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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks filed 02/11/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-12, 15-20, and 22-25 are pending. Claims 13-14 and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 17 are amended. Claims 1-12, 15-20, and 22-25 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12, 15-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, the claims each recite “the support part and the lower protective plate are integrally formed.” However, the specification does not fully support this limitation. Of note is that any time the lower protective plate is mentioned as being integrally formed, it is with the cooling block. As a non-exhaustive list, see paragraphs [0027], [0055], [0157], [0181], [0188], [0191], and [0199]). In Fig. 11, the lower protective plate and the cooling block are integrally formed; though in this embodiment, it is not clear what constitutes the claimed support part. Claims 2-12, 15-16, 18-20, and 22-25 depend from either claims 1 or 17 and are rejected for the same reason.
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.
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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 103 654 A1 (“Nierhoff” – machine translation cited herein) in view of WO 2018/056723 A1 (“Oh” – US 2020/0368998 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent) and US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”).
Regarding claim 1, Nierhoff discloses a battery housing 1 (“battery case”) (Abstract). The battery housing 1 comprises an intermediate floor 5 (“support part”) configured such that a battery module 3 is seated and supported, and comprising a side wall 4’ extending upwards from an edge portion thereof (Fig. 1; [0032]-[0033]). The battery housing 1 further comprises side walls 4 (“inner frame”) coupled to a top surface of the intermediate floor to partition a seat part of the battery module (Fig. 1; [0032]-[0033]). The battery housing 1 further comprises a fastening element 18 and connecting element 10’ (either reads on “outer frame”) coupled to an outer surface of the intermediate floor 5 (Fig. 1; [0011], [0021], [0033]-[0034], [0039]).
Nierhoff discloses the battery case comprises an underrun protection 7 (“lower protective plate”) indirectly coupled to a bottom of the cooling block (Fig. 1; [0034]).
Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the lower protective plate is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic composite; wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic composite of the lower protective plate is formed of a lamination sheet comprising at least one first sheet and at least two second sheets; wherein the first sheet comprises matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of long fiber; wherein the second sheet comprises matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of fabric woven by continuous fiber, and wherein the second sheets comprise at least one 2-1 sheet and at least one 2-2 sheet having different fabric orientation angles.
Oh discloses a reinforced composite material comprising a laminate of a plurality of fiber reinforced sheets 10 (“second sheets”), wherein each of the fiber reinforced sheets comprises: a fiber reinforcing material having orientation; and a resin base material (Abstract; Fig. 1). The plurality of fiber reinforced sheets 10 include a first fiber reinforced sheet 11 that includes a fiber reinforcement having orientation in a first direction having an angle of +θ with respect to a reinforcement required direction (X), and a second fiber reinforced sheet 12 that includes a fiber reinforcement having orientation in a second direction having an angle of −θ with respect to the reinforcement required direction (X) (Fig. 1; [0025]). The fiber reinforcement 20 in each fiber reinforced sheet 10 is a continuous fiber ([0036]). In examples, the first fiber reinforced sheet (A) and the second fiber reinforced sheet (B) are laminated having a structure of A/B/A/B/A/B/A/B ([0065]). The reinforced composite material has strength and rigidity above a certain level, high elongation, and high energy absorption and, accordingly, allow an article to which the reinforced composite material is applied to have improved impact absorption ([0010]). Additionally, an article to which the reinforced composite material is applied has high strain with respect to external force and high impact absorption ([0011]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reinforced composite material of Oh as the material of the underrun protection of Nierhoff.
Regarding the first sheet, Choi discloses a battery pack case assembly for an electric car or hybrid vehicle (Abstract). Choi discloses a reinforced member 220b (“first sheet”) comprising a long fiber with an aspect ratio of about 1,000 or more is disposed on a bottom surface of lower case 200 to increase the structural stiffness and the collision energy absorbing performance of the lower case 200 (Fig. 9; [0102]-[0106], [0089]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the reinforced member of Choi to increase the structural stiffness and the collision energy absorbing performance of the lower case 200.
Choi further discloses the long fiber has an average length of 20 mm or more ([0025]). The claimed length would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the length and diameter disclosed by Choi overlap the length and diameter as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the support part and the sidewall are integrally formed, and the support part and the lower protective plate are integrally formed. However, Choi discloses the continuous fiber reinforced member 212 and the side bracket parts 211 integrally formed on both sides of the lower case 200 may form a side bracket for coupling with the vehicle body ([0081]); and a plurality of continuous fiber reinforced members 220a and 220b may be integrally formed during the molding of the lower case 200 ([0090], [0097]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the support part with the sidewall and the support part and the lower protective plate as claimed because the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.05(V)(B). Furthermore, as noted above Choi teaches the reinforced member 220b (“first sheet”) can be made integral with various members.
It is deemed that the falling weight impact strength is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed lower protective plate. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Interpretation: “configured such that a battery module is seated and supported” is interpreted such that the battery module is required.
Regarding claim 17, Nierhoff discloses a battery housing 1 (“battery case”) (Abstract). The battery housing 1 comprises an intermediate floor 5 (“support part”) configured such that a battery module 3 is seated and supported (Fig. 1; [0032]-[0033]). The battery housing 1 further comprises side walls 4 (“inner frame”) coupled to a top surface of the intermediate floor 5 to partition a seat part of the battery module (Fig. 1; [0032]-[0033]). The battery housing 1 further comprises a fastening element 18 and connecting element 10’ (either reads on “outer frame”) coupled to an outer surface of the intermediate floor 5 (Fig. 1; [0011], [0021], [0033]-[0034], [0039]). The battery housing further comprises an underrun protection 7 (“lower protective plate”) coupled to a bottom of the intermediate floor 5, the underrun protection 7 having a connecting element 10’ (“sidewall”) formed on an edge portion thereof to extend upwards (Fig. 1; [0034]).
Nierhoff discloses the battery case comprises an underrun protection 7 (“lower protective plate”) indirectly coupled to a bottom of the cooling block (Fig. 1; [0034]).
Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the lower protective plate is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic composite; wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic composite of the lower protective plate is formed of a lamination sheet comprising at least one first sheet and at least two second sheets; wherein the second sheet comprises matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of fabric woven by continuous fiber, and wherein the second sheets comprise at least one 2-1 sheet and at least one 2-2 sheet having different fabric orientation angles.
Oh discloses a reinforced composite material comprising a laminate of a plurality of fiber reinforced sheets 10 (“second sheets”), wherein each of the fiber reinforced sheets comprises: a fiber reinforcing material having orientation; and a resin base material (Abstract; Fig. 1). The plurality of fiber reinforced sheets 10 include a first fiber reinforced sheet 11 that includes a fiber reinforcement having orientation in a first direction having an angle of +θ with respect to a reinforcement required direction (X), and a second fiber reinforced sheet 12 that includes a fiber reinforcement having orientation in a second direction having an angle of −θ with respect to the reinforcement required direction (X) (Fig. 1; [0025]). The fiber reinforcement 20 in each fiber reinforced sheet 10 is a continuous fiber ([0036]). In examples, the first fiber reinforced sheet (A) and the second fiber reinforced sheet (B) are laminated having a structure of A/B/A/B/A/B/A/B or A/A/A/A/B/B/B/B ([0065], [0069]). The reinforced composite material has strength and rigidity above a certain level, high elongation, and high energy absorption and, accordingly, allow an article to which the reinforced composite material is applied to have improved impact absorption ([0010]). Additionally, an article to which the reinforced composite material is applied has high strain with respect to external force and high impact absorption ([0011]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reinforced composite material of Oh as the material of the underrun protection 7 of Nierhoff.
Regarding the first sheet, Choi discloses a battery pack case assembly for an electric car or hybrid vehicle (Abstract). Choi discloses a reinforced member 220b (“first sheet”) comprising a long fiber with an aspect ratio of about 1,000 or more is disposed on a bottom surface of lower case 200 to increase the structural stiffness and the collision energy absorbing performance of the lower case 200 (Fig. 9; [0102]-[0106], [0089]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the to reinforced member of Choi to increase the structural stiffness and the collision energy absorbing performance of the lower case 200.
Choi further discloses the long fiber has an average length of 20 mm or more ([0025]). The claimed length would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the length and diameter disclosed by Choi overlap the length and diameter as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the support part and the sidewall are integrally formed, and the support part and the lower protective plate are integrally formed. However, Choi discloses the continuous fiber reinforced member 212 and the side bracket parts 211 integrally formed on both sides of the lower case 200 may form a side bracket for coupling with the vehicle body ([0081]); and a plurality of continuous fiber reinforced members 220a and 220b may be integrally formed during the molding of the lower case 200 ([0090], [0097]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the support part with the sidewall and the support part and the lower protective plate as claimed because the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.05(V)(B). Furthermore, as noted above Choi teaches the reinforced member 220b (“first sheet”) can be made integral with various members.
It is deemed that the falling weight impact strength is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed lower protective plate. See the sections of MPEP 2112 cited above.
Claims 2-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 103 654 A1 (“Nierhoff” – machine translation cited herein) in view of WO 2018/056723 A1 (“Oh” – US 2020/0368998 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent) and US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of US 9,533,600 B1 (“Schwab”).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claims 1 and 17. Nierhoff discloses a cooling device 12 but does not expressly disclose the cooling device having on a top surface thereof an uneven cooling path.
Schwab discloses a battery system having a liquid cooling plate 10 (Abstract; Fig. 7). As shown in Fig. 7, the liquid cooling plate has an uneven cooling path. The configuration disclosed by Schwab allows for systems to have a single cooling plate and is capable of accommodating large quantities of active battery material so as to provide adequate power required for long-distance travel (col. 1, lines 29-39). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cooling plate of Schwab.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 2. As shown in Fig. 1 of Nierhoff, the side wall 4 and fastening element 18 are spaced apart from each other with the side wall 4’ interposed therebetween.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 103 654 A1 (“Nierhoff” – machine translation cited herein) in view of WO 2018/056723 A1 (“Oh” – US 2020/0368998 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent), US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”), and US 9,533,600 B1 (“Schwab”) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2016/0056512 A1 (“Schmid”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 3. Modified Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the cooling block is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic composite.
Schmid discloses a heat exchanger component for cooling and heating an electrical energy store (Abstract). The heat exchanger component comprises a carrier material 2 formed from fiber-reinforced plastic ([0032]). This permits not only a relatively high strength but furthermore also a relatively low weight of the heat exchanger component ([0033]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fiber-reinforced plastic material as taught by Schmid into the cooling plate.
As the side wall 4 and fastening element 18 of Nierhoff are separate elements from the cooling block, they are made of a “material different from that of the cooling block.”
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 103 654 A1 (“Nierhoff” – machine translation cited herein) in view of WO 2018/056723 A1 (“Oh” – US 2020/0368998 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent), US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”), US 9,533,600 B1 (“Schwab”), and US 2016/0056512 A1 (“Schmid”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of JP 2009-301877 A (“Mitsui” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 4. Modified Nierhoff does not expressly disclose a heat dissipation plate coupled between the inner frame and the cooling block.
Mitsui discloses a battery pack comprising a battery pack member 101, a cooling passage 102, and a thermal conduction member 2 disposed therebetween (Abstract; Fig. 1). The thermal conduction member improves heat conduction between the cooling passage and the batteries ([0020]-[0021]). For this reason, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal conduction member as taught by Mitsui into the battery case of Nierhoff.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 5. Mitsui discloses the thermal conduction member 2 comprises a fiber member ([0037]) and teaches the fiber material comprises aluminum ([0039]).
Claims 6-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 103 654 A1 (“Nierhoff” – machine translation cited herein) in view of WO 2018/056723 A1 (“Oh” – US 2020/0368998 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent), and US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”), US 9,533,600 B1 (“Schwab”), US 2016/0056512 A1 (“Schmid”), and JP 2009-301877 A (“Mitsui” – machine translation cited herein) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2016/0294025 A1 (“Choi”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 5. Modified Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the heat dissipation plate and the inner frame are coupled to each other by an adhesive, the heat dissipation plate and the cooling block are coupled to each other by the adhesive, and the cooling block and the outer frame are coupled to each other by the adhesive.
Choi discloses a cooler for a secondary battery (Abstract) and teaches the concept of fastening materials (in this case batteries to a heat dissipating member) via an adhesive ([0091]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the adhesive as claimed because adhesives are well known in the art as fasteners and one would have a reasonable expectation of success from doing so in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 7, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 6. As shown in Fig. 1 of Nierhoff, the side walls 4 (“inner frame”) is indirectly coupled to an inside of the sidewall of the cooling block (positioned where cooling device 12 is), and the fastening element 18 (“outer frame”) is indirectly coupled to an outside of the sidewall of the cooling block.
Regarding claim 8, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 6. As shown in Figs. 4 and 7 of Schwab, the cooling plate includes a fastening hole to be fastened to the inner frame. See, for example, the indicated portion of Fig. 7, below. In the combination with Mitsui, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a corresponding hole in the heat dissipation plate to allow for the connection of Schwab.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 8. As shown in Fig. 4 of Schwab, discloses a variation of fastener 7 that is formed around the fastening hole and protrudes upward (“spacer”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate fastener, such as that claimed, depending on the requirements of the system in which it is used. Moreover, it would yield predictable results in view of the disclosure of Schwab.
PNG
media_image2.png
163
159
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 8. As shown in Fig. 1 of Nierhoff, the fastening element 18 comprises a horizontal rib that horizontally extends inwards capable of supporting a part of a bottom surface of the cooling block.
PNG
media_image3.png
222
295
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 14. Nierhoff teaches the underrun protection 7 comprises embossments for receiving screw heads can be provided on the underrun protection 7 ([0034]). The claimed features would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, though the prior art differs in how the elements are coupled, this would involve routine engineering skill, for example in how the parts are rearranged. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 14. While modified Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the cooling block and the lower protective plate are integrally formed, this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because making use of a one piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 103 654 A1 (“Nierhoff” – machine translation cited herein) in view of WO 2018/056723 A1 (“Oh” – US 2020/0368998 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent), US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”), US 9,533,600 B1 (“Schwab”), and US 2016/0056512 A1 (“Schmid”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2019/0152212 A1 (“Tseng”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 4. As discussed above, Schmid teaches a fiber-reinforced plastic. The plastic corresponds to the matrix resin. Schmid teaches the fibers may be long fibers or endless fibers ([0022]). Schmid is silent regarding the length of the long fibers.
Tseng a thermoplastic continuous-discontinuous fiber composite sheet 100 includes a thermoplastic discontinuous fiber aggregate layer 102 and a thermoplastic continuous fiber layer 104 that are alternately stacked (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0045]). Tseng teaches a length of the discontinuous fiber is 3 mm to 20 mm or 20 mm to 50 mm ([0046]). As shown in Table 1, the length of the fiber (shortest in Example 1 and longest in Example 3) affects the average flexural strength and average flexural modulus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the length of the long fiber to provide the required average flexural strength and average flexural modulus as taught by Tseng.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 103 654 A1 (“Nierhoff” – machine translation cited herein) in view of WO 2018/056723 A1 (“Oh” – US 2020/0368998 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent), US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”), and US 9,533,600 B1 (“Schwab”) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of JP 2009-301877 A (“Mitsui” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 18. Modified Nierhoff does not expressly disclose a heat dissipation plate made of an aluminum material is coupled between the inner frame and the cooling block.
Mitsui discloses a battery pack comprising a battery pack member 101, a cooling passage 102, and a thermal conduction member 2 disposed therebetween (Abstract; Fig. 1). Mitsui discloses the thermal conduction member 2 comprises a fiber member ([0037]) and teaches the fiber material comprises aluminum ([0039]). The thermal conduction member improves heat conduction between the cooling passage and the batteries ([0020]-[0021]). For this reason, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal conduction member as taught by Mitsui into the battery case of Nierhoff.
Claims 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 103 654 A1 (“Nierhoff” – machine translation cited herein) in view of WO 2018/056723 A1 (“Oh” – US 2020/0368998 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent), US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”), US 9,533,600 B1 (“Schwab”), and JP 2009-301877 A (“Mitsui” – machine translation cited herein) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 2016/0056512 A1 (“Schmid”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 19. Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the side walls 4 and the fastening element 18 or connecting element 10’ are made of a steel material. However, Nierhoff does disclose a high-strength steel that forms force dissipation element 11 ([0036], [0043], [0045]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the inner frame and outer frame from a high-strength steel to increase the strength of the members.
Nierhoff does not expressly disclose the cooling block is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic composite or an aluminum material.
Schmid discloses a heat exchanger component for cooling and heating an electrical energy store (Abstract). The heat exchanger component comprises a carrier material 2 formed from fiber-reinforced plastic ([0032]). This permits not only a relatively high strength but furthermore also a relatively low weight of the heat exchanger component ([0033]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fiber-reinforced plastic material as taught by Schmid into the cooling plate.
Regarding claim 22, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 19. As shown in Figs. 4 and 7 of Schwab, the cooling plate includes a fastening hole to be fastened to the inner frame. See, for example, the indicated portion of Fig. 7, below. In the combination with Mitsui, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a corresponding hole in the heat dissipation plate to allow for the connection of Schwab.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 22. As shown in Fig. 4 of Schwab, discloses a variation of fastener 7 that is formed around the fastening hole and protrudes upward (“spacer”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate fastener, such as that claimed, depending on the requirements of the system in which it is used. Moreover, it would yield predictable results in view of the disclosure of Schwab.
PNG
media_image2.png
163
159
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 24-25, modified Nierhoff discloses the battery case of claim 23. Nierhoff teaches the underrun protection 7 comprises embossments for receiving screw heads can be provided on the underrun protection 7 ([0034]). The claimed features would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, though the prior art differs in how the elements are coupled, this would involve routine engineering skill, for example in how the parts are rearranged. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nierhoff, Choi, and Oh do not disclose the claimed integral formation. It is the position of the Office that, even though Nierhoff, Choi, and Oh do not expressly disclose the claimed integral formation, it would have been obvious over the cited prior art. The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.05(V)(B). Furthermore, Choi teaches the reinforced member 220b (“first sheet”) can be made integral with various members.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., water-tightness) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant references paragraph [0185] of the published specification. However, the paragraph refers to the sidewall 360 and cooling block 300 being integrally formed. It is noted that the cooling block is also absent from the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
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 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights