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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Allowance Rescinded
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed December 9, 2025 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Compressing element in claim 1, disclosed as a wedge member 11 in Fig. 6;
Supporting element in claim 4, disclosed as a wedge member 12 in Fig. 3 and 5;
Clamping element in claim 8, disclosed in Fig. 2 as a clamping band 60 connected to end plates on opposite sides of the battery stack.
Examiner notes that spacer element in claim 12 is not interpreted under 112(f) in view of the structural modifier “spacer”.
Examiner notes that “temperature control element” in claims 7 and 21 are not interpreted under 112(f) in view of the recited structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-11, 14-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaese et al. (DE-102015214185-A1) in view of Tyler et al. (US 20160301117).
As to claims 1-2, Kaese teaches a battery module having a plurality of prismatic lithium-ion battery cells (¶1; 51), which are arranged next to one another in a longitudinal direction of the battery module and furthermore are braced with one another (¶18), wherein the plurality of battery cells are received in an interior of a housing of the battery module and additionally a bottom surface of the housing of the battery module and a bottom surface of the battery cells are respectively cohesively connected to one another (fig. 6), wherein a compressing element 46 is arranged between the housing and the plurality of battery cells 14 in the longitudinal direction of the battery module, wherein the compressing element tapers perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction of the battery module in a direction of the bottom surface of the housing compressing element 46, formed as a wedge that tapers down toward the bottom surface of the housing (¶51; fig. 6); with a bracing element 58 (screw) which is capable of moving/changing the amount that the fixing element is inserted into the battery module; thus creating an air gap between the battery and the housing as seen in the lower left corner of Fig. 6 (¶68-73; Fig. 5-9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
486
803
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
819
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to the claim limitations requiring a second compressing element, Kaese discloses that a pressing element is placed for each of the three columns of batteries in the battery module shown in Fig. 19.
Kaese fails to teach or disclose whether an adhesive may be utilized to bond the batteries in place. Tyler discloses a method of making a battery module (Abstract). Tyler discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to for prismatic batteries to be positioned in the housing prior to an adhesive 78 placed between the bottom surface 74 of the prismatic batteries and the bottom of the housing 82 prior to curing the adhesive (Fig. 3-7; ¶35, 47 & 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the adhesive bonding method of Tyler in the method taught by Kaese because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means of holding prismatic batteries in place when placed in a housing. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 3, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Kaese also teaches that the compressing element is received in a form-fitting manner in a receptacle of the housing of the battery module (the fixing element 46, interpreted as the compressing element, is coupled to the first or second side wall via a bracing element such as a screw).
As to claims 4, 5 and 10, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Kaese also teaches that a supporting element is arranged between the housing of the battery module and the plurality of battery cells opposite the compressing element in the longitudinal direction of the battery module (fig. 6; Kaese gives an embodiment with a supporting element 48 opposite the compressing element 46). Kaese also teaches that the supporting element comprises an opening and contact surfaces (fig. 6 shows contact surfaces on three sides along with channels 56 which extend through the support element 48, and are therefore openings) and that the supporting element is connected in a form- fitting or cohesive manner to an end plate or to the housing (fig. 6; supporting element 48 is shown to fit cohesively into the housing 52; support element 48 can be screwed into the first or second side wall of the housing 52).
As to claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Kaese also teaches that the housing comprises a temperature-control element which is directly adjacent to the bottom surfaces of the battery cells (Abstract; cooling channel that can be traversed by a cooling medium incorporated in the bottom of carrying device 16, interpreted as the housing; coolant inlet 36 seen in fig. 3).
As to claim 11, the method of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Tyler discloses that the components of the housing may comprise of polymeric materials (¶33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the polymeric material of Tyler in the method taught by Kaese because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known conventional and successful structural material as a material for the compressing component of Kaese. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 14, the method of claim 4 is taught as seen above. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11 above.
Claims 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-2 above.
As to claim 17, the method of claim 16 is taught as seen above. Kaese also teaches that the compressing element has two contact surfaces which are arranged at an angle of at least four degrees with respect to one another (fig. 1; pg. 7 paragraph 7; angle α has a value between 30° and 90°, meaning the compressing element 46 follows the same angle in wedge shape; fig. 6 shows that the compressing element has two contact surfaces against battery cell 14 and the side wall of housing 52; pg. 9 last paragraph – pg. 10 third paragraph).
As to claims 18 and 19, the method of claim 15 is taught as seen above. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4-5 above.
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaese et al. (DE-102015214185-A1) and Tyler et al. (US 20160301117) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10-11, 14-19 and 21 above, and further in view of Hoermann et al. (WO 2019221376).
As to claims 8-9, the above references as combined do not teach that the plurality of battery cells is arranged between two end plates which are braced with one another by way of at least one clamping element and that an adhesive is arranged between a side surface of a battery cell and the clamping element. Hoermann discloses a method of making batteries (Abstract). Hoermann does teach that the plurality of battery cells is arranged between two end plates which are braced with one another by way of at least one clamping element and that an adhesive is arranged between a side surface of a battery cell and the clamping element (P11, ¶ 5 – 6; thermal connection of the side plate, interpreted as the clamping element, to the battery cells may be made by thermal adhesives and is arranged between module front plates, interpreted as end plates). Hoermann teaches that the clamping element provides more framework for supporting the battery module (P3, ¶2-3). It would have been obvious to include the clamping element of Hoermann into the battery module of the above references as combined and would have been motivated to do so because Hoermann teaches that the addition of said clamping element provides for more framework for supporting the battery module.
As to claims 22-23, the method of claim 15 is taught as seen above. Claims 22-23 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 8-9 above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaese et al. (DE-102015214185-A1) and Tyler et al. (US 20160301117) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10-11, 14-19 and 21 above, and further in view of Helmut (EP 3723156).
As to claim 12, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined fail to specifically teach or disclose that spacer elements can be placed between adjacent battery cells. Helmut disclose a method of making battery modules (¶1). Helmut does teach that a respective spacer element is arranged between two battery cells arranged adjacent to one another (Id.). Helmut teaches that such spacers allows for compensating swelling, specifically swelling of the central parts of the battery cells (¶10). It would have been obvious to utilize spacers between battery cells and would have been motivated to do so because Helmut teaches that such spacers allows for swelling compensation in the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejections above.
Applicant argues that Kaese does not teach or disclose inserting two compressing elements arranged on the same end of the battery module. This argument is not persuasive because, as seen in the rejection above, Kaese discloses that a battery module has multiple columns of batteries (Fig. 19), each requiring its own compressing element which fits the recited limitation of multiple compressing element in a battery module.
As to Applicant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious to duplicate and/or provide two compressing elements per column of batteries, this limitation is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745