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
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 9/9/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/9/2026.
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.
Claim 6 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 6 recites the limitation “the partition wall comprises a plurality of strips having a certain width, bent in a periodic wave shape, alternately arranged parallel to each other, and coupled to each other to form a flat surface”. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claimed structure is unclear. More specifically, it is unclear what structure is defined by “alternately arranged parallel to each other” and how a plurality of strips bent in a periodic wave shape coupled to each other form a flat surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 7-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pechan et al. (US 2023/0187774A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pechan discloses a battery pack (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 3-10), comprising:
battery cells stacked along a left-right direction, each of the battery cells comprising electrode leads extending in a front-back direction (battery modules 20,22 stacked [0239]);
a pack case in which the battery cells are accommodated (battery housing 10 [0239]); and
a partition wall extending along the left-right direction between the pack case and the battery cells, the partition wall being closed in the front-back direction and being open in the left-right direction (Fig. 3-10 show a partition wall between the housing 10 and battery modules 2,22).
Regarding claim 2, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the partition wall comprises: a plate portion having a quadrangular cross-sectional shape having a first surface facing the battery cells and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Fig. 3-10 show a partition wall having a first surface facing battery modules 20,22 and an opposite second surface); a plurality of rectangular openings passing through the first and second surfaces of the plate portion and spaced apart from each other by a certain interval (Fig. 3-10 show rectangular openings); and a louver portion extending from one side surface of each of the plurality of rectangular openings to have an inclined surface (guide means 32 [0251], Fig. 3-10 show guide means 32 having an inclined surface).
Regarding claim 3, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the one side surface of the opening is a surface along a vertical direction (see Fig. 3-10).
Regarding claim 4, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the inclined surface comprises a portion facing a direction between the front-back direction and the left-right direction, the inclined surface protruding beyond the second surface of the plate portion (Fig. 3-10 show guide means 32 having an inclined surface).
Regarding claim 5, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the louver portion further comprises an extension surface extending from the inclined surface along the left-right direction (deformed elements 34 [0258]-[0260], Fig. 3-10).
Regarding claim 7, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the partition wall comprises a material having a higher melting point than a melting point of the pack case (guide means unit preferably has a stamped part made of metal or a molded/stamped part made of plastics material with local metal/mica shields, as a result of which the heat protection can be improved [0271]).
Regarding claim 8, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses a cell cover configured to surround at least a part of at least one battery cell and comprising an open portion in the front-back direction (battery cover 14 [0245]), wherein the partition wall is located between the pack case and the open portion (see Fig. 3-10).
Regarding claim 9, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the partition wall comprises a plurality of blocking portions each corresponding to the open portion of the cell cover and a through-hole formed between the plurality of blocking portions and allowing venting gas or flame discharged from the battery cells to pass therethrough (guide means 32 for directing fluid volume flow [0251]-[0252], Fig. 3-10).
Regarding claim 10, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses through-hole is a gap between adjacent blocking portions in the front-back direction (Fig. 3-10 show through holes).
Regarding claim 11, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses a plurality of through-holes is formed at certain intervals in the left-right direction (Fig. 3-10 show through holes formed in intervals).
Regarding claim 12, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the plurality of blocking portions is alternately arranged in the left-right direction to be spaced apart from each other in the front-back direction, a connecting portion is formed between the plurality of blocking portions along the front-back direction (deformed elements 34 [0258]-[0260], Fig. 3-10), and the through-hole is a slit formed in the connecting portion (see Fig. 3-10).
Regarding claim 13, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the cell cover comprises: a first cover portion covering one side surface of the at least one battery cell; a second cover portion covering the other side surface of the at least one battery cell; and a third cover portion connecting the first cover portion to the second cover portion and covering an upper end portion of the at least one battery cell (Fig. 3-10 show cover having three portions that cover battery modules 20,22).
Regarding claim 14, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 14 reciting “the cell cover is formed by bending one plate”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
Regarding claim 16, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the pack case comprises a venting path facing the open portion, and the partition wall is located between the venting path and the open portion (venting channel 40 [0252], Fig. 3-10 show partition located between venting channel 40 and open portion).
Regarding claim 17, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the pack case comprises a side frame constituting a side surface of the pack case, and the venting path is provided in the side frame (venting channel can be also be arranged to the side and/or below [0142]).
Regarding claim 18, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses the side frame comprises an inlet that communicates with the venting path and allows venting gas or flame discharged from the battery cells to be introduced into the venting path (ventilation element 42 [0241]).
Regarding claim 19, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pechan further discloses a gas valve is provided on an outer surface of the side frame (ventilation element 42 [0241]), and the venting path comprises one end communicating with the inlet, extends along an inside of the side frame, and comprises the other end connected to the gas valve (venting channel can be also be arranged to the side and/or below [0142]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pechan et al. (US 2023/0187774A1), as applied to claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/013565A1).
Regarding claim 15, Pechan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Pechan does not further disclose the cell cover comprises an insulating coating layer on an inner surface thereof.
Lee discloses a battery module comprising an insulative coating layer formed on an inner surface of the cover ([0013], [0127]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights