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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 and 15 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Geske in view of Watanabe and Smythe the ends of the connector are outside of the case (pg. 8, para. 9). This argument is not found persuasive for the following reasons. First, claim 1 requires that “a first end of the reinforcement beam is inside the module case”. The examiner notes that “a first end” is a limitation that may be interpreted broadly, as done in the rejection of record, to mean a portion of the beam including an end surface of the beam, instead of solely an endmost surface of the beam as it appears applicant intends to claim. The rejection of record identifies the first end of the beam as the portion (see annotated Fig. 1; 1E1 or 1E2) of the beam (15a, 25 substituted with the beam of Smythe) in direct contact with the upper case 14. As illustrated below, the first end (1E1 or 1E2) of the beam (15a/25 substituted for Smythe’s beam) passes through the flange 16 of the upper case 14. The examiner notes that the flange 16 is a part of the module case 13 (Fig. 1; [0034]; [0041]). Therefore, the first end of the beam may be considered inside the module case by virtue of it passing through the flange of the upper case.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the teaching of Smythe to modify the rivets of Watanabe because the connectors of Smythe and Watanabe function in completely different ways for a different effect (pg. 8, para. 2), the examiner notes that the critical function and effect of the reinforcement beam (Fig. 19A; 708; “pack connector 708”; [0166]) of Smythe is the ability to mechanically retain two structures together (see [0166]). Moreover, Smythe teaches that the beam may be connected in a manner that is non-detachable, i.e. not repeatedly removable without damage to the connection structure (“adhesive”; [0168]). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because both Smythe and Watanabe suggest a similar function and effect, of mechanical retainment by non-detachable means, for their respective reinforcement beams.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that in the claims, the limitation “beam” has been interpreted as a long piece of metal as is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation (Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Beam definition & meaning. Dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/beam).
The examiner notes that in the claims, the limitation “welding” has been interpreted as “any kind of metallurgical joining method of metal and includes all cases of joining two different materials by melting or heating metal materials” including brazing, welding, and/or soldering per [0043] of the PGPUB of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geskes (US 2020/0112071 A1) in view of Watanabe (JPH1061622A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Smythe (US-20160104873-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Geskes discloses a battery module (Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one battery cell (Fig. 1; element 3);
a module case (Fig. 1; element 13) having a receiving portion (Fig. 1; element 14) for accommodating the at least one battery cell (3) therein; and
a cooling plate (Fig. 1; element 7) formed at an external side (annotated Fig. 1; ES) of a first surface (annotated Fig. 1; 1S) of the module case (13),
wherein the module case (13) is fastened with the cooling plate (7) by a reinforcement beam (Fig. 1; element 15a or 25) and wherein the reinforcement beam (15a, 25) extends through the module case (13) and cooling plate (7) in a first direction (annotated Fig. 1; element 1D), wherein a first end (annotated Fig. 1; 1E1 or 1E2) of the reinforcement beam (15a, 25) is inside (in Fig. 1, the first end passes through flange 14 of case 13, ergo it is “inside” the case) the module case (13).
PNG
media_image2.png
532
969
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Geskes fails to disclose wherein the module case is fastened with the cooling plate by welding and a reinforcement beam.
Watanabe discloses a method of fastening by welding (Fig. 3; 6; “brazing material”; [0031]) and a reinforcement beam (“rivet”; [0031]; Fig. 3; 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Geskes by substituting the method of fastening taught by Geskes for the method of fastening taught by Watanabe such that a beam was combined with welding. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to secure unprecedented strength and airtightness in the joint between Geskes module case and cooling plate as taught by Watanabe ([0060]).
PNG
media_image3.png
596
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Geskes still fails to disclose wherein the reinforcement beam is elongated in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Smythe discloses a battery module (abstract) comprising: a reinforcement beam (Fig. 19A; element 708),
wherein the reinforcement beam (708) extends in a first direction (annotated Fig. 19A; element 1D) and is elongated in a second direction (annotated Fig. 19A; element 2D) perpendicular to (Fig. 19A) the first direction (1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Geskes in view of Watanabe by substituting Smythe’s reinforcement beam for the beam of Geskes in view of Watanabe. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to mechanically interconnect (Smythe [0163]) and retain (Smythe [0166]) Geskes module case and cooling plate with sufficient mechanical stability (Smythe [0167]).
Regarding claim 2, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the cooling plate (7) has a plate- shaped structure (“cover plate 7”; [0033]; Fig. 1; element 7) having a flexural structure (“meandering shape”; [0040]; Fig. 6; element 10) for forming a fluid-move path (“cooling channel”; [0040]).
PNG
media_image4.png
593
711
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the cooling plate (7) includes a fluid-move path (Fig. 1; element 10) at an inner side (annotated Fig. 1; element IS) contacting the module case (13),
wherein the cooling plate (7) includes an outer peripheral surface (annotated Fig. 1; element OPS) at an opposite side (annotated Fig. 1; side at OPS) of a surface (annotated Fig. 1; element IS) contacting the module case (13) has a flexural structure (“meandering shape”; [0040]; Fig. 6; element 10) including a separation region (annotated Fig. 1; the outer peripheral surface within SR) spaced apart (annotated Fig. 1; element OPS) from the module case (13), and an adhesion region (annotated Fig. 6; AR) attached to the module case (13), and wherein the fastening (Watanabe’s fastening method) by the welding
PNG
media_image5.png
633
679
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Watanabe’s brazing) and the reinforcement beam (Smythe’s connector substituted for 15a or 25) is formed at (15a and 25 are formed at the periphery of 7 as shown by Fig. 1; AR is at the periphery per Fig. 6) the adhesion region (AR) of the cooling plate (7).
PNG
media_image6.png
457
773
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
454
770
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the reinforcement beam (Smythe’s connector substituted for Geskes 15a or 25) is fastened along an edge region (Fig. 1; region of 7 at 15a/25) of the cooling plate (7).
Regarding claim 5, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein a cross-section (Smythe Fig. 19; cross-section of 708) of the reinforcement beam (Smythe 708) has a H-shaped (Smythe Fig. 19; element 708 is generally h-shaped) beam structure.
Regarding claim 6, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein in the welding (brazing of Watanabe), the module case (13) is fastened with the cooling plate (7) by a braze (Watanabe Fig. 3; 6).
Regarding claim 7, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the reinforcement beam (Smythe’s connector substituted for Geskes 15a or 25) penetrates the first surface (1S) of the module case (13) and a surface (Fig. 1; topmost surface of 7) of the cooling plate (7), and wherein the welding (brazing taught by Watanabe) is performed by filling an empty space (Watanabe Fig. 3; space occupied by 6) between the reinforcement beam (Smythe’s connector substituted for Geskes 15a or 25) and each through hole (Watanabe’s Fig. 3; through hole) of the module case (13) and the cooling plate (7).
PNG
media_image8.png
524
928
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the at least one battery cell (3) is oriented in a direction (annotated Fig. 1; 1D) perpendicular to the cooling plate (7).
Regarding claim 9, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the module case (13) includes:
a U-shaped frame (Fig. 1; element 14) having a structure (Fig. 1; element 14) which covers a lower surface (annotated Fig. 1; element U) and opposite side surfaces (annotated Fig. 1; element S) of the receiving portion (14); and
a top plate (Fig. 1; element 6) which covers an upper surface (annotated Fig. 1; surface of 14 at 6) of the U-shaped frame (14).
PNG
media_image9.png
506
769
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the module case (13) includes: a bottom plate (Fig. 1; element 6) which forms a lower surface (Fig. 1; element 6) of the receiving portion (14); and a U-shaped frame (Fig. 1; element 14) having a structure (Fig. 1) which covers an upper surface (annotated Fig. 1; element U) and both side surfaces (annotated Fig. 1; element S) of the receiving portion (14), wherein the cooling plate (7) is fastened at an external side (annotated Fig. 1; ES) of a lower surface (annotated Fig. 1; 1S) of the bottom plate (6).
PNG
media_image10.png
548
894
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses a battery pack (Fig. 1; element 1) comprising the battery module (Fig. 1; element 1) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Geskes in view of Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein a second end (annotated Fig. 1; 2E1 or 2E2 substituted by Smythe’s beam) of the reinforcement beam (Smythe’s connector substituted for Geskes 15a or 25) contacts an external surface (Watanabe Fig. 3; illustrates the mechanical joining member (in this case Smythe’s beam) contacting the external surface of the lower member corresponding to Geskes’ cooling plate) of the cooling plate (7).
PNG
media_image11.png
532
917
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 9, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2019/0131596 A1) in view of Lee (US-20150236314-A1), Watanabe (JPH1061622A, cited in IDS filed 04/21/2023, machine translation used for rejection below) and Smythe (US-20160104873-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a battery module (Fig. 1; element 10) comprising:
at least one battery cell ([0042]);
a module case (Fig. 1, 4; element 120, 150, 160, 162) having a receiving portion (Fig. 1; element 120) for accommodating the at least one battery cell therein ([0042]); and
a cooling plate (Fig. 1; element 40) formed at an external side (Fig. 1; side of 120 at 40) of a first surface (Fig. 1; bottom surface of 120) of the module case (120, 150, 160, 162),
PNG
media_image12.png
530
812
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein the module case (120, 150, 160, 162) is fastened with the cooling plate by a reinforcement beam (“bolts” [0105]; [0116]). Yang fails to disclose welding.
Lee discloses a battery module (“battery pack”; [0022]) comprising:
a cooling plate (Fig. 1; element 30; “heat exchange member”; [0023]) formed at an external side (Fig. 1; bottommost surface of 20) of a first surface (Fig. 1; bottom surface of 20) of a module case (Fig. 1; element 10, 20), wherein the module case (10, 20) is fastened with the cooling plate (30) by welding (“brazing”; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yang by substituting the brazing method of Lee in place of the bolt method of Yang to fasten the cooling plate to the bottom surface of the module case of Yang. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to closely adhere the cooling plate of Yang to the module case of Yang and increase the contact surface therebetween, to improve the reliability and stability of Yang’s battery module as taught by Lee ([0036]).
Yang in view of Lee still fails to disclose wherein the module case and the cooling plate are also fastened by a beam, and wherein a first end of the reinforcement beam is inside the module case.
Watanabe discloses a method of fastening by welding (Fig. 3; 6; “brazing material”; [0031]) and a reinforcement beam (“rivet”; [0031]; Fig. 3; 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yang in view of Lee by substituting the method of fastening taught by Yang in view of Lee for the method of fastening taught by Watanabe such that a beam was combined with welding, and a first end of the reinforcement beam is inside the module case (by passing through the case the beam is “inside” the case). In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to secure unprecedented strength and airtightness in the joint between Yang’s module case and cooling plate as taught by Watanabe ([0060]).
Yang in view of Lee and Watanabe still fails to disclose wherein the reinforcement beam extends through the module case and cooling plate in a first direction and is elongated in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Smythe discloses a battery module (abstract) comprising: a reinforcement beam (Fig. 19A; element 708),
PNG
media_image13.png
358
474
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein the reinforcement beam (708) extends in a first direction (annotated Fig. 19A; element 1D) and is elongated in a second direction (annotated Fig. 19A; element 2D) perpendicular to (Fig. 19A) the first direction (1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yang in view of Lee and Watanabe by substituting Smythe’s reinforcement beam for the beam of Yang in view of Lee and Watanabe. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to mechanically interconnect (Smythe [0163]) and retain ([0166]) the module case and cooling plate of Yang in view of Lee, Watanabe and Smythe with sufficient mechanical stability (Smythe [0167]).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Yang in view of Lee, Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the module case (120, 150, 160, 162) includes:
a U-shaped frame (Fig. 4; element 120) which covers a lower surface (annotated Fig. 4; LS) and opposite side surfaces (annotated Fig. 4; SS) of the receiving portion (120); and
a top plate (Fig. 4; element 150) which covers an upper surface (annotated Fig. 4; US) of the U-shaped frame (120)
PNG
media_image14.png
630
734
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein the cooling plate (Fig. 4; element 120) is fastened (Watanabe) at an external side (Lee) of the lower surface (LS) of the U- shaped frame (120).
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Lee, Watanabe and Smythe discloses wherein the module case (120, 150, 160, 162) further includes an end plate (Fig. 4; element 160, 162) which covers an open side surface (Fig. 4; open surface of 120 at 160 and 162) of the U-shaped frame (120).
Regarding claim 15, Yang in view of Lee, Watanabe and Smythe wherein a second end (end of Smythe’s beam directly contacting the plate) of the reinforcement beam (Smythe’s beam) contacts an external surface (Watanabe Fig. 3; illustrates the mechanical joining member (in this case Smythe’s beam) contacting the external surface of the lower member) of the cooling plate (120).
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 GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723