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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant contends that none of the references indicate that the welding insert should be spaced apart from the passage opening. However, the pressure plate 16 of modified Einoegg is welded to the clamps 8 and 9 (Einoegg [0012]), which contact the pressure plate on the ends, while the passage openings 17 and 18 are on the top and bottom (Einoegg Fig. 1 and [0028]). The welding location (and therefore the welding insert) must therefore necessarily be spaced apart from the passages.
Applicant contends that Davis and Kobmann are non-analogous art (pp. 18-21). However, both are directed to non-metallic structures to be permanently attached to metallic surfaces by welding, which is clearly pertinent to the system of modified Einoegg. One of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably look to the fields of construction (Davis) or automobile assembly (Kobmann) for the solution to such a problem. In addition, the battery module of Einoegg is a vehicle battery (Einoegg Abstract), so Kobmann (directed to a method of forming a vehicle component) is in the same field of endeavor.
The rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 17-20, 22, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einoegg et al. (DE 102018210444 B3, with reference to US 2021/0257691 as a direct English translation) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2011/0262785 A1), King (US Patent 5,105,844 A), and either of Davis (US Patent No. 4,881,348) or Kobmann et al. (US 2002/0117811 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Einoegg teaches a battery for a motor vehicle (Abstract; Fig. 1), the battery comprising:
a first stack of battery cells (see Fig. 1 below, circled in blue), wherein pressure is applied to the battery cells in a stack direction of the battery cells, and
a second stack of battery cells (see Fig. 1 below, circled in red), wherein the second stack is arranged adjacent to the first stack in the stack direction, and wherein pressure is also applied to the battery cells of the second stack in the stack direction,
PNG
media_image1.png
1960
1820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a pressure plate (intermediate pressure plate 16), to which pressure is applied in the stack direction, which is arranged in an intermediate space formed between the first stack and the second stack.
Einoegg does not teach that the pressure plate is formed from plastic. Johnson teaches that pressure plates for stacked cell battery packs may be made from injection molded plastic (Johnson [0016]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Einoegg does not teach that the pressure plate has a first plate part and a second plate part which form the pressure plate when coupled to each other. Einoegg teaches that the pressure plate has passages (17,18) for coolant lines (14,15) (Fig. 1 and Abstract). The use of two-piece elements to encase existing pipes is well known. See, for Example, King (Fig. 13 and 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional means, including the use of a two-piece construction, to encase the coolant lines of Einoegg within the pressure plate. Moreover, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143 I A).
Einoegg does not teach that the pressure plate includes weldable inserts separate from the passage openings. Einoegg teaches that the intermediate pressure plate should be welded to the clamps (Einoegg [0012]). Metal inserts are a well-known means of making structures made of non-weldable material (such as plastic) weldable to metal surfaces. See, for example, Davis (col. 1, lines, 34-47) and Kobmann ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use metal inserts to make the plastic pressure plate of modified Einoegg weldable, since Einoegg teaches that they are preferably attached by welding. Such inserts would necessarily be separated from the passageways, since the ends of the passageways will be obstructed by coolant pipes.
Regarding claim 14, modified Einoegg teaches the entire pressure plate to be made of plastic (see [0016] of Johnson), which would correspond to the claimed “at least one base body having bearing regions of the pressure plates”)
Regarding claim 17, modified Einoegg teaches that the use of identical self-mating elements (i.e. identical first and second plates) reduces production costs (King: col. 5, lines 9-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use identical parts for the first plate part and the second plate part of modified Einoegg to reduce production costs.
Regarding claim 18, modified Einoegg teaches the use of injection-molded plastic (Johnson: [0016]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Einoegg teaches that the use of identical self-mating elements (i.e. with mutually corresponding positive-locking elements which engage with one another when the first part and the second part are coupled to each other) reduces production costs (King col. 5, lines 9-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use self-mating parts for the first plate part and the second plate part of modified Einoegg to reduce production costs.
Regarding claim 20, the pressure plate of modified Einoegg is situated between stacked, flat batteries in a stacking direction (Einoegg Fig. 1 and Description, [0001]-[0002]) to apply pressure to both stacks. The bearing regions are therefore necessarily formed to be flat and oriented perpendicular to the stack direction.
Regarding claim 22, modified Einoegg teaches that the first stack and the second stack are components of a battery module of the battery (Einoegg Abstract; Fig. 1),
the battery module comprises a module frame (module frame 5 in Fig. 1), and
the module frame encloses the two stacks of the battery module and pressure is applied to the module frame (Einoegg Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, modified Einoegg teaches that the battery comprises a plurality of battery modules which are connected to one another in an electrically conductive fashion (Einoegg [0031]; high voltage battery 2, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 26, the insert of modified Einoegg is configured to connect with a bracket (clamps 8 and 9) for the high-voltage storage device by welding (Einoegg [0029]).
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einoegg in view of Johnson, King, and Davis or Kobmann as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Speck (“Fastener Functions and Assembly Testing”, Chapter 1 in Mechanical Fastening, Joining, and Assembly (2nd Edition), ISBN 978-0-8247-5378-8, December 2016).
Regarding claim 24, modified Einoegg teaches that the plate should be attached to the clamping means, preferably by welding (Einoegg [0012]). Speck teaches that both welding and screws with tapped holes (i.e., bolts with threaded holes) are commonly used for fastening pieces together (Speck 1.2 Analysis of a Simple Metal Assembly). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional means, including threaded holes, to attach the plate of modified Einoegg. Moreover, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143 I A).
Regarding claim 25, the pressure plate of modified Einoegg has passages for accommodating the coolant lines, and any threaded hole for attaching the plate will necessarily be adjacent to a distal end.
Einoegg does not specify any particular relationship between the passages and the attachment locations. However, Einoegg does not specify any elements between the passages and attachment locations. The two are therefore assumed to be adjacent.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate depth for the threaded hole to securely attach the plate, including to depths that bring the hole near a passage opening.
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights