Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/639,292

POWER SUPPLY ASSEMBLY FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 28, 2022
Examiner
AMPONSAH, OSEI K
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Renault S A S
OA Round
4 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
488 granted / 680 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
748
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 680 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [Figure 1 in the Drawings filed 01-22-2025] in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0315069 hereinafter Kim, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0312614 hereinafter Fujiwara, and CN 209320718 U hereinafter Wang. Regarding Claim 11, Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings disclose an electrical power supply assembly [10] for a motor vehicle, the assembly comprising: a casing [12] having a bottom [14] and at least two lateral walls [20, 22] that are opposite one another and protrude upright from the bottom; and a set of accumulator battery modules [30, 32], each of the modules having an accumulator battery [34] having two opposite ends [36, 38], and two opposite flanges [40, 42] respectively covering the ends, the modules of the set being installed inside the casing on the bottom in a plurality of contiguous rows of n modules situated coaxially in an extension of one another and substantially parallel to the lateral walls, wherein the contiguous rows are arranged such that the flanges of the modules of the rows are respectively aligned edge to edge in a direction substantially perpendicular to the opposite lateral walls (paragraphs 21-27 of Applicant’s Specification as filed). Figure 1 shows a crossmember [46] separating the first modules [30] and the second modules [32] and extending from one lateral wall [20] to the other [22] and over the entire height of the casing. The crossmember makes it possible to reinforce the casing and provide better resistance to deformation inside the assembly. However, the crossmember makes it necessary to reserve a space that is then a wasted space for the accumulator batteries and consequently for the energy storage capacities of the electrical power supply assembly. Kim teaches a battery pack [700] comprising a plurality of battery modules [100] accommodated in a housing [500] (see figure 3), wherein the battery modules [100] are arranged in a row on the bottom of the housing and one guide member (flange) [550] is formed between two battery modules (see annotated figure 4 below). Kim further teaches that the guide member [550] may be provided between the respective battery modules [100] accommodated in the housing [500] (paragraph 48). PNG media_image1.png 382 648 media_image1.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such guide member (flange) [550] between two battery modules before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kim discloses that such configuration can effectively perform the alignment of the plurality of battery modules [100], thereby improving the production efficiency of the battery pack [700] (paragraph 49). The combination teaches that the crossmember makes it possible to reinforce the casing and provide better resistance to deformation inside the assembly (paragraph 26 of Applicant’s Specification as filed) and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the guide members (flanges) are secured to the bottom of the casing (housing). Alternatively, Fujiwara teaches a power supply apparatus for a vehicle (paragraph 23), comprising a plurality of battery modules [12] that are formed on a support plate [11], and the battery module including flanges [20] formed on opposite ends of the module, wherein the flanges are secured to the bottom of the casing so as to form rigid crossmembers inside the casing (paragraph 30, see figures 1 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such secured flanges in the battery assembly before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Fujiwara discloses that such configuration can effectively secure the battery modules together. Wang teaches that multiple cross beams can be disposed between the battery modules in a row (see figures 1 and 5 shown below). PNG media_image2.png 561 453 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple flanges (cross beams) in the battery assembly before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Wang discloses that such configuration can effectively secure the battery modules together (see Abstract). Regarding Claim 13, the combination teaches that the modules of each of the rows are connected together in pairs by just a single flange and have just a single length (see Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [Figure 1] and the combination described above). Regarding Claim 14, the combination teaches that the casing has a front wall and an opposite rear wall, protruding upright from the bottom and respectively connecting the lateral walls substantially perpendicularly so as to close the casing (see Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [Figure 1] and the combination described above). Regarding Claim 15, the combination teaches that each of the flanges has a given thickness and at least one through-orifice made in the thickness so as to allow a fastening screw to pass through (see Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [Figure 1] and the combination described above). Regarding Claims 16-17, the combination teaches that the bottom of the casing has tapped portions or collars for receiving the screws for fastening the flanges casing (see Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [Figure 1] and the combination described above). Regarding Claim 18, the combination teaches that each of the flanges have recesses in an extension of the through-orifices so as to accommodate the collars (see Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [Figure 1] and the combination described above). Regarding Claims 19 and 20, the combination teaches that the flanges have a substantially rectangular parallelepipedal shape and are molded in one piece from aluminum alloy (see Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [Figure 1] and the combination described above). 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 22, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 23, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 19, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586819
Non-Aqueous Electrolyte and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580223
STABILIZED SOLID GARNET ELECTROLYTE AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573615
All-Solid-State Battery and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573717
MICROPOROUS MEMBRANES, SEPARATORS, LITHIUM BATTERIES, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567648
EXPLOSIVE ENVIRONMENT NEUTRALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 680 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month