BATTERY SYSTEM

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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 electronics cover (Claims 11-13) and the electric vehicle (Claim 15) 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. 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. 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. Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovic et al (US 20180026243 A1; Henceforth, Stojanovic) in view of Kim (US 20140030581 A1). Regarding claim 1, Stojanovic teaches a battery system ([0011]) including battery submodules ([0011], equivalent to a battery pack of the instant claim) including a plurality of secondary battery cells electrically connected to each other ([0011]). The battery cells have a vent ([0048]; element 15 in Figure 1, reproduced below), which is located between two terminals ([0048]; elements 11 and 12 in Figure 1, below) oriented in the same direction. The examiner notes this is consistent with the “first side” of the instant claim. Stojanovic teaches an embodiment where each battery submodule includes at least one stack, where each stack has a stacking direction is substantially parallel to the length direction ([0023]). Stojanovic teaches a cell connection unit ([0024]) comprising a substantially planar layer of insulating material with a surface metallization forming electrical contact with the battery cell terminals across the two battery stacks ([0023] and [0049]; Figure 4b, reproduced below). The examiner notes the cell connection unit of Stojanovic contains one cell connection member consistent with the cell connection unit of the instant claim that connects adjacent sets of battery stacks (see Figure 4b, annotated below), and two half-complete cell connection members configured to connect the battery stacks depicted to an adjacent battery module, all housed in one insulation housing. Stojanovic does not teach the cell connection unit being configured to cover less than half of an area between the electrode terminals of each of the battery cells of the adjacent cell stacks; Figure 3, below depicts the insulating covering holding all the cell connection units covering the entire area between the battery terminals. PNG media_image1.png 674 676 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 4b, reproduced from Stojanovic, annotated by the examiner. PNG media_image2.png 456 590 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 447 617 media_image3.png Greyscale Figures 1 (left) and 3 (right), reproduced from Stojanovic. Kim teaches a battery pack ([0009]) with a bus bar holder ([0009]) which contains a bus bar electrically connecting the a group of terminals extending in the lengthwise direction of the battery pack ([0009]; Figure 8, reproduced below). The bus bar holder may include ribbing to support a connection wire electrically connected to the terminal and a battery management system ([0015]), which monitors the potential difference between unit battery cells ([0070]). Kim depicts the bus bar holder extending outside of the area between the terminals, and Figure 8 depicts less than half of the area between the electrode terminals covered by the bus bar holder. Kim teaches the use of the bus bar holder enables battery cells to be electrically connected stably and easily fixed ([0037]). PNG media_image4.png 490 686 media_image4.png Greyscale Figure 8, reproduced from Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic by utilizing an insulating cover that does not cover the area between the battery terminals, as demonstrated by Kim in the same field of endeavor. Kim demonstrates precedent in the art to include bus bar holder to position bus bars and wiring elements for a battery management system such that it does not extend into the area between two battery terminals of a single battery cell. A person of ordinary skill would have the reasonable expectation that modifying the cell connector taught by Stojanovic such that the insulating portion of the cell contacting unit does not extend in the area between the electrode terminals of a battery cell would have yielded predictable results, since Kim teaches a configuration that enables electrical connections to be formed in a stable manner ([0037]). Regarding claim 2, Stojanovic and Kim teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1. Kim teaches the bus bar holder has connection holes ([0042]; Figure 2, below, element 134), which enables the bus bars to be electrically connected with the battery terminals. The examiner notes that the exact position where the terminals extend through the connection holes are adjustable, which allows the bus bar holder to be positioned such that it does not extend into the area between the electrode terminals of each of the battery cells of the adjacent cell stacks. PNG media_image5.png 501 597 media_image5.png Greyscale Figure 2, reproduced from Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic by utilizing an insulating cover that does not cover the area between the battery terminals, as demonstrated by Kim in the same field of endeavor, for the reasons outline din claim 1, above. Regarding claim 3, Stojanovic and Kim teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1. Stojanovic teaches the inclusion of a cell supervisory circuit which monitors and controls the voltage and/or current of each battery cell of the battery submodule ([0025]). While Stojanovic does not teach how the voltage and/or current are measured and connected to the cell supervisory circuit, Kim teaches the bus bar holder may include ribbing to support a connection wire electrically connected to the terminal and a battery management system ([0015]), which monitors the potential difference between unit battery cells ([0070]). The examiner notes that, with the configuration of Kim, the wiring, equivalent to the measuring lines of the instant claim, would be located between both adjacent rows of the electrode terminals of the battery cells of the adjacent cell stacks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system taught by Stojanovic and Kim to include measuring wires located between both adjacent rows of the electrode terminals of the battery cells of the adjacent cell stacks, for the reasons outline din claim 1, above. Regarding claim 4, Stojanovic and Kim teach the battery system as claimed in claim 3. Stojanovic teaches the inclusion of a cell supervisory circuit which monitors and controls the voltage and/or current of each battery cell of the battery submodule ([0025]). The examiner notes that Stojanovic teaches the cell supervisory units work in tandem with a battery management unit ([0059]), and Figure 10 locates the cell supervisory circuits to the end face of the cell stack. While Stojanovic does not teach how the voltage and/or current are measured and connected to the cell supervisory circuit, Kim teaches the bus bar holder may include ribbing to support a connection wire electrically connected to the terminal and a battery management system ([0015]), which monitors the potential difference between unit battery cells ([0070]). Stojanovic does not explicitly teach the location of the cell supervisory unit; Figure 10 has a schematic that teaches some of them are located on the exterior of battery submodules. PNG media_image6.png 427 575 media_image6.png Greyscale Figure 10, reproduced from Stojanovic. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system taught by Stojanovic and Kim to have the cell supervisory circuit arranged on the top of the battery cells facing away from the battery cells. It has been held the a rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of a device is not patentable (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)), and the particular placement of a measuring device is an obvious matter of design choice (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) C. The examiner, in view of these decisions, believes the modifying the position location of the cell supervisory circuit to be on top of the battery cells does not modify the operation of the battery system, and is additionally a matter of a design choice, rendering the claim obvious in view of the prior art. Regarding claim 5, Stojanovic and Kim teach the battery system as claimed in claim 3. Stojanovic teaches the cell connection unit ([0024]) comprising a substantially planar layer of insulating material with a surface metallization forming electrical contact with the battery cell terminals across the two battery stacks ([0023] and [0049]; Figure 4b, reproduced above). The examiner notes this planar layer of insulating material is equivalent to the electrically isolating carrier configured to cover the both adjacent rows of the electrode terminals of the battery cells of the adjacent cell stacks of the instant claim. Stojanovic teaches the surface metallization, equivalent to the busbar of the instant claim, is fixed to the electrically insulating carrier (Figure 2, reproduced below). While Stojanovic does not teach that the electrically insulating carrier covers less than half of the area between the electrode terminals of each of the battery cells of the adjacent cell stacks, Kim depicts the bus bar holder extending outside of the area between the terminals, and Figure 8 depicts less than half of the area between the electrode terminals covered by the bus bar holder. Kim teaches the use of the bus bar holder enables battery cells to be electrically connected stably and easily fixed ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system taught by Stojanovic and Kim to include an electrically insulating carrier that covers less than half the area between the electrical terminals of a battery cell, for the reasons outline din claim 1, above. Regarding claim 15, Stojanovic and Kim teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1. Stojanovic teaches an electric vehicle utilizing the battery pack described in claim 1, above. Therefore, Stojanovic teaches all the additional limitations of claim 15. Claims 6-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovic and Kim in view of Inoue (JP 2019067671 A) and Georgiadis (US 20240128583 A1, filed 9/27/2023 and claiming foreign priority to 10/18/2022). Regarding claim 6, Stojanovic and Kim teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1. Stojanovic and Kim do not teach a venting gas guiding element arranged above the venting valves of the battery cells of one of the cell stacks, and wherein the venting gas guiding element extends along the stacking direction for accommodating a degassing channel of the cell stack. Inoue teaches a battery pack monitoring device ([0011]) wherein the battery pack contains nine battery cells ([0038]) that have gas vents located between the positive and negative terminals of the battery cell ([0040]), which face the same direction as the terminals of the battery (Figure 3, below). The examiner notes the vents are oriented on the same side as the “first side” of the instant claim. Inoue teaches the battery cell gas vents are configured to release gas at a given internal pressure ([0041]) at temperatures of 100 to 200 °C ([0076]). Inoue teaches the inclusion of an exhaust passage (equivalent to a degassing channel of the instant claim) formed by the inclusion of an exhaust pipe ([0041]; the exhaust pipe being equivalent to a gas guiding element of the instant claim), located extending along the battery stack (a cross section of which is shown in Figure 14, below). The exhaust pipe has a C-shape ([0061]). The examiner notes the inclusion of vents and vent channels helps relieve pressure and minimize damage to other components, as evidenced by Georgiadis, who teaches that, in order to relieve the pressure due to the released gas and to reduce damage to other components, a venting system is used in battery systems or battery cell arrangements to channel any flames, gases and debris to the outside of the battery system in a controlled way ([0004]). PNG media_image7.png 384 569 media_image7.png Greyscale Figure 3, reproduced from Inoue. PNG media_image8.png 470 708 media_image8.png Greyscale Figure 14, reproduced from Inoue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic and Kim by the inclusion of a venting gas guiding element arranged above the venting valves of the battery cells of one of the cell stacks, and wherein the venting gas guiding element extends along the stacking direction for accommodating a degassing channel of the cell stack, as taught by Inoue. There would have been a motivation to include a vent and vent channels, as taught by Georgiadis, in order to reduce damage caused to other components by hot gases ([0004]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the inclusion of a gas channel to the battery system of Kim and Stojanovic would predictably be able to guide gases out of the battery system, since Inoue teaches the inclusion of an exhaust pipe and exhaust passage allows hot gas ([0076]) to be discharged from the battery cell to the outside of an electric vehicle ([0025]). See MPEP 2143 (I) A. Regarding claim 7, Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis teach the battery system as claimed in claim 6. Inoue teaches the venting gas guiding element comprises a C-shaped cross section ([0061]); which is equivalent to the U-shape of the instant claim), wherein an open side of the venting gas guiding element faces the venting valves of the battery cells (Figure 14, above). The examiner notes the U-shape and C-shape are substantially identical in the depicted orientations, where the open side is facing the vents of the battery cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis by including a C-shaped gas guiding element such that the open side faces the battery vents, for the reasons outline din claim 6, above. Regarding claim 9, Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis teach the battery system as claimed in claim 6. Inoue teaches the battery stack is electrically connected to a monitoring unit via wiring ([0044]), which run the length of the battery stack (Figure 13, reproduced below). The examiner notes, in Figure 14, above, the wiring runs through channels in the substrate that also makes up the exhaust pipe, meaning the cell connection system is in contact with the gas guiding element ([0045]; element 32 in Figure 14 is the wiring pattern). Inoue teaches this configuration suppresses the number of independent parts that need to be included, reducing the size of the monitoring device ([0007]). PNG media_image9.png 425 673 media_image9.png Greyscale Figure 13, reproduced from Inoue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis by having the gas guiding element in contact with and adjacent to the cell connecting unit. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Inoue, to have the wiring of the cell connection unit in contact with and adjacent to the gas guiding element, in order to suppress the number of independent parts that need to be included, which reduces the size of the monitoring device ([0007]). Regarding claim 10, Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis teach the battery system as claimed in claim 6. Inoue teaches a single exhaust pipe is located on each cell stack (Figures 13 and 14, above), and is located adjacent to and in contact with both sides of a wiring patterns (which is equivalent to a cell connection unit of the instant claim) along the stacking direction of the battery stack (Figures 13 and 14, above). Inoue teaches that the battery systems can include multiple battery stacks ([0114]). While Inoue does not teach a plurality of exhaust pipes in the battery system, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis by having a plurality the gas guiding element in contact with and adjacent to the cell connecting unit. It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is obtained. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. In the instant case, since Inoue in view of Georgiadis teaches why a venting channel and exhaust pipe should be included above a battery stack, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that including a venting channel for each battery stack in a battery system would accomplish the same net benefit in the battery system as when the battery pack only includes one battery stack. As such, since the instant detailed disclosure provides no additional reason why a plurality of gas guiding elements are needed in the battery system that is not already known in the art, the examiner is of the opinion the prior art renders the claim obvious. Regarding claim 11, Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis teach the battery system as claimed in claim 6. Inoue teaches the battery module has a housing and a lid (equivalent to an electronics cover of the instant claim; [0019]), where the lid is configured to cover the open portion of the housing ([0020]). The examiner notes the electronics cover, by covering the whole battery module, means it extends in the stacking direction of the cell stacks. The examiner notes in Figure 14, above that the lid (element 232) covers the wiring (which the examiner notes is equivalent to the cell connection unit of the instant claim), and Inoue teaches that, by tightening the lid, the wiring sections and the exhaust pipes are fixed to the battery stack ([0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis to include an electronics cover that covers the cell contacting unit, as taught by Inoue. Inoue demonstrates precent in the art to include a lid in order to help fix the wiring member and the exhaust pipe to the battery stack ([0091]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the inclusion of the lid of Inoue in the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis would have had predictable results, since Inoue teaches its inclusion in an analogous system. See MPEP 2143 (I) A. Regarding claim 14, Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis teach the battery system as claimed in claim 6. Stojanovic teaches an embodiment where the battery system includes 18 battery modules, each with two battery submodules ([0058]). As depicted in Figure 10, reproduced above, a series of these submodules are adjacent to each other, extending along the same stacking axis. As outlined in claim 6, above, each battery module taught by Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis includes a cell connection unit with one full cell connection member (equivalent to the cell connection unit of the instant claim) and two half-formed cell connection members, which can connect to another other half cell connection member of the adjacent battery module, with an exhaust pipe over each set of battery cell vents. The examiner notes that, in this configuration, the middle battery stack between two full cell connection members would have a degassing passage formed, in part, by the space between the cell connection members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis such that the battery cells are arranged in at least three cell stacks extending adjacent to each other along the stacking direction, and wherein the battery system comprises two adjacent cell connection units so that the degassing channel of the cell stack arranged in a middle of the three cell stacks is partially formed by an open space between both cell connecting units, for the reasons outlined in claim 6, above. Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis in view of Fujii et al (US 20150125720 A1; Henceforth, Fujii). Regarding claim 8, Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis teach the battery system as claimed in claim 7. Inoue teaches an embodiment where the exhaust pipe extends to the exterior of the battery, where it vents to the exterior of the battery housing (Figure 2, reproduced below). Inoue does not explicitly teach on which face of the exhaust vent the opening exists. PNG media_image10.png 288 451 media_image10.png Greyscale Figure 2, reproduced from Inoue. Fujii teaches a power supply device with a gas exhaust duct integrally connected to a gas exhaust value (Abstract). Each battery cell has a gas exhaust opening ([0038]) that is coupled to a gas duct ([0003]). Figure 17, reproduced below, depicts that the duct connects to a external exhaust duct, which delivers exhaust to the exterior of the power supply device ([0004]). The examiner notes the hole in the gas duct is on a side perpendicular to the first side defined in claim 1. PNG media_image11.png 470 635 media_image11.png Greyscale Figure 17, reproduced from Fujii. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis such that the venting gas guiding element having at least one degassing opening in a closed side of the venting gas guiding element opposite to the open side. It has been held that the rearrangement of parts, so long as it does not impact the operation of the device is not patentable, and can be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) C. The examiner maintains the location of the hole in the gas duct could be reasonably relocated to be on the top face of the gas duct, located opposite of the first side, without changing the function of the gas duct. The examiner notes the instant detailed disclosure only states the opening needs to be fluidly coupled to the venting valves (paragraph 67), and, without a further reason why the location impacts the operation of the device, it is considered a design function. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the exhaust pipe of Inoue for the gas duct of Fujii would have predictably enabled gas to be vented to the exterior of the battery system, as it would be performing the same function each had been independently demonstrated to do. See MPEP 2143 (I) B. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the relocation of the hole in the gas duct would not impact the function of the gas duct, as gas would still be able to flow to the exterior of the battery system, even with a hole in the top surface; thus, the location of the hole in the gas duct is a matter of design choice, and is rendered obvious by the prior art. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis in view of Fritz (US 20130112551 A1). Regarding claim 12, Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis teach the battery system as claimed in claim 11. Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis do not teach the electronics cover is U-shaped, but Inoue teaches the interior of the cover faces the structure equivalent to the cell connecting unit of the instant claim (Figure 14, above). Fritz teaches a cover for an electrochemical device and an electrochemical device electrochemical device ([0005]) comprising an electrochemical device ([0005]) comprising a plurality of battery cells ([0005]). Fritz teaches each of the battery cells has a pair of electrode terminals (Figure 2, reproduced below), where the battery cells are arranged in two cell stacks extending adjacent to each other along a stacking direction (Figure 2, below) and the electrode terminals of the battery cells face a first side of the battery pack (Figure 2, below; the first side being the top of the battery cells, in the orientation shown in Figure 2). Fritz teaches the cover holds a cell connector (Figure 6, reproduced below), wherein the cover has a lip on each side. The examiner notes this shape is substantially U-shaped, with hard corners; this is consistent with the instant detailed disclosure, which states that a U-shaped cross section profile may be cuboid or rectangular, while having a U-shaped cross section (paragraphs 49 and 67). The examiner notes that the open side of the electronics cover of Fritz faces a cell connection unit (Figure 6, below), and positions it over the battery terminals in the stacks of Fritz ([0154]). PNG media_image12.png 804 634 media_image12.png Greyscale Figure 2, reproduced from Fritz. PNG media_image13.png 657 427 media_image13.png Greyscale Figure 6, reproduced from Fritz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue and Georgiadis by using a U-shaped lid, as taught by Fritz in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the lid taught by Inoue for that of Fritz would yield predictable results, since the lids are both configured to position the cell connection units on the terminals of the battery cells and fix them in place (Inoue: [0091]; Fritz; Figure 6 and [0154]). See MPEP 2143 (I) B. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue, Georgiadis and Fritz in view of Lee et al. (WO 2024063593 A1; filed 9/22/2023 and claims foreign priority to 9/23/2022; Henceforth, Lee). Regarding claim 13, Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue, Georgiadis and Fritz teach the battery system as claimed in claim 12. Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue, Georgiadis and Fritz do not explicitly teach the inclusion of mica in the venting gas guiding element nor the electronics cover. Lee teaches a battery pack ([0016]) comprising a plurality of battery units, each comprising a battery cell stack and having a terminal portion electrically connected to the battery cell stack on the front surface of each battery unit; a pack housing having a battery unit mounting area and a partition member that divides the battery unit mounting area into a plurality of battery unit mounting areas, wherein each battery unit is accommodated in the battery unit mounting area between the partition members; and a cover plate assembly that covers the upper surface and front surface of the battery unit and is coupled to the partition member ([0017]). Lee teaches the cover plate assembly includes an upper cover plate that covers the upper surface of the battery module and a front cover plate that is vertically coupled to one end of the upper cover plate and covers the front of the battery module ([0088]) and both the upper cover plate and front cover plate can be made of an insulating material such as mica ([0089]). Lee teaches the cover plate is made of materials such as mica in order to prevent flames or sparks from spreading to adjacent battery units by simultaneously covering the upper surface and the front surface of the battery unit that is most vulnerable to flames ([0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Stojanovic, Kim, Inoue, Georgiadis and Fritz by utilizing an electronics cover made of mica. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Lee in the same field of endeavor to utilize an electronics cover made of a material like mica, in order to prevent the propagation of sparks and flames spreading to adjacent battery units by simultaneously covering the upper surface and the front surface of the battery unit that is most vulnerable to flames ([0070]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm. 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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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. /RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752