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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, a battery pack having an enclosure and a plurality of cells with a large wall surface and small wall surface in the reply filed on 08/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II, a battery pack having an enclosure, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 17-22 are similarly withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Group III, a method for producing a battery pack.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gunna et al. US20170047624A1 (U.S. pre-grant publication of US10622687B2 cited in IDS filed 08/18/2022)
Regarding claim 1, Gunna discloses a battery pack (Gunna, abstract) comprising:
an enclosure (62) having at least a first sidewall (68) and a second sidewall (70) connected to a base (66) ([0048]) further attached to an additional two sidewalls in the form of end plates (74) ([0048-0049]), thus forming a structure of at least four sidewalls (68, 70, 74) connected to a base (66),
a plurality of cells (56) arranged on one or more rows (60, “arrays”) of the base (66) ([0045-0048]), with each cell of the plurality of cells having a large wall surface and a small wall surface, a surface area of the small wall surface being less that than a surface area of the large wall surface (see annotated Gunna FIG. 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
1563
2552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Gunna FIG. 2
wherein, for each row of the one or more rows, cells of the plurality of cells (56) are arranged such their large wall surfaces are parallel to each other (annot. Gunna FIG. 2), and wherein a body of the enclosure is formed by extrusion, i.e., made from extruded parts ([0020]).
Regarding claim 6, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the base (66) is an extrusion that comprises a plurality of fluid channels (76) configured to cool the battery pack ([0020], [0051]), wherein the plurality of fluid channels (76) extend along a length of the base (66) (FIG. 3, [0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 6, at least one channel of the plurality of fluid channels is provided with a plurality of ribs (82) to increase the surface area of the channels ([0053], FIG. 2), which provide the claimed undulating or substantially undulating profile that maximizes a surface area of said at least one channel in comparison with a conventional channel having a substantially rectangular profile.
Regarding claim 8, Gunna discloses battery pack of claim 6, wherein the base (66) has a footer made from machined- off fins (“portions of the walls 80…removed by trimming or machining”) at a first end (84B, “opposing end”) of the battery pack to allow flow of the cooling liquid from first fluid channels (76) at one end of a channel section to second fluid channels (76) at another end of the channel section ([0052], FIG. 3)
Regarding claim 11, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. While Gunna does not explicitly disclose a number of cells (56) in each row (60), Gunna FIG. 2, depicting a specific number of cells ([0044]), shows two rows (60) having a same number of cells (56).
Regarding claim 12, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the battery pack has at least two rows (60) ([0047], FIG. 2) and each row (60) is separated from an adjacent row by a divider (see annot. Gunna FIG. 2)
Regarding claim 14, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein two other sidewalls (68, 70) of the at least four sidewalls are arranged opposite each other along a plane of the small wall surface to confine to the plurality of cells (56) ([0048], annot. Gunna FIG. 2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gunna (US20170047624A1) as applied to claim 1
Regarding claim 2, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein two sidewalls of the at least four sidewalls are end plates (74, “end walls”, shown with dashed lines in FIG. 2) that are arranged parallel to the large wall surfaces ([0049], annot. Gunna FIG. 2).
Gunna further discloses that the enclosure (62) is configured, i.e., adapted, to apply compressive force to the plurality of cells ([0050]), the enclosure (62) including at least one of the end plates (74) of the two side walls ([0049])
While this would appear to include the use of one of the two sidewalls being adaptable to apply compressive force to the plurality of cells, assuming, arguendo, that Applicant proves Gunna does not necessarily or inherently include using one of the two sidewalls for this purpose, it would nonetheless be obvious to provide one of the two sidewalls in the manner as claimed. A finite number of configurations for Gunna’s enclosure to apply compressive force to the plurality of cells exist, being compression by the first (68) and second sidewalls (70), compression by the end plates (74), or both at once (annot. Gunna FIG. 2); it would therefore be obvious to compress the cells using at least the two sidewalls being end plates with at least one of the two sidewalls being adapted to apply compressive force to the plurality of cells from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions to apply compressive force to the cells (MPEP 2143 I. E.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna (US20170047624A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hantschel et al. DE102018222896A1 (U.S. pre-grant publication US20210313638A1 referenced as an English language equivalent)
Regarding claim 3, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. Gunna discloses that two of the sidewalls (74) are welded or mechanically fastened to the base (66) ([0048-0049]), and two other sidewalls (68, 70) are connected to the base (66) ([0048]); as a non-limiting example Gunna discloses connecting the other two sidewalls and the base through forming the other sidewalls (68, 70) as a single-piece component with the base (66) ([0048]), but does not further provide an example of the battery pack wherein the other two sidewalls of the at least four sidewalls are mechanically attached or welded to the base.
Hantschel, directed to an analogous structure of a battery pack (100) having an enclosure (134, “housing basic body”) having at least four sidewalls (126) and a base (124, “bottom wall element”) (Hantschel FIG. 1, [0201]), teaches connection of the sidewalls (126) to the base (124) through welding as a substitutable equivalent to connecting the sidewalls through forming the sidewalls (126) as a single-piece component with the base (124) ([0203]).
As such, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to weld Gunna’s two other sidewalls (68, 70) to the base (66) instead of forming the other sidewalls and base integrally, consequently forming a battery pack wherein the at least four sidewalls are mechanically attached or welded to the base. Such a substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Hantschel teaches both welding and forming as a single-piece component as substitutable equivalents for the same purpose of joining sidewalls to a base (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna (US20170047624A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Guo et al. CN209087962U (see attached machine translation)
Regarding claim 4, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. While Gunna discloses that the battery pack (24) outputs electrical power to an electrical vehicle ([0041]) and is capable of maintaining a state of charge depending on an operating mode of the battery ([0042-0043]), generally requiring at least some form of electronics control modules, and further discloses considerations of making the battery module more compact, e.g., reducing a vertical footprint of the battery pack ([0050]), Gunna does not explicitly disclose details of the electronics modules as being housed in a compartment of the enclosure.
Guo, similarly directed to a battery pack comprising an enclosure (13, “battery module installation space”) having four sidewalls (1121, “frame beams”) and a base (111, “lower base plate”) (Guo [0164], FIG. 14), teaches an enclosure having an electronics compartment that houses electronics control modules including a Battery Energy Control Module (102, “electronic control element”) comprising a high-voltage connector (1021) and low-voltage connector (1022) ([0204-0209], FIG. 30).
Advantageously, housing the electronics control modules in this way improves a compactness of the battery pack (100) and facilitates connections of the modules when integrated into a vehicle ([0204-0205]). Guo additionally teaches that the electronics control modules may be more easily protected by being placed inside the enclosure in this way ([0204]).
As such, in seeking to make Gunna’s electronics control modules more compact and easy to connect inside a vehicle, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art (claim 4) to provide the electronics control modules in an electronics compartment in the enclosure as taught by Guo, the electronics control modules including at least (claim 5) a Battery Energy Control Module, a high-voltage connector, and low-voltage connector. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Guo discloses a suitability of providing this compartment for the modules in a battery pack having a similar base structure analogously intended for use in a vehicle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna (US20170047624A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ciaccio et al. US20170256833A1.
Regarding claim 9, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. While Gunna discloses considerations of thermally managing the battery cells (56) such as through the use of the base (66) acting as a cold plate to maintain the capacity and life of the battery cells (56) ([0050]), Gunna does not further disclose one or more heating elements disposed across a length of the base.
Ciaccio, directed to a housing including a cooling plate (244) to cool a cell stack (208) (Ciaccio [0094]), teaches that battery cells must not only be cooled below a maximum temperature (468) but also heated above a minimum operating temperature (466) in order to maintain the capacity and lifespan of the battery cells ([0115]; FIG. 4). As a means of controlling the temperature, Ciaccio teaches the use of heating elements in the form of one or more thermoelectric devices (140) which can supply heat to control battery cell temperatures ([0062-0066]), disposed across a length of the cooling plate (244) between the cell stack ([0015]), [0084], FIGs. 1C, 1E).
As such, in seeking to maintain the capacity and life of the battery cells, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more heating elements disposed across a length of the cooling plate in Gunna’s battery, the cooling plate being Gunna’s base. While Ciaccio does not explicitly teach disposing the heating elements along a base of a battery pack, one having ordinary skill in the art would still have a reasonable expectation of success as both Gunna and Ciaccio are directed to means of protecting the capacity and lifespan of battery cells, and because Gunna’s base functions as a cooling plate for cooling battery cells applicable within the scope of Ciaccio’s teaching.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna (US20170047624A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of He et al. US20220123404A1.
Regarding claim 10, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. While Gunna discloses considerations of making the battery module more compact, e.g., reducing a vertical footprint of the battery pack by using the base (66) as a cold plate ([0050]), and intends to use the battery pack in an electric vehicle ([0041]), Gunna does not explicitly disclose that at least 70 percent of a volume of the battery pack is occupied by cells.
He, directed to a battery pack (10) including a plurality of cells (100) arranged in an enclosure (200, “housing”) for use in an electric vehicle (He [0046-0048], FIG. 12), teaches that conventional battery packs comprising cells provided in battery modules (400) are volumetrically inefficient due to the added structure of the end beams and side beams forming the battery modules (400) ([0006-0007], FIG. 1). In comparison, He accommodates the cells (100) directly inside a housing without use of a battery module, which improves the space utilization of the battery pack ([0047-0048], [0080], FIG. 12). Similarly, Gunna’s battery pack provides a stack of battery cells (56) directly inside the enclosure without apparent use of a battery module (Gunna [0045], FIG. 2).
He further teaches that preferably at least 65% of the volume of the battery pack should be occupied by the volume of the cells in order to improve the space utilization, energy density, and battery life of a vehicle using the battery pack (He [0050-0053]), while less than 80% of the volume should be occupied in order to provide sufficient space for other components of the battery pack such as cooling systems ([0055]).
As such, in seeking to balance improving the space utilization, energy density, and battery life of Gunna’s battery pack when used in a vehicle while also ensuring sufficient space for cooling systems in the battery pack, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a volume of the battery pack occupied by cells within a range of 65% to 80% as taught by He (MPEP 2144.05 II), which overlaps with a portion of the claimed range between 70% to 80%. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Gunna discloses considerations of improving a compactness of the battery module, and as both Gunna and He utilize battery packs with a structure that omits the use of battery modules and intend to use the respective battery packs in an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. While Gunna envisions usage of the battery pack in an electric vehicle ([0041]), understood to inherently require a means of attaching or mounting the battery pack to the electric vehicle, Gunna does not explicitly provide one of the sidewalls with a vehicle mount adapted for attaching the battery pack to a base of an electric vehicle.
He, directed to a battery pack (10) including a plurality of cells (100) arranged in an enclosure (200, “housing”) for use in an electric vehicle (He [0046-0048], FIG. 12), the enclosure (200) similarly including at least four sidewalls (201-204, “side beams”, “end beams”), further teaches that the battery pack may be attached to an electric vehicle through being hung on a vehicle chassis ([0084], FIG. 10), two sidewalls (201, 202) being depicted with vehicle mounts for this purpose (see Annotated He FIGs. 9-10 below, FIG. 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
1812
1806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated He FIGs. 9-10
As such, in seeking to attach Gunna’s battery pack to an electric vehicle, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select the structure taught by He including one or more vehicle mounts adapted for attaching the battery pack to the base of an electric vehicle provided on two sidewalls; such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as He teaches a suitability of this structure for an intended purpose of attaching a battery pack to an electric vehicle (MPEP 2144.07), and Gunna’s battery pack includes the two sidewalls required for this structure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna (US20170047624A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of NPL Mathieu “Considerations for Choosing the Optimal Busbar for Your Electric Vehicle Battery System” (see attached NPL copy).
Regarding claim 15, Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. While Gunna discloses the use of multiple battery cells grouped together to supply electrical power to an electrified vehicle ([0044-0045]) understood to inherently require a means of electrically connecting the group of battery cells, and depicts the cells (56) having terminals, i.e., electrical connectors (see Annotated Gunna FIG. 2 showing electrical connectors below), Gunna does not explicitly disclose the use of one or more busbars connected to the plurality of cells through electrical connectors.
Mathieu, directed to the use of battery packs in electric vehicles, teaches that busbars may be suitably selected as a means of connecting battery cells in an electric vehicle (pp. 1 paragraph 3), further teaching that a properly selected busbar can assist thermal management (pp. 1 paragraph 10).
As such, in seeking to connect Gunna’s battery cells and assist in thermal management of the battery pack, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select the use of one or more busbars connected to the plurality of cells through Gunna’s electrical connectors as taught by Mathieu. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Mathieu discloses a suitability of using busbars to connect cells in a battery pack for an electric vehicle (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-7:30.
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 G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/8/2025