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 . If status of the application as subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the office action mailed 6/18/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 8/22/2025, in response to the office action mailed 6/18/2025, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame all 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections. Nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 due to additional prior art.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 was amended to recite “a plurality of power storage modules”. The specification does not use this phrase; however, the specification does refer to a “plurality of battery cells 100” (page 3, lines 24-27). For present examination, the “plurality of power storage modules” is the same as the “plurality of battery cells 100”.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a gap in a width direction of each of the plurality of power storage modules”. Examiner could not find support in the specification for this gap.
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 100.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a gap in a width direction of each of the plurality of power storage modules”. It is unclear how each storage module has a gap and where this gap is located in each storage module. For present examination, this claim limitation is interpreted to mean “a gap in a width direction between adjacent storage modules of
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200062311A1 (Kawase) in view of US20160329538A1 (Hughes), together “modified Kawase”.
Kawase teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A vehicle battery pack unit disposed in a vehicle (paragraph 51; figure 1: vehicle 10) having a ladder frame and a side guard (Figure A below), the vehicle battery pack unit comprising:
a battery pack (Figure A below) including a housing (housing is battery pack exterior) and a plurality of power storage modules (paragraph 57; figure 3: battery pack 20 has lithium ion batteries - plural) accommodated in the housing;
a bracket (Figure A below) attached to the ladder frame and supporting the plurality of power storage modules between the ladder frame and the side guard; and
a first shock absorbing member (Figure A below) disposed beside the plurality of power storage modules between the plurality of power storage modules and the side guard,
wherein the battery pack is mounted outside the ladder frame in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction… the battery pack does not overlap the ladder frame either in the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (Figure A: Kawase’s battery pack is not mounted inside the ladder frame in any direction. Kawase’s battery pack does not overlap the ladder frame in any direction),
Figure A: Kawase Annotated Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
375
1261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawase also teaches the following claim 1 limitations (see Figure B):
the first shock absorbing member includes a first outer tubular portion (OTP) and a plurality of first inner tubular portions (ITPs) formed in the first outer tubular portion (OTP)
Figure B: Kawase Annotated Partial Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
341
885
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites:
each of the first outer tubular portion and the plurality of first inner tubular portions is formed by overlapping a plurality of bent metal plates with each other and connecting them to each other
According to MPEP § 2113, this recitation of how the article is made limits claim scope only as far as the method affects the final product:
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Kawase’s shock absorbing member could have been made by overlapping a plurality of bent metal plates with each other and connecting them to each other by welding:
Figure C: Drawing by Examiner to illustrate Overlap
PNG
media_image3.png
262
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kawase thus fulfills this claim limitation.
Claim 1 also recites:
in the horizontal direction, an extending direction of the ladder frame is perpendicular to the width direction of each of the plurality of power storage modules
Kawase fails to explicitly teach this perpendicular relationship. Vehicle batteries have a length, width, and thickness. There are only two reasonable options for arrangement of Kawase’s batteries relative to the ladder frame: ladder frame perpendicular to the width direction or ladder frame parallel to the width direction. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) provides guidance for this issue:
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
Here, there is a design need to decide ladder direction relative to battery arrangement, and there are only two reasonable options. It would therefore have been obvious to try both options.
Kawase, however, fails to teach the following claim 1 limitations, which are taught by Hughes:
the plurality of power storage modules are accommodated inside the housing so as to be adjacent to each other with a gap in a width direction of each of the plurality of power storage modules,
the vehicle battery pack unit further comprising a second shock absorbing member (paragraph 30; figures 3-4: compliant pads 306) disposed inside the housing,
the second shock absorbing member is disposed between power storage modules (paragraph 30; figures 3-4: battery cells 304) adjacent to each other in the width direction (right-left in figure 3) of each of the plurality of power storage modules…
the second shock absorbing member is disposed in contact with inner surfaces of both ends of the housing in the extending direction of the ladder frame (paragraph 35: protective casing 106 provides a compressive force to reduces movement of the components, so these components, including the compliant pads 306, must touch the housing / casing)
Hughes’ compliant pads 306 limit relative movement between the battery cells, thus protecting them from vibration and shock (paragraph 35). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Kawase’s battery pack to include compliant pads between adjacent batteries, as taught by Hughes, for protection from vibration and shock.
Claim 1 also recites:
the second shock absorbing member includes a second outer tubular portion and a plurality of second inner tubular portions formed in the second outer tubular portion
Kawase teaches this structure as illustrated in Figure B above. Hughes teaches compliant pads between adjacent battery cells. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine these two concepts as an alternative way to protect the battery cells. Thus, it would have been obvious to use a tubular structure, as taught by Kawase, between adjacent battery cells, as taught by Hughes.
With regard to claim 2, Kawase teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kawase also teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
the first shock absorbing member is attached to a side surface of the housing
As illustrated in Figure A above, the battery pack housing, including its side surface, is attached to the bracket, which is attached to the side guard, which is attached to the first shock absorbing member; therefore, the housing side surface is attached to the first shock absorbing member.
With regard to claims 3-4, Kawase teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as noted above. Kawase also teaches the following limitation of claims 3-4:
the first shock absorbing member is connected to the side guard
As illustrated in Figure A above, the first shock absorbing member is connected to the side guard.
With regard to claims 5-6, Kawase teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as noted above. Kawase also teaches the following limitation of claims 5-6:
a portion of the bracket constitutes the side guard
As illustrated in Figure D, Kawase teaches this claim limitation by defining the bracket to extend across the side guard:
Figure D: Kawase Annotated Partial Figure 3
PNG
media_image4.png
332
725
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 7-8, Kawase teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as noted above. Kawase also teaches the following limitation of claims 7-8:
a portion of the first shock absorbing member constitutes the side guard
As illustrated in Figure E, Kawase teaches this claim limitation by defining an end of the shock absorbing member:
Figure E: Kawase Annotated Partial Figure 3
PNG
media_image5.png
273
725
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 9-10, Kawase teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as noted above. Kawase also teaches the following limitation of claims 9-10:
the bracket constitutes a portion of the housing
As illustrated in Figure F, Kawase teaches this claim limitation by defining the bracket to include the adjacent housing:
Figure F: Kawase Annotated Figure 3
PNG
media_image6.png
333
1066
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 11-20, Kawase teaches the limitations of claims 1-10 as noted above. Kawase also teaches the following limitation of claims 11-20:
A vehicle comprising the vehicle battery pack unit (abstract; paragraphs 51, 53-54, 57; figure 1: vehicle 10)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721