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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted April 24, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 13 are amended and claim 14 is canceled, resulting in claims 1-13 and 15 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a plurality of surface pressure pads” in line 6 and in line 8. The instant disclosure does not provide support for more than one plurality of surface pressure pads located in the battery pack assembly.
Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined with respect to claim 1, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a plurality of surface pressure pads” in line 6 and in line 8. It is unclear if both recitations of “a plurality of surface pressure pads” refer to the same plurality of surface pressure pads or if there are two distinct pluralities of surface pressure pads. For the purpose of examination, both recitations are interpreted as referring to the same plurality of surface pressure pads (specification [15, 19]; element 200, Fig. 6 ), pending further clarification from applicant.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the cut area is formed by cutting the respective first frame along one side region, an upper region, and another side region of the respective surface pressure pad”
The claim states that the cut area is formed by cutting the first frame; therefore, it is unclear what “and another side region of the respective surface pressure pad” means and how a cut made in the first frame can simultaneously be made “at another side region of the respective surface pressure pad”.
For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpretated as “the cut area is formed by cutting the respective first frame along one side region, an upper region, and another side region such that”, pending further clarification from applicant.
Claims 2-9 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz (US 2020/0266403 A1), as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Regarding claim 1, Stuetz teaches a battery cell unit (Stuetz Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of battery cells (element 50, Stuetz Fig. 2) and a support bar configured to fix the plurality of battery cells (busbars, element 250 Stuetz Fig. 2), a case having a frame shape (elements 10, 20, 30, 31, 40, Stuetz Fig. 2) including a pair of first frames (elements 30 and 31, Stuetz Fig. 2) and a pair of second frames (element 20, Stuetz Fig. 2), and configured to house the battery cell units therein (Stuetz Fig. 2), the first frames have a cut area disposed at a position corresponding to one of a plurality of surface pressure pads and formed along a side area thereof (inner surface of end plate 30 is shown to have grooves (cut area), Stuetz Fig. 6); and a plurality of surface pressure pads disposed in the case (pressure plate, element 230, Stuetz Fig. 2), each surface pressure pad being disposed between the case and an outermost battery cell on both ends of each of the plurality of battery cell units (element 230 between 30 and 50a, Stuetz Fig. 2), wherein the cut area of each of the first frames abuts one of the plurality of surface pressure pads (Stuetz Fig. 2) and the cut area defines an elastic part that is elastically deformable and abuts the respective surface pressure pad (element 201, Stuetz Fig. 6; claim 10). “Define” is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as meaning “to fix or mark the limits of”. The cut area (grooves) of Stuetz define the positioning of the elastic part (201), as shown in Fig. 6.
Stuetz teaches that the elastic part (element 201, Stuetz Fig. 6) “is made from, or comprises, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyester, polyamide, polyimide, or polyvinylchloride” (Stuetz claim 10). The ordinary artisan would recognize that all materials have an ability to undergo elastic deformation, including the polymers taught by Stuetz in claim 10.
Fig. 2 of Stuetz does not teach a plurality of battery cell units. However, Stuetz teaches that “a battery system of an electric vehicle comprises a battery pack…the battery pack is made of several battery modules” (Stuetz [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a battery pack comprising multiple of the battery modules taught by Stuetz Fig. 2 in order to achieve a battery pack suitable for use in a desired application, such as electric vehicles.
The claimed limitation of “wherein the cut area is formed by cutting the respective first frame along one side region, an upper region, and another side region of the respective surface pressure pad such that a lower region corresponding to the respective surface pressure pad remains connected to the respective first frame” is a product-by-process limitation.
It is noted that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, See MPEP 2113.
The structure required by the claim is a cut area formed in each of the first frames, wherein, for each first frame, the cut area includes a cut along one side region, a cut along an upper region, a cut along another side region, and a lower region that is still connected to the first frame.
Stuetz teaches the above-mentioned product-by-process limitation, as shown below in annotated Fig. 6 of Stuetz, and the lower region corresponding to the respective surface pressure pad (Stuetz Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
856
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim ( US 2013/0252058 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Stuetz does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein the battery cell units are disposed along a longitudinal direction of the case.
Kim teaches a battery pack including battery cell units (battery modules, Kim abstract, Fig. 1b) wherein each battery cell unit comprises a plurality of battery cells (Kim Fig. 1b) and the battery cell units are disposed along a longitudinal direction of a battery case (Kim Fig. 1b).
Since Kim teaches that it is known and suitable to arrange battery cell units along a longitudinal direction of a battery case, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the battery cell units of Stuetz in a longitudinal direction of the battery case in order to achieve the predictable result of a battery pack comprising battery cell units.
Regarding claim 3, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the case comprises: a frame member (elements 20, 30, 31, Stuetz Fig. 2) that defines a body of the case; and a cover member (element 40, Stuetz Fig. 2) disposed on the frame member and configured to cover the frame member. Stuetz does not teach a gasket disposed between the frame member and the cover member (element 40, Stuetz Fig.2).
However, Kim teaches a battery pack assembly (Kim abstract) comprising a gasket (sealing member 230, Kim Fig. 4A) disposed between a frame member (element 210, Kim Fig. 4A) and a cover member (element 220, Kim Fig. 4A). Kim further teaches that the gasket (sealing member) “may prevent moisture from coming into the battery pack” (Kim [0051]).
Since Kim teaches that gaskets are used in a battery pack assembly to prevent moisture from entering battery packs, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a gasket, as taught by Kim, between the frame member (elements 20, 30, 31, Stuetz Fig. 2) and cover member (element 40, Stuetz Fig. 2) in the battery pack assembly (battery module) taught by Stuetz in order to achieve the predicable result of a sealed battery pack that prevents moisture from entering the battery pack.
Regarding claim 4, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1 and 3, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein a pair of first frames spaced apart from each other,and disposed adjacent to the outermost battery cells on both ends of each of the plurality of battery cell units (elements 30 and 31, Stuetz Fig. 2), respectively; and a pair of second frames disposed spaced apart from each other, each of the pair of second frames is disposed at ends of the pair of first frames (element 20, Stuetz Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1, 3, and 4, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein each of the first frames comprises an elastic part elastically deformed by the cut area and abutting the respective surface pressure pad (element 201, Stuetz Fig. 2; claim 10).
Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein each elastic part has a smaller area than each of the battery cells, and has a larger area than each of the surface pressure pads (the elastic member 201 has a larger area than the segment shown at the bottom of 230, as shown in annotated Stuetz Fig. 2). The examiner notes that, as claimed, the “area” of claim 6 is not limited to a specific type of area. For example, the area could be a total surface area, a cross-sectional area, or an area of a portion of the element.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
954
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1 and 3-5, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 5, wherein each of the first frames (element 30, 31, Stuetz Fig.2) has a cross- section corresponding to a rectangular frame shape, and the cut area (inner surface 110 of end plate 30, grooves (cut area), Stuetz Fig. 3) and the elastic part (element 200, Stuetz Fig. 4; claim 10) of each of the first frames are disposed at facing surfaces of the pair of first frames (Stuetz Fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, Stuetz, as evidenced by Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1 and 3-4, as described above. Stuetz is silent regarding how the cover member (element 40, Stuetz Fig. 2) is attached (“which are attached to each other”, Stuetz [0094]) to the frame member (elements 20, 30, 31, Stuetz Fig. 2).
Kim teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein the gasket comprises: a support member formed in a rectangular frame shape (element 230, Kim 4A), and having a bottom surface that comes into surface contact with a top surface of the frame member (element 210, Kim Fig. 4A); a pair of pressurization members disposed at positions corresponding to the pair of first frames (reinforcing members, element 240 Kim Fig. 4A); and a pair of cover fixing members disposed at positions corresponding to the pair of second frames (reinforcing members, element 240 Kim Fig. 4A), wherein the cover member (element 220, Kim Fig. 4A) is seated on the top surface of the support member (element 230, Kim Fig. 4A), and the pressurization member and the cover fixing member are seated on the top surface of the cover member (element 220, Kim Fig. 4A). Fig. 4A of Kim teaches two pairs of reinforcing members, wherein one of the pairs corresponds to the “pair of pressurization members disposed at positions corresponding to the pair of first frames” and the other pair corresponds to the “pair of cover fixing members disposed at positions corresponding to the pair of second frames”.
Since Stuetz is silent regarding how the cover member is attached to the frame member and Kim teaches the use of a pair of pressurization members and a pair of cover fixing members for assembling a battery pack , it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the attachments taught by Kim to attach the cover and frame members, with the gasket disposed between, of the modified battery pack assembly of Stuetz (described for instant claim 3) in order to achieve the predictable result of an assembled battery pack.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and in further view of Choi (Choi, Y. H. Development of Standardized Battery Pack for Next Generation PHEVs in Considering the Effect of External Pressure on Lithium Ion Pouch Cells. SAE International Journal of Alternative Powertrains, 7(3), 195-206 (2018)).
Regarding claim 8, Stuetz, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in view of Kim teaches all features of claims 1 and 3, as described above. Kim teaches a battery pack assembly, wherein the gasket (element 230, Kim 4A) is coupled to the frame member (element 210, Kim 4A) and the cover member (element 220, Kim 4A) through the use of fastening members (element 20, Kim 4A). Kim is silent regarding the structure or identity of the fastening members.
Choi teaches that bolts are suitable for assembling components of battery packs (Choi pg. 200 left col. second paragraph).
Since Kim teaches a gasket being coupled to a frame member and cover member using fastening members and Choi teaches that bolts are suitable for assembling components of battery packs, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coupled the gasket to the frame and cover member in the modified battery pack assembly of Stuetz (as described for instant claim 3) through bolting in order to achieve the predictable result of an assembled battery pack.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi (US 2020/012731 A1) in view of Sugeno (US 20050202315 A1).
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to claim 10 necessitated a new interpretation of Chi.
Regarding claim 10, Chi teaches a battery pack assembly comprising: a battery cell unit (element 10, Chi Fig. 8) comprising a buffer member disposed on each of a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell unit, configured to pressurize the plurality of battery cells in a front-to-rear direction (protection pad, element 300, Chi Fig. 2).
Chi further teaches a case configured to house the battery cell unit (element 50, Chi Fig. 8), wherein the battery cell unit comprises a plurality of battery cells arranged in parallel to the front-to-rear direction (element 100, Chi Fig. 2), wherein the case comprises a frame member defining an internal space in which the battery cell unit is housed, wherein the frame member comprises (annotated Chi Fig. 8): a frame member body defining a body of the frame member (annotated Chi Fig.8), and having the internal space disposed therein (Chi Fig. 8); and a partition disposed in the internal space, spaced apart from an edge surface of the frame member body toward the battery cell, and configured to partition the internal space into a plurality of spaces (element 200, Chi Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
770
691
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chi does not teach the partition comprising a through-area through which the spaces partitioned by the partition are at least partially open to each other and the through-area is configured to deform in response to battery cell swelling before the frame member body is deformed.
However, Sugeno teaches a battery pack assembly comprising a plurality of battery cell units (Sugeno Fig. 1) and a partition that separates the interior of the case into separate spaces (element 2, Sugeno Fig. 1). Sugeno further teaches the partition comprising a through-area through which the spaces partitioned by the partition are at least partially open to each other (elements 24, 27 Sugeno Fig. 2), where the purpose of the through-area is to accommodate for the swelling of battery cells and prevent deformation of the battery pack casing (Sugeno [55]).
Since Chi and Sugeno both teach battery packs and Sugeno teaches that a partition separating spaces within a battery pack assembly can comprise a through-area in order to accommodate for battery swelling and prevent battery case deformation, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a partition comprising a through-area in the battery pack assembly of Chi in order to accommodate for battery swelling and prevent deformation of the battery case.
The battery case of Chi includes the frame member body, as described above. Since the partition is located in closer proximity to the battery cells than the frame member body, the limitation of “when the plurality of battery cells swell, the partition is deformed by the through-are before the frame member body is deformed” would obviously flow from modified Chi.
Chi does not explicitly state that the buffer member (protection pad) comprises an elastic material. Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, “elastic material” is taken to mean any material that has any amount of elasticity. The examiner notes that all materials inherently have some amount of elasticity and, therefore, no material is perfectly non-elastic.
Additionally, Chi states that “the protection pad 300 may buffer an impact transferred from the pressing plate 200 when an external impact or the like occurs” (Chi [0039]).
Since all materials inherently have some amount of elasticity and Chi states that the purpose of the buffer member (protection pad) is to provide a buffer against impacts to the battery cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a battery pack assembly comprising a buffer member comprising an elastic material.
Regarding claim 11, Chi in view of Sugeno teaches all features of claim 10, as described above. Sugeno further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein the through-area comprises: a first through-area extended upward; and a second through-area extended horizontally from the first through-area (the through-area depicted in Fig. 2 of Sugeno is an opening that extends in both a horizontal and vertical direction).
Regarding claim 12, Chi in view of Sugeno teaches all features of claim 10, as described above. Chi further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein the battery cell unit comprises: a cell fixing member (element 550, Chi Fig. 4) disposed on either side of the plurality of battery cells in a side-to- side direction, and configured to pressurize the plurality of battery cells in the side-to-side direction.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz (US 2020/0266403 A1) in view Tonomura (US 20120313559 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Stuetz teaches a battery pack assembly (battery module, abstract) comprising: a battery cell unit (collection of battery cells (50), Fig. 2); and a case configured to house the battery cell unit (elements 10, 30, 31, 40, Fig. 2), wherein the battery cell unit comprises: a plurality of battery cells (element 50, Fig. 2) disposed in parallel to a front-to-rear direction (element 60, Fig. 2; “the battery cells 50 are arranged next to each other and stacked in a stack direction, indicated by arrow 60” [0095]); a cell fixing member disposed on either side of the plurality of battery cells in a side-to- side direction, and configured to pressurize the plurality of battery cells in the side-to-side direction (element 20, Stuetz Fig. 2); and a buffer member disposed on each of a front surface and a rear surface of the battery cell unit (pressure plate, element 230, Fig. 2), configured to pressurize the plurality of battery cells in the front-to-rear direction ([0101]), wherein the case comprises: a frame member defining an internal space in which the battery cell unit is housed (elements 10, 30, 31, Fig. 2); and a cover member coupled to a top of the frame member (element 40, Fig. 2), wherein the cell fixing member is coupled to the frame member (element 20 is coupled to element 10, Stuetz Fig. 2), and the buffer member is spaced apart from the cell fixing member (elements 230 and 20, Fig. 2).
Stuetz is silent to the material that the buffer member comprises.
Stuetz states that “the pressure plate 230 distributes the pressure…to achieve a more even pressure distribution on the leftmost battery cell” (Stuetz [0101]).
Tonomura teaches a battery pack assembly (battery module, Tonomura abstract) comprising a plurality of battery cells (105, Tonomura Fig. 27A), an end plate (102, Tonomura Fig. 27A), and a buffer member that comprises rubber that pressurizes the battery cells (rubber component 151, Tonomura [117]).
Since Stuetz is silent to the material of the buffer member and Tonomura teaches that it is known and suitable to use a buffer member comprising rubber to pressurize battery cells in a battery pack assembly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a buffer member comprising rubber in the battery pack assembly of Stuetz in order to achieve the predictable result of the pressurization of the battery cells.
Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein the frame member comprises: a frame member body (element 10, Stuetz Fig. 2) having the internal space disposed therein; and a protrusion member (element 30, 31 Stuetz Fig. 2) protruding from the frame member (elements 10, 30, 31 Stuetz Fig.2) toward the internal space, wherein the cell fixing member comprises: a body region in contact with the plurality of battery cells, and extended in the front- to-rear direction (annotated Stuetz Fig. 2); and an assembly region having an indented portion protruding from an end portion of the body region in the front-to-rear direction to the outside in a side-to-side direction, and indented upward (annotated Stuetz Fig. 2), wherein the protrusion member is inserted into and coupled to the indented portion of the assembly region (30, 31 is inserted into and coupled to the indented portion of the assembly region, Stuetz Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
596
854
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Stuetz in view of Tonomura teaches all features of claim 13, as described above. Stuetz further teaches the battery pack assembly, wherein a width of the protrusion member in the side-to-side direction corresponds to a width of the indented portion in the side-to-side direction such that the cell fixing member and the protrusion member are coupled to each other to prevent the plurality of battery cells from moving in a horizontal direction (30, 31 is inserted into and coupled to the indented portion of the assembly region, Stuetz Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 10 in the response received April 24, 2026. These rejections are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is overcome by applicant’s amendment to claim 6 in the response received April 24, 2026. This rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated January 26, 2026 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received April 24, 2026. These rejections are withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 necessitated a new 112b rejection, as described above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Regarding independent claim 1:
Applicant’s arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Stuetz does not disclose each of the first frames having a cut area that abuts a surface pressure pad and defines and elastic part, where the elastic part is elastically deformable and abuts the respective surface pressure pad. Applicant states “a groove is merely a recessed feature in a component surface, and the Office has not identified any disclosure that such grooves define a compliant elastic part of the frame itself that elastically deforms and abuts the pressure plate”. Applicant further states “general contact between an end plate and a pressure plate does not satisfy the requirement that the elastic part defined by the cut area itself abuts the surface pressure pad”.
These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
It is noted that claim 1 requires each of the first frames have a cut area that abuts a surface pressure pad and defines an elastic part (taught by Stuetz and described above); however, claim 1 does not require the elastic part be part “of the frame itself”. The cut area “defining” an elastic part does not structurally equate to or require the elastic part be part of the first frame.
Regarding independent claim 10:
Applicant’s arguments in the response received April 24, 2026 with respect to claim 10 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.
Regarding independent claim 13:
Applicant’s arguments in the response received April 24, 2026 with respect to claim 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
You (US 2021/0305651 A1): appears to disclose a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cell units (Fig. 7), a case having a frame shape configured to house the battery cell units (Fig. 4), and a cut area defining an elastic part that is elastically deformable (Fig. 4, [11]).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights