DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woehrle (US 2014/0170447).
Regarding claim 1, Woehrle discloses a battery pack comprising:
a housing (1, 8);
a plurality of battery cells (2) in the housing and each having a vent hole (3);
a chamber between the housing and the vent hole (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1);
a separation member (6) in the chamber and configured to divide the chamber into a plurality of unit chambers (Figure 1); and
a plurality of fire-extinguishing members (paragraph 44, dispenser valve) each located in a unit chamber of the plurality of unit chambers (Figure 1) and configured to supply a fire-extinguishing material to the battery cells (Paragraph 44);
wherein the separation member comprises a plurality of partitions extending from the housing and arranged between the unit chambers adjacent to each other (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 3, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a first holder (4) between the chamber and the battery cells and configured to support the partitions (The holder is capable of supporting the partitions).
Regarding claim 4, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 3, further comprising a second holder (7) spaced apart from the first holder and configured to support the battery cells (The holder is capable of supporting the battery cells).
Regarding claim 12, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a guide in the unit chamber (The step surface of cut-out 3) and configured to guide a flow of an emission discharged from the vent hole toward the fire-extinguishing member (The step surface is capable of performing the claimed function).
Pertaining to Claims 3, 5
Regarding claim 3, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a first holder (4, 7) between the chamber and the battery cells and configured to support the partitions (The holder is capable of supporting the partitions).
Pertaining to Claims 1, 14
Regarding claim 1, Woehrle discloses a battery pack comprising:
a housing (1, 8, 6, 7);
a plurality of battery cells (2) in the housing and each having a vent hole (3);
a chamber between the housing and the vent hole (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1);
a separation member (6, 7) in the chamber and configured to divide the chamber into a plurality of unit chambers (Figure 1); and
a plurality of fire-extinguishing members (4) each located in a unit chamber of the plurality of unit chambers (Figure 1) and configured to supply a fire-extinguishing material to the battery cells (Paragraphs 12-13);
wherein the separation member comprises a plurality of partitions extending from the housing and arranged between the unit chambers adjacent to each other (Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woehrle.
Regarding claim 13, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the guide comprises an inclined surface extending to be inclined from the partition toward the housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the surface as claimed since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 14, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein each of the fire-extinguishing members is fixed to the housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix the fire extinguishing member to the housing since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has been formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Regarding claim 15, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 14, further comprising a seating groove facing the unit chamber and concavely recessed into the housing, wherein a fire-extinguishing member of the pluralty of fire-extinguishing members is inserted in the seating groove (The combination of 8, 6, and 7 form a recessed seating groove in which the extinguishing member is inserted).
Regarding claim 16, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 15, wherein the housing comprises a first region facing the seating groove and a second region around the first region, and a thickness of the first region is less than a thickness of the second region (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, the rear of the first region faces the seating groove).
Regarding claim 17, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein a ratio of the thickness of the first region to the thickness of the second region is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Woehrle to have a ratio of the thickness of the first region to the thickness of the second region greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.5, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Woehrle would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions and since the first region is disclosed to be smaller than the second region the device would function appropriately having the claimed sizing. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that a ratio of the thickness of the first region to the thickness of the second region “may be” greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.5 (Specification, paragraph 167).
Regarding claim 18, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first region is configured to rupture in response to an increase in pressure or temperature of the unit chamber (Paragraph 12).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woehrle in view of Hays (US 11715963).
Regarding claim 5, Woehrle discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first holder comprises: a first holder body seated on the battery cells (Figure 1); a transfer hole passing (4, 7) through the first holder body and facing the vent hole (Figure 1), but fails to disclose a first alignment member extending from the first holder body and inserted between the adjacent battery cells.
Hays discloses a battery pack wherein a first alignment member extends from a first holder body and is inserted between adjacent battery cells (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woehrle with the disclosures of Hays, providing a first alignment member (Examiner’s Annotated figure 2), extending from the fire holder body (4, 7) and inserted between the adjacent battery cells, in order to provide for more secure alignment of the battery cells of the plurality of battery cells.
PNG
media_image2.png
602
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 6, Woehrle in view of Hays discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein each of the partitions comprises a first end portion connected to the housing and a second end portion opposite to the first end portion, and the second end portion is fixed to the first holder body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a battery pack wherein each of the partition comprises a first end portion connected to the housing and a second end portion opposite to the first end portion, and the second end portion is fixed to the first holder body, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has been formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s arguments that Woehrle fails to disclose a separation member comprising a plurality of partitions, the claim defines the separation member as including a plurality of partitions. Woehrle depicts a plurality of partitions 6 in the device.
As to Applicant’s position that Woehrle does not discloses the partitions extending from the housing lid to the battery cells, the partitions downward in a direction from the housing to the battery cells.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights