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 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.
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 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 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/014831 A1 in view of Inagaki et al (US 4,375,323), and further in view of DeKeuster et al. (US 2016/0093849).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, WO ‘831 discloses a cell-swelling restraint feature for a battery housing and a battery module that includes components of the battery housing (paragraphs [0020]-[0025]; and Figures 1, 2A, and 2B), in which the cell-swelling restraint feature comprises the following structural features (in referring to Figure 1 of WO ‘831):
a battery housing enclosing a plurality of battery cells (125);
a cradle (105) having a surface to receive a plurality of battery cells (125), including a base of the plurality of battery cells (125);
side walls (110); and
heat staking features positioned on top of the side walls (110) (see paragraphs [0020] and [0021]), wherein the heat staking features secure the cell-swelling restraint feature in the battery housing; in this instance, the heat staking features are interpreted as the screws or heat staking posts mentioned in paragraph [0021] of WO ‘831, and are operable to secure the cell-swelling restraint feature when placed inside a battery housing.
WO ‘831 fails to teach the new limitation that the heat staking features are integrally formed on a top of the side walls.
However, Inagaki et al. disclose a heat staking feature (36) formed on the side and on the top side wall (see column 3, line 58 through column 4, line 4; column 5, line 36 through column 6, line 24; and Figures 3, 5, and 6), in order to provide a locking feature with the top cover surface (30) – see column 3, line 67 through column 4, line 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a heat staking feature integrally formed with a slit/groove, as shown in Figure 3 of Inagaki et al., into the battery housing of WO ‘831, in order to provide a locking feature (Inagaki et al.; column 3, line 67 through column 4, line 4).
In addition, the combined teachings of WO ‘831 and Inagaki et al. fail to teach an adhesive layer coupling the plurality of battery cells to the surface of the cradle, and the isolation feature being positioned atop the adhesive layer.
However, DeKuester et al. disclose a battery module compressed cell assembly (abstract; paragraphs [0048]-[0054]; and Figures 4 and 6), in which the cell assembly comprises a plurality of battery cells (90) within a module housing (62) and being arranged in a cell stack (92), wherein a spacer (94) is to be arranged between each battery cell (90) of the cell stack (92), wherein the spacer (94) is to be interpreted as an isolation feature, for the purpose of providing complete electrical insulation to the battery cells. Furthermore, the isolation feature of DeKuester et al. has an adhesive layer that starts from the bottom of the cell to the top (see paragraphs [0048] and [0049]; and Figure 4). Since the applicants claim that the isolation feature is positioned atop the adhesive layer, the examiner is taking the position that both the isolation feature and the adhesive layer function as one unit. Unless the applicants further define that both the isolation feature and the adhesive layer are of different materials, then the claimed limitation would require two distinct materials. Otherwise, as broadly interpreted, the isolation feature and adhesive can be as one unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to include the isolation feature and adhesive layer, as taught by DeKuester et al., into the cell-swelling restraint feature for a battery housing and a battery module that includes components of the battery housing, as disclosed and/or suggested in the combined teachings of WO ‘831 and Inagaki et al., in order to provide complete electrical insulation to the battery cells (DeKuester et al.; paragraphs [0048] and [0049]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the cell-swelling restraint feature includes aluminum alloy metal (see paragraph [0025] of WO ‘831).
Regarding claim 4, WO ‘831 discloses that the cradle is substantially U-shaped (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of WO ‘831, Inagaki et al., and DeKeuster et al. disclose and/or suggest a battery module (see paragraphs [0020] and [0021] of WO ‘831), in which the battery module further comprises the following structural features (in referring to Figure 1 of WO ‘831):
a battery housing enclosing a plurality of battery cells (125); and
the cell-swelling restraint feature of claim 1 (as described above).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, as well as new claims 21 and 22, an isolation feature in the form of a thermal shield (115) provides electrical insulation that includes adhesives that surround the plurality of battery cells (125) to provide insulation between the battery cells (125) and the cell-swelling restraint feature, wherein the isolation feature (115) includes a hole configured to expose a base of the plurality of battery cells (125) to the adhesive layer (see paragraph [0021] and Figure 1 of WO ‘831).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the cell-swelling restraining feature is a heat sink (see Figure 1 of WO ‘831).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, in addition to the (first) plurality of battery cells (125) and the (first) cell-swelling restraint feature, WO ‘831 further discloses a second plurality of battery cells and a second cell-swelling restraint feature that are substantially similar (see Figures 2A and 2B of WO ‘831).
Regarding claim 19, Figure 2A of WO ‘831 shows interlocking between heat-staking features of the first and second cell-swelling restraint features.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings of WO ‘831, Inagaki et al., and DeKeuster et al. disclose and/or suggest the features of independent claim 12, but fail to explicitly teach an opening and a protrusion on respective first and second portions of the cell-swelling restraining feature shown in Figure 1 of WO ‘831. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include additional interlocking means in the form of an opening and a protrusion to provide for facilitation of snap-on locking, as an opening/protrusion connection is widely known as one of a variety of interlocking features with a reasonable expectation of success as operatively serving as a restraining feature.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment received by the USPTO on February 5, 2026. The amendment overcomes the prior objection to claim 12. Although the amendments to independent claims 1 and 12 overcome the prior 35 USC 103 rejection under the combined teachings of WO ‘831 and DeKeuster et al. (US 2016/0093849), a newly provided reference to Inagaki et al. (US 4,375,323) is now applied in combination with both WO ‘831 and US ‘849 to result in a new 35 USC 103 rejection for all claims of record (see above section 4). The applicants have added new claims 21 and 22. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-22 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference to Inagaki et al. (US 4,375,323), including in the newly underlined portions of the above 35 USC 103 rejection, and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 March 3, 2026