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 1-2 are amended.
Claims 3, 10-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/09/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 20200149667 A1) in view of Daynes et al. (WO 2021074573 A1) hereinafter "Daynes".
Regarding claim 1, Collins teaches an apparatus, comprising: a member to extend between a first structural member and a second structural member ([0069] element 1860 extends between crossmembers of a battery pack; [0058]-[0060] e.g. any of brackets 1100, 1260, and 1860); at least one connection point integrated with the member, the at least one connection point configured to facilitate a fluid coupling between a cooling line and a cooling component (Fig. 11-12; [0058]-[0060]); and at least one end portion of the member (Fig. 11-12 annotated below). Collins teaches a fluid mating system for maintaining alignment when engaged ([0004]) where the fluid mating system can include a fixed mounting bracket ([0011]). Collins teaches a bracket with at least one connection point (Fig. 11; [0058]) wherein the at least one connection point is configured to secure a connection device to couple the cooling line with the apparatus ([0058]); Fig. 12; Fig. 5A; [0047]). Collins teaches that use of a “blind mate” connector as taught allows for a sealed fluid connection to be made without visual confirmation or tool access ([0047]).
Collins does not teach where the first structural member comprising an upper member and a lower member that can be separated from the upper member, the lower member defining a seat and where the at least one end portion of the member is configured to interface with the seat of the lower member of at least one of the first structural member and be clamped between the upper member and the lower member of the first structural member such that a pressure can be applied to the end portion by the upper member and the lower member to secure the member in the apparatus.
However, Daynes teaches a battery frame comprising a first structural member and a second structural member, the first structural member comprising an upper member and a lower member that can be separated from the upper member, the lower member defining a seat (Fig. 15 and description pp. 25-26). Daynes teaches that a cooling member is located between the upper and lower support members and may be clamped and held in place by the lower and upper support members (p. 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Collins teaches a bracket (e.g. mount 1860) for facilitating a fluid connection ([0067]-[0069]) that can be installed between crossmembers of a battery pack frame ([0069]). Daynes teaches a battery pack frame with crossmembers comprising an upper and lower support member (Fig. 15; pp 25-26]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the battery frame taught by Daynes with the fluid mating system mounting bracket (member) taught by Collins.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the battery frame taught by Daynes with the fluid mating system mounting bracket (member) taught by Collins with a reasonable expectation of success because the battery frame taught by Daynes is a known battery frame configuration as Collins teaches the use of the fluid mating system mounting bracket in a battery frame.
Claim 1 necessitates “where the at least one end portion of the member is configured to interface with the seat of the lower member of at least one of the first structural member and be clamped between the upper member and the lower member of the first structural member such that a pressure can be applied to the end portion by the upper member and the lower member to secure the member in the apparatus”. Collins in view of Daynes teaches a structural element with an end portion (Collins [0058]-[0060] e.g. brackets 1100, 1260, and 1860) and a battery frame with cross beams having a upper member and lower member which clamp a cooling member (Fig. 15 and description pp. 25-26). The structure taught by Daynes is explicitly capable of clamping (p. 26). The structure taught by Collins is capable of performing the function of interfacing with the seat of the lower member and being clamped by the upper member and lower member taught by Daynes because the end portion of the structural element taught by Collins contacts the further structural members between which it extends. Therefore, the structure taught by Collins in view of Daynes meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Collins teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Modified Collins further teaches the member being an elongated portion; the at least one end portion comprising an opening configured to receive an alignment pin of at least one of the first structural member and the second structural member (Collins Fig. 11 annotated below and Fig. 12); and the seat of the lower member configured to support the apparatus (Daynes p. 25-26).
PNG
media_image2.png
454
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Collins teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Collins further teaches the at least one end portion comprising a locating feature, wherein the locating feature is configured to receive a battery pack component (Fig. 11-12, 18 the bolt/screw hole at the end of each component; [0069]; [0045]). Collins teaches that a battery pack includes multiple components including a battery, a frame, a cooling plate, a bracket assembly, and fasteners ([0044]-[0046]; [0069]). Therefore, the structure taught by Collins meets the limitation of “configured to receive a battery pack component” because the locating feature is configured to receive a fastener which is a component of a battery pack as taught by Collins.
PNG
media_image3.png
454
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified Collins teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Collins further teaches the at least one connection point configured to secure a connection device to couple the cooling line with the apparatus ([0058]); Fig. 11-12; Fig. 5A; [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Collins teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Collins further teaches wherein the at least one connection point is disposed at a location along the member to longitudinally align with a branch point of the cooling line when the apparatus is installed in a battery pack (Fig. 11; Fig. 12; [0060]-[0062]; [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Collins teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Collins teaches a fluid connector system including a mounting bracket for providing a fluid path for coolant to or from a battery module ([0042]). Collins teaches wherein the fluid connector system includes a protrusion extending from the member of the apparatus (Fig. 2 element 160; [0042]). Claim 7 necessitates the protrusion be configured to support the cooling line. Collins teaches structural element 160 which provides a supporting function for the fluid connection system and subsequently the cooling line by limiting movement ([0042]-[0043]). Therefore the protrusion element taught by Collins meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, modified Collins teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Collins teaches a fluid connector system including a mounting bracket for providing a fluid path for coolant to or from a battery module ([0042]). Collins teaches wherein the fluid connector system includes a protrusion extending from the member of the apparatus (Fig. 2 element 160; [0042]). Claim 8 necessitates the protrusion be configured to keep the cooling line substantially parallel with the member of the apparatus. Collins teaches structural element 160 which provides a supporting function for the fluid connection system and subsequently the cooling line by limiting movement ([0042]-[0043]). Therefore the protrusion element taught by Collins is capable of keeping a cooling line substantially parallel by virtue of limiting its movement and maintaining its position.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daynes (WO 2021074573 A1) in view of Collins (US 20200149667 A1), as applied above, in further view of Karlsson et al. (US 20230017474 A1) hereinafter “Karlsson”.
Regarding claim 9, modified Collins teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Daynes teaches that an upper and lower support can clamp a cooling member to hold it in place (p. 26).
Modified Collins does not teach wherein the apparatus can be installed in a battery pack without fasteners.
Further, Karlsson teaches a battery module with a bracket a bracket with a cooling channel formed in the material of the bracket through which a cooling liquid duct runs ([0011]). Karlsson teaches where the bracket facilitates a connection between the coolant duct and the cooling plate ([0032]). Karlsson further teaches wherein the bracket is secured by connector pins from a front frame part, a coolant duct running through a longitudinal beam and the bracket, the bracket fitted between an upper and lower portion of the end of a longitudinal beam, and wherein battery cell stacks are secured to longitudinal interconnecting members via adhesive ([0010]; [0028]-[0029]; [0014]-[0015]; Fig. 6-7).
While Karlsson does not explicitly state that a bracket can be installed without fastener, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is possible to install the bracket taught by Karlsson without using fasteners (fasteners are interpreted as referring to various types of screws, nuts & bolts) as the bracket is fitted to the shape of the longitudinal beams, is connected via connector pins, and further components are connected via adhesive. The bracket taught by Karlsson is capable of being attached without fasteners because it can be attached with, for example, connector pins or adhesive. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that installation without fasteners decreases the complexity of assembly and would therefore be motivated to limit or remove fasteners. A prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728