DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 9 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 30 July 2026 (two separate documents) have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0062224, hereinafter Drabon in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416343, hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 1, Drabon teaches a drive battery. The drive battery comprises a battery holder (1, “box”). A plurality of batteries (2), each comprising multiple battery cells are arranged in a two-dimensional array and accommodated in the battery holder (1, “box”) (paragraphs [0007, 0045] and figure 1). Either dimension of the array may be considered the instantly claimed “first direction”.
The batteries (2) (and thus all battery cells) are mounted to a base (8, “mounting wall”) (paragraph [0045]). The base (8, “mounting wall”) is thermally connected to a “first wall” of each battery cell (paragraph [0010]).
When the drive battery (and thus each battery cell) is disposed in a vehicle (“power consumption device”), each battery (2) hangs from the base (8, “mounting wall”) (paragraph [0056] and figures 3, 12, 14 and 15). Thus, each battery cell is located below the base (8, “mounting wall”) and its “first wall” is at least indirectly physically connected to the base (8, “mounting wall”). In the installed state, the base (8, “mounting wall”) is an upper cover of the battery holder (1, “box”) (paragraph [0048] and figure 3, 12, 14 and 15).
A thickness (“size H”) of the base (8, “mounting wall”) is less than 3 mm (paragraph [0054] and figure 8). The thickness of the base (8, “mounting wall”) is in a direction (“second direction”) normal to the plane in which the battery cells are arranged. Therefore it is necessarily perpendicular to the “first wall”.
Drabon fails to report a ratio of the thickness (“size H”) of the base (8, “mounting wall”) to the weight (M) of a battery cell.
For a thickness (“size H”) of the base (8, “mounting wall”) of 3 mm, in order to achieve a ratio H/M greater than the lower bound of the claimed range, each battery cell may have a weight up to 75 kg.
Battery cells used in the art within battery packs to power electric vehicles have a weight well within this range – see, e.g. He, who teaches battery cells with an individual weight in the range from 0.5 kg to 5 kg (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use battery cells of the type taught by He with a weight in the range 0.5 kg to 5 kg in Drabon’s drive battery as these are battery cells used in battery packs powering electric vehicles and are understood to satisfy energy density and weight requirements for such an application.
The optimum range of Drabon as modified by He for the ratio H/M overlaps the the instant application's optimum range of 0.04 mm/kg to 100 mm/kg. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Drabon teaches that the thickness (“size H”) of the base (8, “mounting wall”) is less than 3 mm (paragraph [0054]).
Drabon's optimum range overlaps the lower bound of the instant application's optimum range of 0.2 mm to 20 mm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Drabon teaches in an embodiment that an inner portion of the base (8, “mounting wall”) may include a cooling duct (45, “cavity”) (paragraphs [0060] and figure 15).
(In this embodiment, the cooling duct (45, “cavity”) has a height in the range 1 mm to 5 mm (paragraph [0070]). Accounting for the 3 mm or less for the walls (paragraph [0058]), this would mean that the “size H” may be in the range greater than 1 mm and up to 8 mm. This embodiment also satisfies the claimed ratio H/M. For a “size H” in the range 1 mm to 8 mm, with a battery cell with a weight of 0.5 kg, the ratio H/M would be in the range 2 to 16 and for a battery cell with a weight of 5 kg, the ratio H/M would be in the range 0.2 to 1.6).
Regarding claim 5, Drabon teaches that the cooling duct (45, “cavity”) is configured to accommodate a heat transfer fluid to adjust a temperature of the battery cells (paragraphs [0012, 0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Drabon teaches in an embodiment that the base (8) comprises two layers (37 and 38) which together form a cooling duct (paragraphs [0011, 0060] and figure 15). The batteries (2) are mounted on the bottom layer (37, “mounting wall”) (paragraph [0060]). The second layer (38) is on the surface of the bottom layer (37, “mounting wall”) away from the batteries (2) (and thus the battery cells) (paragraph [0060] and figure 15). The second layer (38) includes ribs (figure 15). The second layer (38) is formed of metal or a fiber composite (paragraph [0013]) and thus by its presence provides reinforcement to the base (37, “mounting wall”). Therefore the ribs may be considered “reinforcing ribs”.
Regarding claim 7, Drabon teaches that the second layer (38) and the base (37, “mounting wall”) are integrally bonded (paragraph [0012]) and may be welded together (paragraph [0063]), therefore they can be said to be an integrally formed structure.
Regarding claim 8, Drabon as modified by He teaches that each battery cell has a weight in the range 0.5 kg to 5 kg (He’s Table 1).
Given the thickness (“size H”) of the base (8, “mounting wall”) of less than 3 mm, in order to satisfy the claimed ratio H/M, each battery cell would need to have a weight in the approximate range from 0.15 kg to 30 kg.
The optimum range of Drabon as modified by He for the ratio H/M overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.1 mm/kg to 20 mm/kg. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Drabon teaches a partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) extending in the first direction (figure 5). The batteries (2) are attached to the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) (paragraphs [0046, 0056]).
Drabon as modified by He teaches that the battery cells are prismatic (He’s figure 10), therefore they necessarily have two “third walls” being two opposite walls in a third direction, such that the third direction is perpendicular to the first and second direction.
Given that the batteries (2) are attached to the partition web (19, “spacer plate”) and hang in that position, the “third walls” of each battery cell are necessarily at least indirectly connected to the partition web (19, “spacer plate”).
Regarding claim 10, Drabon as modified by He teaches that there are two “third walls” having largest surface area among the battery cell walls (He’s figure 10).
Given that the batteries (2) are attached to the partition web (19, “spacer plate”) and hang in that position, all of the walls (including the “third walls” having a largest surface area) of each battery cell are necessarily at least indirectly connected to the partition web (19, “spacer plate”).
Regarding claim 12, Drabon teaches that the drive battery comprises sets of two batteries (2) arranged along the first direction (see Figure 1 below). Each set of batteries (2) arranged along the first direction is a column of battery cells arranged along the first direction. Drabon further teaches a plurality of partitioning webs (19, “spacer plates”) (Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 - Definition of the 1st direction and the 3rd direction in Drabon's assembly.)]
The multiple columns of the battery cells and the plurality of partitioning webs (19, “spacer plates”) are alternately arranged in the third direction (see Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Drabon teaches that the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) is secured within the battery holder (1) by a glued connection (paragraph [0059]). Therefore it is understood that the full length of the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) is glued (“fixed”) to the base (8, “mounting wall”).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to glue (“fix”) the entire length of the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) to the base (8, “mounting wall”) for the purpose of ensuring that the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) is robustly secured within the battery holder (1).
An end portion of the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) in the first direction is then glued to the base (8, “mounting wall”) and may be considered a “fixing structure”.
Regarding claim 17, Drabon teaches that the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) is secured within the battery holder (1) by a glued connection (paragraph [0059]). Therefore it is understood that the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) is glued (“bonded”) to the base (8, “mounting wall”).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to glue (“bond”) the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) to the base (8, “mounting wall”) for the purpose of ensuring that the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) is robustly secured within the battery holder (1).
Regarding claim 19, Drabon teaches an electric vehicle (“power consumption device”) powered by the drive battery of claim 1 (paragraph [0009] and figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Drabon teaches a method of producing a drive battery. The method comprises providing a battery holder (1, “box”). The method further comprises providing a plurality of batteries (2), each comprising multiple battery cells, arranging them in a two-dimensional array and accommodating them in the battery holder (1, “box”) (paragraphs [0007, 0045] and figure 1). Either dimension of the array may be considered the instantly claimed “first direction”.
The method comprises providing a base (8, “mounting wall”). The batteries (2) (and thus all battery cells) are mounted to the base (8, “mounting wall”) (paragraph [0045]). The base (8, “mounting wall”) is thermally connected to a “first wall” of each battery cell (paragraph [0010]).
When the drive battery (and thus each battery cell) is disposed in a vehicle (“power consumption device”), each battery (2) hangs from the base (8, “mounting wall”) (paragraph [0056] and figures 3, 12, 14 and 15). Thus, each battery cell is located below the base (8, “mounting wall”) and its “first wall” is at least indirectly physically connected to the base (8, “mounting wall”). In the installed state, the base (8, “mounting wall”) is an upper cover of the battery holder (1, “box”) (paragraph [0048] and figure 3, 12, 14 and 15).
A thickness (“size H”) of the base (8, “mounting wall”) is less than 3 mm (paragraph [0054] and figure 8). The thickness of the base (8, “mounting wall”) is a dimension of the base (8, “mounting wall”) in a direction (“second direction”) normal to the plane in which the battery cells are arranged. Therefore it is necessarily perpendicular to the “first wall”.
Drabon fails to report a ratio of the thickness (“size H”) of the base (8, “mounting wall”) to the weight (M) of a battery cell.
For a thickness (“size H”) of the base (8, “mounting wall”) of 3 mm, in order to achieve a ratio H/M greater than the lower bound of the claimed range, each battery cell may have a weight up to 75 kg.
Battery cells used in the art within battery packs to power electric vehicles have a weight well within this range – see, e.g. He, who teaches battery cells with an individual weight in the range from 0.5 kg to 5 kg (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use battery cells of the type taught by He with a weight in the range 0.5 kg to 5 kg in Drabon’s drive battery as these are battery cells used in battery packs powering electric vehicles and are understood to satisfy energy density and weight requirements for such an application.
The optimum range of Drabon as modified by He for the ratio H/M overlaps the the instant application's optimum range of 0.04 mm/kg to 100 mm/kg. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0062224, hereinafter Drabon in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416343, hereinafter He as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0280183, hereinafter Utley.
Regarding claim 2, Drabon teaches that a bottom wall (11) of each battery (2) abuts the base (8, “mounting wall”) (paragraph [0046] and figure 12). Drabon also teaches that terminals (P) of each battery (2) extend from a top wall of each battery (2). The top wall is separated and disposed opposite the bottom wall (11) in the second direction (paragraph [0056] and figure 12).
Drabon as modified by He teaches that the battery cells are prismatic with battery terminals provided on one wall (He’s figure 10).
Drabon does not specify whether the terminals (P) are terminals of the battery cells.
Drabon fails to teach the position of the terminals of the battery cells relative to the “first wall”.
The positioning of a cooling system against the walls of battery cells located opposite the walls with battery terminals is ubiquitous in the art – see, e.g. Utley. Utley teaches a drive battery (50) comprising multiple battery arrays (54). Each battery array (54) includes multiple battery cells (56) having bottom walls (60) mounted on and abutting a cooling base plate (52). Top walls (58) of the multiple battery cells (56) include the battery cell terminals (62) (paragraphs [0022, 0031], figures 2 and 7).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure each of Drabon’s batteries (2) as Utley’s battery arrays (54) such that the bottom wall (“first wall”) of each battery cell abuts the base (8, “mounting wall”) and the top wall (“second wall”) having the terminals is disposed opposite to the bottom wall (“first wall”) in the second direction as this is a customary arrangement in the art permitting for sufficient heat transfer away from battery cells powering vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Drabon teaches a plurality of batteries (2), each of which includes multiple battery cells (paragraph [0007]). As such, a battery (2) is a “battery module”.
Each battery (2, “battery module”) is attached to a partition web (19, “spacer plate”) and therefore each battery (2, “battery module”) may be said to comprise at least one partition web (19, “spacer plate”) (paragraphs [0046, 0056]).
The battery (2, “battery module”) and the partition web (19, “spacer plate”) are alternately arranged in the third direction (Figure 1 above).
Drabon as modified by He teaches that the battery cells are prismatic (He’s figure 10).
Drabon does not provide details on the arrangement of the battery cells within the battery (2, “module”).
Utley teaches a similar drive battery (50) comprising multiple battery arrays (54, “battery modules”) (paragraph [0022]). Each battery array (54, “module”) includes multiple prismatic battery cells (56) arranged in one column (figure 2).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the battery cells of Drabon as modified by He within the battery (2, “battery module”) in one column along the first direction without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Drabon teaches that adjacent batteries (2) are electrically connected to each other (paragraph [0047]). Therefore, two neighboring batteries (2) together may be considered a “battery module” including two columns of battery cells extending along the first direction with one partition web (19, “spacer plate”) between them. Under this definition, there would still be three “battery modules” arranged along the third direction.
Regarding claim 15, Drabon teaches that the plurality of batteries (2, “battery modules”) are arranged in the third direction (Figure 1 above).
A gap exists between adjacent batteries (2, “battery modules”) (see Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
538
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2 - Illustrating the location of the gap within Drabon's assembly.)]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0062224, hereinafter Drabon in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416343, hereinafter He as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0335848, hereinafter Seok.
Regarding claim 11, Drabon teaches a partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) extending in the first direction (Figure 1 above). The partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) is formed of a hollow profile (paragraph [0048]).
Drabon does not specify dimensions of the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”).
Drabon fails to teach a size of the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) in the third direction.
Seok teaches a battery case for a drive battery used to power an electric vehicle (abstract and figure 1). The battery case has walls (20) and partition plates (30) formed of hollow profiles similar to Drabon’s (figures 2-4). Seok teaches that the partition plates (30) are formed by bending a metal plate having a thickness in the range 1.0 mm to 1.2 mm (paragraphs [0048-0051]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) of a metal plate having a thickness in the range 1.0 mm to 1.2 mm, as this is a material with the requisite strength for a battery case of a drive battery used to power an electric vehicle.
In the combination of Drabon and Seok, the thickness of a wall of the hollow profile forming the partitioning web (19, “spacer plate”) would be in the range 1.0 mm to 1.2 mm. Therefore, it would have “a size” in the third direction in the range 1.0 mm to 1.2 mm.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0062224, hereinafter Drabon in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416343, hereinafter He as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0243928, hereinafter Schmidt.
Regarding claim 18, Drabon teaches that a thermally conductive paste or the like is arranged between the battery bottom (11) and the base (8, “mounting wall”) for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer (paragraph [0068]).
Drabon does not explicitly teach that the “first wall” of the battery cell is bonded to the base (8, “mounting wall”).
Bonding a wall of a battery cell to a cooling wall via a thermally conductive adhesive for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer is a well-known configuration in the art. See, e.g. Schmidt, who teaches a battery arrangement (30, “battery pack”) for powering an electric vehicle (paragraph [0001]). The battery arrangement (30, “battery pack”) comprises a plurality of battery modules (32), each comprising a plurality of battery cells (paragraphs [0046, 0047] and figure 7). The battery modules (32) are mounted in a frame (38, “case”), which has a wall (44), through which the battery modules (32) are cooled (paragraph [0048] and figure 8). Walls of the battery cells facing the wall (44) are joined to wall (44) via a thermally conductive adhesive (35) (paragraphs [0047, 0057] and figure 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bond the wall (“first wall”) of each battery cell facing the base (8, “mounting wall”) to the base (8, “mounting wall”) via a thermally conductive adhesive for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer to the base (8, “mounting wall”) and providing an additional means of securing the battery cells to the base (8, “mounting wall”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Drabon and He references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/LILIA NEDIALKOVA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
