Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/798,161

ENERGY STORAGE ASSEMBLY FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 08, 2022
Examiner
MEDLEY, JOHN SAMUEL
Art Unit
1751
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Audi AG
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
74 granted / 98 resolved
+10.5% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
156
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 98 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/25/25 has been entered. Status of Claims Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 09/25/2025 (with claim set of 08/19/25), have been fully considered. Claim(s) 11 is/are amended, claim(s) 12–14, 16–19, and 24–26, and 28–30 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 1–10, 15, 20–23, and 27 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment. Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous drawings objection as well as 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 07/17/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below. Claim Interpretation Claim 11 recites containing the gas or liquid at “atmospheric pressure” within the flexible pressure element. Per the instant specification, p. 5, line 19, “atmospheric pressure” is simply ambient pressure and, thus, will be interpreted as the (unaltered) pressure surrounding the gas or liquid. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action. Claim(s) 11, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (US 20200161717 A1; see 09/17/24 PTO-892) (Fritz), taken alone or in view of Naruke (US 20150107921). Regarding claim 11, Fritz discloses an energy storage assembly (e.g., Abstract, fig. 5) comprising (per annot. fig. 5 below) a traction battery (battery module 82, which would be a traction battery by being used in a vehicle (Abstract)) configured to store electrical energy (necessarily for power, as in ¶ 0044); a flexible pressure element (FPE as pressure hoses 31–33) which is filled with gas or liquid (¶ 0042) and which is located directly between a covering component and the traction battery (between base part 22—which, in protecting the battery (¶ 0019), being separate from the battery housing (¶ 0038), and covering the module within vehicle 10 (e.g., figs. 3–5), reasonably constitutes a “covering component”, substantially similar to instant fig., 2’s ref. 130—and module 82). PNG media_image1.png 272 625 media_image1.png Greyscale As seen in figs. 3–5, base part 22 appears to define or be part of the floor of the vehicle’s underbody (note specifically the base part’s deformability via bollard 90 in figs. 5 and 6, which determines if vehicle 10 is drivable (¶ 0042, 0043), making the base part appear to constitute part of underbody) such that the covering component is part of underbody paneling of a motor vehicle. Alternatively, Naruke, in teaching a mounting structure of an EV battery pack (Title, Abstract), teaches that the pack is held under a floor panel within a concave portion formed by a raised portion in a back surface of the floor panel (¶ 0012, FIG. 7). Naruke and Fritz are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely traction batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Fritz’s battery module/pack—and, by extension, “covering component”—must necessarily be positioned somewhere in the vehicle and, as demonstrated by Naruke, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to embed the module—protected by base part 22/“covering component”—inside a concave section under a floor panel and, thus, as part of the vehicle’s underbody paneling with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful EV. Examiner notes that “underbody paneling” appears to not require the outermost portion of the underbody as long as the “covering component” is under the car’s body, as in Naruke’s fig. 7. Fritz further discloses no indication that the gas or liquid in the flexible pressure element (hoses 31–33) is contained at any pressure beside ambient pressure and, thus, reasonably discloses that the gas or liquid is contained at atmospheric pressure within the flexible pressure element. As noted above, Fritz further discloses that base part 22 is separated from the traction battery by the hoses 31–33 (fig. 5), but, in failing to specify the distance of such separation, Fritz fails to explicitly disclose that the covering component is located at a distance between 10 mm and 30 mm from the traction battery. As seen in Fritz’s fig. 5, though, the flexible pressure element’s size/diameter would control the distance between the “covering component” and traction battery. The skilled artisan would further understand that the flexible pressure element must be large/wide enough for adequate pressure sensing (Fritz, ¶ 0042) but that making the element too large/wide would necessarily reduce the assembly’s energy density by reducing the battery module’s relative active-material volume. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited distance by routinely optimizing the flexible element’s size/diameter and, thus, necessarily controlling the distance separating the covering component from the traction battery (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Fritz further discloses a pressure sensor which is connected to the flexible pressure element (pressure ascertainment apparatus connected to pressure hoses (¶ 0042) and configured to sense collision-induced pressure fluctuations in the flexible pressure element (note measuring pressure fluctuations in hoses based on test deformation from bollard 90, fig. 5 and ¶ 0042; it is submitted that if Fritz’s vehicle crashed, such would necessarily induce pressure fluctuations in the flexible element such that the sensor would be configured to sense such fluctuations). Regarding claim 16, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 11, wherein the pressure sensor is arranged directly on the flexible pressure element (pressure ascertainment apparatus in Fritz, ¶ 0042). Regarding claim 18, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 11, further comprising a control device which is configured to automatically evaluate measured values of the pressure sensor and to initiate at least one protective measure after a collision event (evaluation apparatus 40 plus signal apparatus 42, which evaluate pressure-change data and output corresponding audible or visual signal—i.e., protective measure—respectively, in Fritz’s ¶ 0039 and fig. 4). Regarding claim 19, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 11, wherein the energy storage assembly is part of a motor vehicle with an electric drive (by being incorporated into EV 10, e.g., Fritz’s fig. 4 and ¶ 0044). Claim(s) 12, 14, 24, 26, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (US 20200161717 A1) (Fritz), taken alone or in view of Naruke (US 20150107921), as applied to claim 11, further in view of Lee et al. (US 20220077550 A1) (Lee). Regarding claim 12, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 11. Although Fritz allows other forms of sensors such as pad-like sensors in separate embodiments (e.g., piezoelectric film, ¶ 0010; see also apparent film-like air pressure sensor 31 in fig. 9 and ¶ 0055), Fritz fails to explicitly disclose that the pressure sensor is designed as a pressure pad. Lee, in teaching a traction battery module (Abstract, ¶ 0020), teaches a pressure pad filled with fluid and coupled to the module alongside sensors for evaluating pressure fluctuations in the pad and maintaining battery surface pressure (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0011, fig. 2). Lee is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely pressure sensing in traction batteries. As Fritz does not appear strictly limited to a hose to achieve the desired pressure sensing, while Lee recognizes utility of pressure pads for battery-module pressure sensing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Fritz’s hoses for Lee’s pressure pad with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful pressure sensing, as suggested by Lee (MPEP 2143 (B.)). Regarding claim 14, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 12, wherein the pressure pad is segmented and has a plurality of chambers filled with the gas or the liquid, a respective pressure sensor being provided for each chamber (per Lee’s fig. 5A, the pad may be segmented—and, thus, necessarily include chambers filled with the gas/liquid (as in Lee’s ¶ 0043/0044)—and include a sensor on each segment). Regarding claims 24 and 26, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claims 12 and 14, wherein the pressure sensor is arranged directly on the flexible pressure element (e.g., Lee’s fig. 4A). Regarding claims 28 and 30, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claims 12 and 14. Lee further teaches that hydraulic pressure sensor 510 may be part of pressure measuring unit 500 (e.g., fig. 2, ¶ 0041), which is distanced from the pressure pad by a line (fig. 2) and transmits the pressure-change data to pressure adjusting unit 400 (e.g., fig. 2, ¶ 0012), though modified Fritz fails to explicitly embody such in Lee’s figs. 4A and 5A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Lee’s distanced pressure measuring unit into modified Fritz’s pressure-sensing system—which, in being part of the pressure-sensing system, would reasonably read on the pressure sensor’s being arranged at a distance from the flexible pressure element and connected to the flexible pressure element via a line—with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful pressure sensing, as suggested by Lee (see, e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.)). Claim(s) 13, 25, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (US 20200161717 A1) (Fritz), taken alone or in view of Naruke (US 20150107921), as applied to claim 11, further in view of Lee et al. (US 20220077550 A1) (Lee), as applied to claim 12, further in view of Ruehle (WO 2012010347 A1). Regarding claim 13, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 12 but, in failing to specify the pressure pad’s thickness, fails to explicitly disclose a maximum thickness of 10 mm. Ruehle, in teaching a battery module with a pressure plate coupled to a battery (Abstract), teaches that the plate is preferably ~ 2 mm thick (¶ 0030). Ruehle is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery modules with pressure pads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that modified Fritz’s pressure pad must necessarily be incorporated with a certain thickness, and, as demonstrated by Ruehle, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the plate at, e.g., ~ 2 mm thick as an appropriate size. Regarding claim 25, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 13, wherein the pressure sensor is arranged directly on the flexible pressure element (e.g., Lee’s fig. 4A). Regarding claim 29, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 13. Lee further teaches that hydraulic pressure sensor 510 may be part of pressure measuring unit 500 (e.g., fig. 2, ¶ 0041), which is distanced from the pressure pad by a line (fig. 2) and transmits the pressure-change data to pressure adjusting unit 400 (e.g., fig. 2, ¶ 0012), though modified Fritz fails to explicitly embody such in Lee’s figs. 4A and 5A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Lee’s distanced pressure measuring unit into modified Fritz’s pressure-sensing system—which, in being part of the pressure-sensing system, would reasonably read on the pressure sensor’s being arranged at a distance from the flexible pressure element and connected to the flexible pressure element via a line—with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful pressure sensing, as suggested by Lee (see, e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.)). Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (US 20200161717 A1) (Fritz), taken alone or in view of Naruke (US 20150107921), as applied to claim 11, further in view of Kim (US 20220393284 A1; see 09/17/24 PTO-892). Regarding claim 17, modified Fritz discloses the energy storage assembly of claim 11. As noted above, Fritz appears to disclose that the pressure ascertainment apparatus, i.e., sensor, is attached to the hoses (¶ 0042), i.e., flexible element, yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to directly arranging the sensor on the flexible element as long as the desired pressure-fluctuation data is transmitted to evaluation apparatus 40 (fig. 4), Fritz fails to explicitly disclose that the pressure sensor is arranged at a distance from the flexible pressure element and is connected to the flexible pressure element via a line. Kim, in teaching a battery module applicable to EVs (Abstract, ¶ 0064), teaches tube 130 filled with fluid and coupled to the cells (fig. 2, ¶ 0067), where pressure sensor 160 is distanced from and connected to the tube by a line (fig. 2) and measures the tube’s pressure fluctuations (¶ 0071). Kim is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely pressure sensing in EV batteries. As Fritz does not appear strictly limited to a directly attached pressure sensor and Kim recognizes utility with a pressure sensor distanced from and connected via line to a fluid-filled pressure element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Fritz’s directly attached sensor with Kim’s distanced sensor with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful pressure sensing, as suggested by Kim (MPEP 2143 (B.)). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection—which, as noted above, has been withdrawn—and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing the new reference(s) Fritz, as established above. Conclusion The cited art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: US 20150171486 A1: traction battery pack with cooling channels integrated with pressure sensors and between cells and lower enclosure panel. US 20210336298 A1: similar arrangement as Fritz. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F. 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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/29/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 08, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 08, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 16, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 16, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 26, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 02, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 08, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603350
Battery Module
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12580193
METHOD FOR PREPARING POROUS CARBON MATERIAL, AND SULFUR-CARBON COMPOSITE AND LITHIUM-SULFUR BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567657
CONNECTING LEAD AND BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548824
VACUUM INSULATED THERMAL BARRIER STRUCTURES FOR TRACTION BATTERY PACKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12537230
ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY, MANUFACTURING METHOD AND MANUFACTURING SYSTEM OF SAME, BATTERY CELL, AND BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.4%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 98 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month