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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 11/05/2025. Claims 10 and 12 – 20 remain withdrawn. Claim 45 is new. Claims 1, 5 – 9, 11, 21 – 22, 24, 28 – 34, and 45 are pending review in the current Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically applicant argues none of the applied references teach/suggest two sides of the battery back in a width direction, and two ends of each cell in the length direction are supported by side beams.
While examiner acknowledges that Sluka teaches using clamping devices/housing torso/holder to compress/tension the cells, that the side walls can be the floor or be the ceiling of the module housing, and shows an embodiment of the housing have a gap between the side walls and cells ends; the examiner respectfully disagrees that Sluka does not teach/reasonably suggest a housing comprising side beams located at two sides of the battery pack in a width direction, and two ends of each cell in the length direction being supported by the side beams for the following reasons:
Sluka teaches a housing including beams located at two side of the battery pack in the width direction (i.e. housing side walls 61 or 61’ in Figs. 7 – 90), and teaches/shows an embodiment of the battery housing not including a gap between the cells and side walls {i.e. Fig. 18}. The examiner acknowledges that the walls shown in Fig. 18 are the front/back end walls; however, such wall are still side walls of a housing; therefore, as noted in the Office action, Sluka at least suggests using side walls to hold the battery cells under tension (Refer to Sluka: [0141]). The examiner respectfully reminds applicant that test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, as established in the Office action (see pg. 8), since Sluka already teaches using side walls to hold the cells under tension and various embodiments of the housing with different side-wall configurations, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the embodiment of Figs. 7 – 9 to have a side wall and spacer configuration similar to the one shown in Fig. 18 of Sluka, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable battery pack housing structure.
With respect to applicant’s argument regarding the definition of support, the examiner acknowledges that the definition reciting “ to hold something firmly or carry its weight, especially from below stop it from falling”. The examiner notes, however that the definition particularly recites ”especially from below…”, the use of “especially” simply highlights that holding something firmly/carrying from below is a more noticeable/particularly true instance of support and does not necessarily mean that something has to hold/carry weight from below to support, as argued by the applicant (see pg. 13 of arguments). Therefore, the examiner’s position regarding how a side wall with spacers holding a cell stack under tensions {and thus would expect to stop the cells from falling/shifting in the housing} would necessarily be supporting the cells still seems reasonable, and applicant’s arguments regarding the definition of support are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that applicant’s amendments filed 11/05/2025 are not fully responsive, but in the interest of compact prosecution, applicant’s amendments have been taken as a bona fide attempt. Specifically, the Examiner notes that applicant did not provide a complete response to the double patenting rejection set forth in the previous nonfinal Office action. MPEP 804 I-B-1 explicitly states “A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03.”
As such, the double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office action are maintained, and the examiner respectfully reminds applicant that a complete response to this OA is required, otherwise, the response may be held as non-responsive and may not be considered “bona fide” under MPEP 714.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5 – 8, 11, 22, 24, and 28 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 08/08/2025) in view of Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 08/08/2025), as evidenced by Shiozaki (EP1391950B1, cited in previous Office action mailed 08/08/2025).
Regarding Claims 1 and 33, Sluka discloses a battery pack (traction accumulator, Figs. 5 – 7, 1, 1’, and 1’’; [0053 – 0054];[0112 – 0113];[0117]) comprising: a housing (module housing; Figs. 5 – 6, 33; [0112 – 0113]); a plurality of cells (Figs. 5, 53, 53’, and 53’’; [0112]) provided in the housing; and each cell comprises a cell body (cell housing; Figs. 5, 31, 31’, 31’’; [0112]).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width
Figure 9 shows a 3D representation of the traction accumulator without the cover ([0117];[0120]). In the figure, the cells are shown to be arranged along the length of the housing and the length of the cells are along the width of the case (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the width of the housing is perpendicular to the length of the housing; thus, Sluka’s battery pack has a first direction {i.e., width} and a second direction {i.e., length} perpendicular to each other, and a length direction of the cell is arranged along the first direction of the battery pack, and the plurality of cells are arranged along the second direction of the battery pack (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above). Furthermore, in Fig. 9 only one cell is shown to be included in the width direction; thus, Sluka’s housing accommodates only one cell along the first direction (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above).
Sluka teaches optimizing the dimensions of the battery so that at least 60% of the module volume, which is the total volume of the battery, can be used as active volume, which is the individual active area of each individual secondary cell of the traction accumulator multiplied by the width of the internal components of the secondary cell ([0051];[0068];[0085 – 0086]). Furthermore, Sluka teaches that the individual cells essentially make up the module volume (Fig. 9; [0120]); thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect, based on Sluka’s teachings above and figures, the sum V1 of the volumes of the plurality of Sluka’s cells and the volume V2 of Sluka’s battery pack to necessarily satisfy the claimed relationship of V1/V2>55%.
Sluka teaches optimizing the dimensions of the battery so that at least 60% of the module volume, which is the total volume of the battery, can be used as active volume, which is the individual active area of each individual secondary cell of the traction accumulator multiplied by the width of the internal components of the secondary cell ([0051];[0068];[0085 – 0086]). Furthermore, Sluka teaches that the individual cells essentially make up the module volume (Fig. 9; [0120]); thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect, based on Sluka’s teachings above and figures, the sum V1 of the volumes of the plurality of Sluka’s cells and the volume V2 of Sluka’s battery pack to necessarily satisfy the claimed relationship of V1/V2>55%.
Sluka teaches using battery cells with a narrow, elongated, rectangular cell housings (Figs. 2 – 4 and 6; [0050 – 0051];[0109 – 0111]); therefore, Sluka further discloses wherein each cell comprises a cell body having a length L (Fig. 3, 13; [0110]), width H (Fig. 3, 15; [0108 – 0109]), and a thickness D (Fig. 1 and 4, 11; [0108]). Sluka teaches using lithium-ion cells as the electrochemical secondary cells of the traction battery ([0050]).
Sluka does not explicitly disclose each cell body satisfying: 600 mm < L < 2500 mm and further 700 < L < 2500 mm (Claim 33).
Kumar teaches lithium ion battery cells with thicknesses t between about 7 mm to 17 mm, widths w between 50 mm to 500 mm, and heights h {i.e. equivalent to claimed lengths} between 75 – 750 mm (Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). The dimensions of the cells in Kumar are chosen for practical and performance reasons such as convenient manufacturing, stable cycling, and controlling battery capacity ([0052];[0055]). Additionally Kumar teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control Sluka’s cell dimensions to be within the range taught by Kumar, and thus obtain cells with lengths overlapping the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery with a desirable capacity and practical size.
Selection of a cell length within the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing, with a reasonable exception of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
In Sluka the cells are shown to have a cell body length greater than the width and a cell body width greater the thickness (Refer to Figs. 1 – 4). As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}.
Kumar teaches lithium ion battery cells with thicknesses t between about 7 mm to 17 mm, widths w between 50 mm to 500 mm, and heights h {i.e. equivalent to claimed length} between 75 – 750 mm (Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). As such Kumar generally teaches battery cells with L/H ratios of 1.5 to 15, which overlaps the claimed range of 9 ≤ L/H ≤ 13, and L/D ratios of about 4.4 to 107, which overlaps the claimed range of 50 ≤ L/H ≤ 120.
The dimensions of the cells in Kumar are chosen for practical and performance reasons such as convenient manufacturing, stable cycling, and controlling battery capacity ([0052];[0055]). Additionally Kumar teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki, suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]).
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select cell dimensions that provide an L/H ratio and L/D ratio within the claimed ranges, for the purpose of optimizing the cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Sluka further discloses wherein the housing comprises side beams located at two sides of the battery pack in a width direction (Refer to housing side walls 61’ shown in Figs. 7 – 9).
In Fig. 18, Sluka teaches an additional embodiment of the traction accumulator that does not include a gap {i.e. refer to 79’ in Fig. 7 for example, between the cells and the side walls}. The configuration of the spacer and housing side walls in the embodiment are taught hold the cells under tension ([0141]). Additionally, Sluka teaches using tension/compression forces from the housing walls to arrange the cells in the housing ([0079];[0099]). One with ordinary skill in the would appreciate that such a configuration would necessarily achieve the prevention of movement/misalignment of the cells.
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose the two ends of each cell in the length direction supported by the side beams {i.e. embodiment of Figs. 7 – 9 not including gap}; however, since Sluka teaches an alternative embodiment where no gap is included between the cells, spacer, and housing side walls, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the embodiment of Figs. 7 – 9 to have a side wall and spacer configuration as shown in Fig. 18 of Sluka, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable battery pack structure.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, to support something means “to hold something firmly carry its weight, especially to stop it from falling (Cambridge Dictionary). Therefore, by using the side walls to hold the cells under tension in conjunction with the spacers, modified Sluka provides the claimed structure of wherein the two ends of each cell in the length direction are supported by the side beams.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the first direction is a width direction of the battery pack (See “width” shown in annotated Fig. 9), the second direction is a length direction of the battery pack (See “length” shown in annotated Fig. 9), the length direction of each cell is arranged along the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to how long-side of cells correspond to the width of battery pack in annotated Fig. 9), and the plurality of cells are arranged along the length direction of the battery pack (Refer to how the cells are arranged in a row along the length of the pack in annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the housing accommodates only one cell in the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
584
1220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing corresponding L1, L2, and L in modified Sluka.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein each cell has a first end and a second end opposite the first end (Refer to Figs. 1 – 4). In addition, modified Sluka, as established above includes a relatively thin spacer between the side wall and battery cell end (Refer to configuration shown in Sluka: Fig. 18).
The area including the spacer {i.e. corresponds to length from the side wall to the ends of the battery cells} appears to be relatively small in comparison to the length of the battery cells (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above), as such, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the sum of the gap lengths from both side to be less than the length of the elongated cells; therefore, modified Sluka necessarily further provides the claimed structure of wherein, in the width direction of the battery pack, a shortest distance from the first end of each cell to a side beam of the housing adjacent to the first end of each cell is L1, a shortest distance from the second end of each cell to a side beam of the housing adjacent to the second end of each cell is L2, and the length L of each cell satisfies: L1+L2<L.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein along the width direction of the battery pack, each cell extends from one side to the other side of the housing (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the housing comprises end beams located at two ends of the battery pack in the length direction (rear walls; Figs. 7 and 9, 67 and Fig. 14, 167; [0117];[0121 – 0122]).
Sluka does not explicitly disclose the end beams providing an inward pressing force against cells adjacent to the end beams.
However, because the end beams are walls of the battery pack, and Sluka teaches using tension/compression forces from the housing walls to arrange the cells in the housing, one with ordinary skill in the art would necessarily expect the beams to exert an inward pressing force on the cells to effectively prevent movement/misalignment of the cells in the length direction ([0079];[0099]).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Sluka’s figures, the pack housing is shown to have very little space, in the width direction, between the cell walls and housing side walls (Figs. 8 – 9, 13 – 15, and 21); which indicates that the width of the housing is significantly close to the length of the cells; therefore, in modified Sluka, one with ordinary skill in the art would expect the width of the case to at least be the length of the modified cells {i.e. 700 – 750 mm }; and thus, be a housing width F that satisfies the claimed range of 500 mm < F < 1500 mm.
Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a housing width within the claimed range of 500 – 1500 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success in selecting a width capable of appropriately accommodating the modified cells of Sluka’s battery pack and achieving a battery pack with an active volume of 60% or more.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the housing is formed on an electric vehicle ([0113];[0118]).
Regarding Claim 28 – 30, modified Sluka discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Sluka’s battery cells have a length, width, and thickness, one with ordinary skill would further expect the cells to provide a volume V.
As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}. The widths and thickness of the battery cells in modified Sluka are generally 50 mm to 500 mm and 7 mm to 17 mm, respectively (Kumar: Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). As such, the cells of modified Sluka are capable of volumes ranging from about 2.45x105 mm3 to about 6.38 x106 mm3, and are further capable of providing L/V ratios ranging from about 0.00012 mm-2 to about 0.0029 mm-2, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0005 mm-2 < L/V < 0.002 mm-2 (Claim 28); H/V ratios of about 0.000078 mm-2 about 0.0002, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0001 mm-2 < H/V < 0.00015 mm-2 (Claim 29); and D/V ratios ranging from about 0.0000027 mm-2 to about 0.000028 mm-2, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0000065 mm-2 < D/V < 0.00002 mm-2 (Claim 30).
Kumar further teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki, suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]).
Therefore, selection of cell dimension that would provide an L/V ratio, H/V ratio, and D/V ratio within the claimed ranges, would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 31 – 32, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Since modified Sluka’s battery cells have a length, width, and thickness, one with ordinary skill would further expect the cells to provide a volume V and surface area S.
As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}. The widths and thickness of the battery cells in modified Sluka are generally 50 mm to 500 mm and 7 mm to 17 mm, respectively (Kumar: Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). As such, the cells of modified Sluka are capable of volumes ranging from about 2.45x105 mm3 to about 6.38 x106 mm3, surface areas ranging from about 80500 mm2 to about 7.92 x105 mm2, and further are capable of providing L/S ratios ranging from about 0.00095 mm-1 to about 0.0087 mm-1 , which encompasses the claimed range of 0.002 mm-1 < L/S < 0.005 mm-1 (Claim 31), and S/V ratios ranging from about 0.12 mm-1 to about 0.33 mm-1, which is within the claimed range of 0.1 mm-1 < S/V < 0.35 mm-1 (Claim 32).
Kumar further teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052])
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki, suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]).
Therefore, selection of cell dimensions that provide an L/S ratio within the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the volumetric density and capacity of the cell to be suitable for applications in vehicle battery packs, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stephens (US PG Pub. 2018/0337378 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 08/08/2025).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. As established above, Sluka shows including one row of cells along the length direction of the battery pack (Figs. 9, 15, 21). Sluka further teaches using the battery pack in a vehicle ([0028]).
Sluka teaches a desire to have a method of cooling included in the traction battery, and further teaches an embodiment incorporating cooling channels within the battery housing to achieve such cooling ([0073 – 0074];[0095]). Sluka further teaches a desire to design their battery pack in a way that mechanically stable when applied in a vehicle ([0025 – 0026];[0146]).
Sluka is silent with respect to having at least one width-direction transverse beam extending along the width direction of the battery pack provided in the housing and the plurality of cells being arranged along the length direction of the battery pack to form a battery array.
Stephens teaches a battery tray for a vehicle that includes an upper tray component with cross members 30 integrally extending along the width of the battery case to define battery containment sections within the tray (Fig. 3; [0004]). The cross members further have added utility in that they include hollow interior cavities for weight reduction and/or to provide packaging space for cooling lines ([0052]).
Since Sluka teaches a desire to manage heat within the battery pack and design a battery pack that is mechanically stable for use in a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include at least one of the cross members taught by Stephens, which have hollow interiors capable of holding cooling lines, between the plurality of cells, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a suitable means of cooling within the battery pack and further increasing the mechanically stability of the battery pack by adding an additional structure to restrain the battery cell housings.
In modified Sluka, the cross member, which extends across the width direction of the pack and forms at least two sections of cells within the modified pack, is the claimed width-direction transverse beam. Furthermore, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the plurality of cells would form a battery array since the plurality of cells are disclosed to be electrically connected to one another in a series ([0075 – 0076]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka teaches using the battery pack in vehicles ([0086];[0100]). Sluka further teaches that the battery pack can be mounted on a vehicle chassis ([0113]).
Sluka does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing includes a vehicle tray that is fitted and connected to the vehicle body.
Stephens teaches a battery tray for a vehicle, meant to be attached the bottom of the vehicle body, that includes an upper tray component to hold the cells and a lower/outer tray component that holds the upper tray component ([0039];[0041]). The lower/outer tray component provides side reinforcement members that absorb and dissipate side impact forces imparted at the vehicle and a bottom panel that lowers impact absorption ([0043]).
Since Sluka’s battery pack has a structure and purpose similar to Stephens’ upper tray component, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Stephen’s taught lower/outer tray with Sluka’s battery pack, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing Sluka’s battery pack a secure and suitable means to mount the battery pack to a vehicle.
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), as applied to claims 1 and 33 above, and further in view of Cheng (CN107394279A, cited in previous Office action mailed 08/08/2025).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Sluka discloses all the limitations as set forth above. As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}, as such the battery cells of modified Sluka have a length outside of the claimed range 800 < L < 1500 mm (Claim 34).
Kumar further teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases, obtained through optimizing battery dimensions, are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
Cheng teaches a high capacity polymer lithium ion battery wherein the width of the battery is greater than 300 mm, the length of the battery is greater than 250 mm and the thickness is greater than 5mm ([0007];[0067]). In Examples 4, 5 and 6, Cheng discloses embodiments of battery cells with widths of 800 mm, 815 mm, and 1000 mm, respectively ([0091];[0098];[0105]). {Examiner Note: The width dimension in Cheng is equivalent to claimed length dimension}.
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki, suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]).
Therefore, since Sluka already discloses using an elongated battery cell in their traction battery, and Kumar does not necessarily teach against constructing battery cells longer than 750 mm {i.e. that is they only teach cost/physical practicality as the limiting factors,}, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the overlapping portion of the range taught by Cheng for the length of modified Sluka’s cells, with a reasonable expectation of success in selecting a battery length suitable, and, as shown by Cheng, known in the art, for traction battery applications and capable of providing an increases in battery capacity.
Claim(s) 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1) and Kumar et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1, cited in 10/26/2022 IDS), as evidenced by Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), and further in view of Matecki (US PG Pub. 2018/0337374 A1, cited in 04/04/2023 IDS).
Regarding Claim 45, Sluka discloses a battery pack (traction accumulator, Figs. 5 – 7, 1, 1’, and 1’’; [0053 – 0054];[0112 – 0113];[0117]) comprising: a housing (module housing; Figs. 5 – 6, 33; [0112 – 0113]); a plurality of cells (Figs. 5, 53, 53’, and 53’’; [0112]) provided in the housing; and each cell comprises a cell body (cell housing; Figs. 5, 31, 31’, 31’’; [0112]).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width
Figure 9 shows a 3D representation of the traction accumulator without the cover ([0117];[0120]). In the figure, the cells are shown to be arranged along the length of the housing and the length of the cells are along the width of the case (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the width of the housing is perpendicular to the length of the housing; thus, Sluka’s battery pack has a first direction {i.e., width} and a second direction {i.e., length} perpendicular to each other, and a length direction of the cell is arranged along the first direction of the battery pack, and the plurality of cells are arranged along the second direction of the battery pack (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above). Furthermore, in Fig. 9 only one cell is shown to be included in the width direction; thus, Sluka’s housing accommodates only one cell along the first direction (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above).
Sluka teaches optimizing the dimensions of the battery so that at least 60% of the module volume, which is the total volume of the battery, can be used as active volume, which is the individual active area of each individual secondary cell of the traction accumulator multiplied by the width of the internal components of the secondary cell ([0051];[0068];[0085 – 0086]). Furthermore, Sluka teaches that the individual cells essentially make up the module volume (Fig. 9; [0120]); thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect, based on Sluka’s teachings above and figures, the sum V1 of the volumes of the plurality of Sluka’s cells and the volume V2 of Sluka’s battery pack to necessarily satisfy the claimed relationship of V1/V2>55%.
Sluka teaches optimizing the dimensions of the battery so that at least 60% of the module volume, which is the total volume of the battery, can be used as active volume, which is the individual active area of each individual secondary cell of the traction accumulator multiplied by the width of the internal components of the secondary cell ([0051];[0068];[0085 – 0086]). Furthermore, Sluka teaches that the individual cells essentially make up the module volume (Fig. 9; [0120]); thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect, based on Sluka’s teachings above and figures, the sum V1 of the volumes of the plurality of Sluka’s cells and the volume V2 of Sluka’s battery pack to necessarily satisfy the claimed relationship of V1/V2>55%.
Sluka teaches using battery cells with a narrow, elongated, rectangular cell housings (Figs. 2 – 4 and 6; [0050 – 0051];[0109 – 0111]); therefore, Sluka further discloses wherein each cell comprises a cell body having a length L (Fig. 3, 13; [0110]), width H (Fig. 3, 15; [0108 – 0109]), and a thickness D (Fig. 1 and 4, 11; [0108]). Sluka teaches using lithium-ion cells as the electrochemical secondary cells of the traction battery ([0050]).
Sluka does not explicitly disclose each cell body satisfying: 600 mm < L < 2500 mm.
Kumar teaches lithium ion battery cells with thicknesses t between about 7 mm to 17 mm, widths w between 50 mm to 500 mm, and heights h {i.e. equivalent to claimed lengths} between 75 – 750 mm (Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). The dimensions of the cells in Kumar are chosen for practical and performance reasons such as convenient manufacturing, stable cycling, and controlling battery capacity ([0052];[0055]). Additionally Kumar teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control Sluka’s cell dimensions to be within the range taught by Kumar, and thus obtain cells with lengths overlapping the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery with a desirable capacity and practical size.
Selection of a cell length within the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing, with a reasonable exception of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
In Sluka the cells are shown to have a cell body length greater than the width and a cell body width greater the thickness (Refer to Figs. 1 – 4). As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}.
Kumar teaches lithium ion battery cells with thicknesses t between about 7 mm to 17 mm, widths w between 50 mm to 500 mm, and heights h {i.e. equivalent to claimed length} between 75 – 750 mm (Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). As such Kumar generally teaches battery cells with L/H ratios of 1.5 to 15, which overlaps the claimed range of 9 ≤ L/H ≤ 13, and L/D ratios of about 4.4 to 107, which overlaps the claimed range of 50 ≤ L/H ≤ 120.
The dimensions of the cells in Kumar are chosen for practical and performance reasons such as convenient manufacturing, stable cycling, and controlling battery capacity ([0052];[0055]). Additionally Kumar teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki, suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]).
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select cell dimensions that provide an L/H ratio and L/D ratio within the claimed ranges, for the purpose of optimizing the cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Sluka further discloses wherein the housing comprises side beams located at two sides of the battery pack in a width direction (Refer to housing side walls 61’ shown in Figs. 7 – 9) and wherein the battery pack further comprises a tray, that is Sluka teaches the traction battery module housing comprising module housing base 63 (Figs. 6 – 9; [0113];[0122]), which reads on the claimed tray because it includes a bottom (refer to bottom surface of the module housing base 63 in Figs. 6 – 9), and further has a structure {i.e. includes floor (refer to bottom surface of module housing base 63) and perimeter wall to boarder a battery containment area (refer to side walls 61’ and rear walls 67’} and function similar to the battery tray disclosed in Matecki ([0024];[0026]).
Furthermore, since Sluka teaches that the housing side walls 61’/61 and module housing base 63 are attached, Sluka further includes the claimed structure of wherein the side beams extend upwardly from the bottom (Refer to configuration of the side walls 61’/61 and module housing base shown in Figs. 6 and 9).
In Fig. 18, Sluka teaches an additional embodiment of the traction accumulator where the spacer and housing side walls in the embodiment are taught hold the cells under tension ([0141]). Additionally, Sluka teaches using tension/compression forces from the housing walls to arrange the cells in the housing and that the carrier plate of the module housing can serve as a mechanical support structure for the cells ([0079];[0099];[0080]).
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose however the two ends of each cell in the length direction supported by the side beams and particularly the two ends of each cell supported by the side beams at locations spaced apart from the bottom.
Matecki teaches a battery tray structure including retention elements that are integrated with portions of the battery tray or the battery modules themselves to secure and position various elements within the battery tray as well optimize packaging spaces within the battery tray ([0025]). In one embodiment, Matecki shows the batteries enclosed in a structure with flanges that allows the batteries to be supported and secured at an upper surface of the crossmembers ([0030 – 0032]).
Since Sluka is concerned with optimizing the traction battery volume and already suggests using additional supporting elements inside the module housing to hold the cells ([0085];[0113]) and since Matecki teaches that the battery tray itself and/or the battery module structure can include integrated retention elements for support and positioning ([0025]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the side beams and the two ends of the cells in the length direction of Sluka to include integrated retention elements that secure the cells and walls together at an upper end, as taught by Matecki (Refer to Fig. 4 for example), and thus obtain the claimed structure of two ends of each cell supported by the side beams and further supported at a location spaced apart from the bottom, with a reasonable expectation of success in further securing and positioning the cells within the housing in a manner that optimizes the space within the housing.
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 ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/17/2026