facing battery modules in the event of a thermal event” is an example of intended use. Applicant is reminded that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Additionally, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Therefore, as Hisano discloses adjacent modules separated by a predetermined air gap, the intended use of the air gap controlling a runaway event does not differentiate the application from the prior art.
With respect to claim 3, Hisano discloses the predetermined gap (21) is formed in a stacking direction of the plurality of battery modules (10a-10i) (Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 4, Hisano discloses the at least one predetermined gap (21) is formed with a predetermined length along a longitudinal direction of the facing battery modules (10a-10i) (Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 5, Hisano discloses a width of the at least one predetermined gap (21) is 4 to 10 mm ([0071]), thus being encompassed by the claimed range of 12 mm or less with sufficient specificity.
With respect to claim 6, Hisano discloses the at least one predetermined gap (21) is a plurality of predetermined gaps (21a-c) (Fig. 3), and
wherein the plurality of predetermined gaps (21b-21c) are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance along a longitudinal direction of the plurality of battery modules (10a-10i) (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 9, Hisano discloses an energy storage system (200 – battery pack mounting container) (Fig. 4), comprising the battery pack (100) according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 10, Hisano discloses a vehicle ([0002]) comprising a battery pack (mounted battery pack; [0002]) according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 11, Hisano discloses the predetermined gap (21) is an empty space (air flow channels 21) ([0039]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisano et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (U.S. 20110151301).
With respect to claim 7, Hisano discloses a predetermined gap between facing battery modules (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose a phase change member is provided in the gap.
Kim discloses a battery pack (10) comprising a gap (filled with absorber 400) between adjacent battery modules ([0031]) and teaches the gap is filled with a phase change member (400) ([abstract]). Kim further teaches the phase change member is preferred as it can absorb or discharge a large amount of heat without causing a change in temperature in the material, thus it may absorb heat general by the battery modules ([0079-0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a phase change member as taught by Kim in the predetermined gaps disclosed by Hisano as phase change material are able to absorb the heat generate by the modules without causing a change in temperature to the phase change member.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisano et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ovshinsky (U.S. 20020098414).
With respect to claim 8, Hisano discloses a predetermined gap between facing battery modules (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose a cooler with a cooling channel is provided in the gap.
Ovshinsky discloses a battery pack (40) comprising a gap (occupied by channels 43) and teaches the gap comprises a cooler with cooling channel (43 – coolant flow channels through which a cooling fluid (coolant) flows (Fig. 6; [0115]). Ovshinsky further teaches that the cooling channel allows for heat transfer between the batteries and the cooling fluid (coolant) ([0115]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a cooler with a cooling channel provided with a cooling fluid as taught by Ovshinsky in the predetermined gap disclosed by Hisano in order to allow for heat transfer between the batteries and cooling fluid.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisano et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Temmyo (U.S. 20120263991)
With respect to claim 12, Hisano discloses a predetermined gap between facing battery modules (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the gap is formed by at least one protrusion extending from one of the facing battery modules.
Temmyo discloses a battery pack (200) comprising facing battery modules (100A-C) comprising a predetermined gap (60) (Fig. 9) and teaches the gap (60) is formed by projections (40a and 40b – joints) that are integral with modules case (30) (Figs. 8-9; [0042]). Temmyo further teaches this arrangement allows for the gap to be formed directly between side surfaces of the modules, thus requiring less space ([0056-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to form the predetermined gap disclosed by Hisano using protrusions extending from the modules as taught by Temmyo so that the gap is formed directly between side surfaces of the module, thus requiring less space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights