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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered. Claim 23 is new; claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are amended; and claim(s) 2 and 16-22 has/have been canceled.
Upon review, the original disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the amendment; see section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 recites “The battery pack of claim 1, wherein the second end plate is removable without removing a compressive force on the plurality of cells provided by one or more of the two sidewalls and the first end plate” (emphasis by Examiner). Applicant disclosure assigns reference numbers to the second end plate (318), first end plate (316), sidewalls (304), and cells (310), which are shown forming a four-walled structure (inst. spec. paragraph [0051], FIG. 3).
The instant disclosure recites “the battery pack may be formed from a three-walled structure into which the cells are placed prior to compression. The fourth sidewall, such as the end plate 316, may then be placed into position to provide at least a portion of the compressive force to the cells 310 within the battery pack” ([0056]). The instant specification appears to require all four walls (first/second end plates 316,318; the at least two sidewalls 304) to be present in order to apply compressive force.
In other words, the instant application does not appear to support a battery pack structure which provides a compressive force on the plurality of cells with one or more of the sidewalls and the first end plate even when the second end plate is removed as according to claim 23; therefore, the emphasized limitation of claim 23 is interpreted as introducing new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1,6-8,11-12,14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna et al. (US-20170047624-A1; U.S. pre-grant publication of US10622687B2 cited in IDS filed 08/18/2022) in view of Schreiber et al. (US20170104250A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gunna discloses a battery pack (Gunna, abstract) comprising an enclosure (62) having at least two sidewalls (68, 70) connected to a base (66) ([0048]), thus reading on claim 1, the enclosure further including a first and second end plate (74, first and second end plates being on opposite sides of the enclosure) ([0048], Annotated Gunna FIG. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
1560
3390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Gunna FIG. 2
Gunna further discloses attaching the first/second end plates (74) to the monolithic body (64) (i.e., the base (66) and sidewalls (68, 70)) ([0048-0049]); thus, the first end plate is necessarily attached directly or at least indirectly to the base as claimed in “a first end plate connected to the base” recited in claim 1. However, although Gunna suggests the suitability of end plates “welded, bonded or mechanically fastened” to the monolithic body ([0049]), Gunna fails to disclose further detail of any mechanical connection, such as the “at least one of the two sidewalls comprising one or more extensions along a first edge of the at least one sidewall” or the “first end plate comprising one or more holes configured to receive the one or more extensions and thereby connect to the first edge” claimed in claim 1 for the purpose of mechanical attachment.
Schreiber (US20170104250A1) is analogous as a battery assembly comprising an enclosure (59, “support structure”) ([0045], FIG. 1) having sidewalls (62) connected to a base (66, “cold plate”) ([0051]). As a means of mechanically fastening end plates (60, “endwalls”) to the sidewalls (62), Schreiber teaches a structure of sidewalls (62) and end plates (60) where the two sidewalls (62) comprise one or more extensions (64, “fasteners”) along a first edge (see annotation) of the at least one sidewall (62), alongside a first end plate (60) connected to the base (66), the first end plate (60) comprising one or more holes configured to receive the one or more extensions (64) and thereby connect to the first edge ([0046]; see Annotated Schreiber FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
820
1560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Schreiber FIG. 2
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art seeking to mechanically fasten Gunna’s first end plate (74) to provide two (i.e., at least one) of Gunna’s sidewalls with one or more extensions along a first edge of the two sidewalls and provide Gunna’s the first end plate with one or more holes configured to receive the one or more extensions and thereby connect to the first edge as taught by Schreiber for the same intended purpose of mechanically attaching an end plate in a battery pack (MPEP 2144.07), thus overlapping in scope with the “at least one of the two sidewalls comprising one or more extensions along a first edge of the at least one sidewall” and “first end plate comprising one or more holes configured to receive the one or more extensions and thereby connect to the first edge” claimed in claim 1.
Modified Gunna further discloses a second end plate (74) connected to the base (66) and to second edges (see annotation) of the sidewalls (68, 70) (i.e., to the monolithic body (64)) opposite the first edges (Gunna [0048-0049], Annotated Gunna FIG. 2) as claimed in claim 1; and
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 (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 (FIG. 2), and wherein a body of the enclosure is formed by extrusion, i.e., made from extruded parts ([0020]).
Regarding claim 6, modified 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 (Gunna [0020], [0051]), wherein the plurality of fluid channels (76) extend along a length of the base (66) (FIG. 3, [0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 7, modified 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 (Gunna [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, modified 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 (Gunna [0052], FIG. 3)
Regarding claim 11, modified Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. Gunna FIG. 2, noted s depicting a “specific number of cells” (Gunna [0044]), shows two rows (60) having a same number of cells (56) and thus discloses with sufficient specificity the selection of each row of the at least one or more rows having a same number of cells as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, modified 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, modified 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) (Gunna [0048], annot. Gunna FIG. 2)
Regarding claim 23, modified Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. Gunna further discloses that the enclosure (62) may be configured to apply a compressive load against the plurality of cells in arrays (60) (Gunna [0050]); however, Gunna fails to expressly specify which components of the enclosure (62) (i.e., first/second end plates (74), sidewalls (68, 70)) specifically provide a compressive force, or expressly specify that the second end plate is removable without removing a compressive force on the plurality of cells provided by one or more of the two sidewalls and the first end plate as claimed.
Nonetheless, it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that a finite number of configurations for modified Gunna’s enclosure to apply compressive force to the plurality of cells exist, being compression between the first (68) and second sidewalls (70), between the end plates (74), or both at once (annot. Gunna FIG. 2); it would therefore be obvious to explore selecting compression from both the first/second sidewalls and the end plates at once from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions to apply compressive force to the cells (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Gunna further indicates that cells (56) can be held in place from friction force generated as a result of compression ([0047]). In modified Gunna’s battery module with compression from both the sidewalls and end plates, compression force from the sidewalls (see annotations) would result in friction force that resists movement relative to the sidewalls (68); therefore, even if the second end plate were removed, the first end plate would still be able to apply the compression force from the first end plate acting against the friction force from the sidewalls (68) (see Annotated Gunna FIG. 2 Showing Compression, below), such that the second end plate is removable without removing a compressive force on the plurality of cells provided by one or more of the two sidewalls and the first end plate as claimed in claim 23.
PNG
media_image3.png
934
2212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Gunna FIG. 2 Showing Compression
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna (US-20170047624-A1) and Schreiber (US20170104250A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hantschel et al. (DE102018222896A1; cited in 10/10/2025 Office action; U.S. pre-grant publication US20210313638A1 referenced as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 3, modified 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) (Gunna [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).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna (US-20170047624-A1) and Schreiber (US20170104250A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Guo et al. (CN209087962U; cited with machine translation, 10/10/2025 Office action).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. While Gunna discloses that the battery pack (24) outputs electrical power to an electrical vehicle (Gunna [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 a Battery Energy Control Module, a high-voltage connector, and low-voltage connector as claimed in claim 5. 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 (US-20170047624-A1) and Schreiber (US20170104250A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ciaccio et al. (US20170256833A1; cited in 10/10/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 9, modified 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) (Gunna [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 base in Gunna’s battery, which functions as a cooling plate, according to Ciaccio’s teaching. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as the function Ciaccio’s cooling plate to cool respective cells is not impaired by the presence of the heating elements, and because both Gunna and Ciaccio are directed to analogous means of protecting the capacity and lifespan of battery cells through temperature control.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunna (US-20170047624-A1) and Schreiber (US20170104250A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of He et al. (US20220123404A1; cited in 10/10/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 10, modified 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 (Gunna [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 accommodating cells (100) directly inside a housing without use of an intermediate battery module structure, which improves the space utilization of the battery pack by reducing the use of end beams and side beams in conventional battery modules ([0080], FIG. 12; [0006-0007], FIG. 1). This allows greater than 55% of a volume of the battery pack to be occupied by cells, up to a practical maximum of 85% to mount other electronic components ([0057]).
Similarly, Gunna’s battery pack provides a stack of battery cells (56) directly inside the battery pack enclosure without use of an intermediate battery module structure to contain the cells (Gunna [0045], FIG. 2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect modified Gunna’s battery pack to inherently comprise between 55%-85% volume occupied by cells, this range overlapping with the “at least 70 percent of a volume of the battery pack is occupied by cells” claimed in claim 10 between 70-85% such that a skilled artisan seeking to produce the structure of modified Gunna’s battery pack with cells placed directly inside the enclosure (Gunna FIG. 2) would reasonably utilize at least a portion of the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Assuming arguendo that modified Gunna does not necessarily or inherently comprise at least 70 percent of a volume of the battery pack is occupied by cells, He teaches that providing at least 55% of the volume of the battery pack occupied by cells is advantageous to improve the energy density and battery life of a vehicle using the battery pack (He [0050]), while less than 85% of the volume should be occupied by cells in order to reserve sufficient space to mount electronic components ([0057]).
In seeking to balance improvements to energy density and battery life while reserving sufficient space for other components, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the volume of modified Gunna’s battery pack occupied by cells within a range of 55-85% as taught by He, which overlaps with the claimed “at least 70 percent of a volume of the battery pack is occupied by cells” claimed in claim 10 between 70-85% such that a skilled artisan would reasonably utilize the overlapping portion through routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II). Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as modified Gunna’s battery pack comprises the requisite structure of a battery pack with stack of battery cells (56) directly inside the enclosure without use of an intermediate battery module structure to contain the cells (Gunna [0045], FIG. 2) required by He’s battery pack.
Regarding claim 13, modified Gunna discloses the battery pack of claim 1. While Gunna envisions usage of the battery pack in an electric vehicle (Gunna [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_image4.png
1812
1806
media_image4.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 (US-20170047624-A1) and Schreiber (US20170104250A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Mathieu (Considerations for Choosing the Optimal Busbar for Your Electric Vehicle Battery System; copy in 10/10/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 15, modified 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 (Gunna [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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of amended independent claim 1 (Remarks filed 04/10/2026 pp. 6) under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gunna et al. (US20170004762) have been considered but are moot since Applicant's amendment necessitated a different interpretation of claim 1 as laid out in the rejections of record, or are moot as the claim amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection under new prior art discussed above.
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, 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 5/27/2026
Prosecution Insights