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 .
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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2022-0165187 A, see IDS filed 12/16/2025 for reference and translation) in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 2011/0195291).
With regards to claim 1, Kim teaches as seen in Figures 5-7 a power storage module comprising a plurality of electrode assemblies (120) arranged in a first direction (¶ 0071-0073, Fig. 7 shows the cell 110 stacked along the Y-axis direction). Kim teaches a case housing (200) that houses the plurality of electrode assemblies in which the case includes a case body (200) surrounding the totality of electrode assemblies and at least one partition (210) located between the electrode assemblies adjacent to each other (Fig. 7) to partition an accommodation space of the case body. Kim teaches that partition member (210) is integral with the module frame (200) or case body (¶ 0075). Kim teaches that the spacing member can be made of similar material to the module frame (¶ 0083). Kim teaches that the module frame can be made of a metal material that is coated with a thermally conductive resin layer on the surfaces between the metal and battery cell stacks (¶ 0052, 0056). While Kim teaches that the partition can be made of similar construction to the module frame and that the module frame can be metal coated with thermally conductive resin, Kim does not explicitly teach that the partition elements comprise a pair of resin layers formed integrally with the case body in which the resin layers of the pair are arranged in the first direction. However, following the suggestion of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include a thermally conductive resin layer injection molded on the surfaces of the module and partition members facing the battery stack. This is technique is known in the art as discussed in Yokoyama in which a partition plate or material to be integrated into a case structure is provided to a mold and insert molding provides a resin case incorporating the metal part (Abstract, ¶ 0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert mold the thermally conductive resin on the metal surface of the module frame and integral partition members as such is a known insert molding technique discussed in both Kim and Yokoyama presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so follows the suggestions of Kim that thermally conductive resin is injected onto the surfaces facing electrode assemblies and the partition is made of similar construction to the module previously discussed.
With surfaces of the case and partition plate covered with resin that face electrode assemblies a first and second resin layer are present on either side of the metal partition member providing a pair of resin layers integrally formed and arranged in the first direction with the metal partition member located between them and extending in a direction orthogonal thereto.
With regards to claim 2, Kim teaches that the module inner surface is coated with thermally conductive resin, but does not teach nor require the exterior surface to be coated and is thus exposed to an external space of the case body.
With regards to claims 3-5, Kim teaches that resin covers the sides (peripheral and internal) as well as the bottom of the metal module frame thus providing an integral bottom and peripheral side portion that open to the opening seen in Fig. 5 (¶ 0056) and as discussed in claim 2 does not teach covering the side or bottom exterior surface of the integral metal material thus providing exposed surfaces. Kim also teaches a lid member closing the opening (Fig. 3, 400) in which the lid comprises at least a portion of resin (¶ 0108-0109, 0112) in the form of a barrier layer that faces the internal portion of the case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin et al. (US 2023/0261307) discusses thermally conductive partition members.
Tanaka (US 2013/0323573) partition plates can be either separately formed and secured together or integrally molded (¶ 0036).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights