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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been overcome by the amendment and are withdrawn.
Applicant contends that Lee uses a base frame rather than a cover plate, so there is no reason to provide attachments to a cover plate (pp. 15-16 and 18-19). However, as indicated in the rejection, Lee explicitly allows for the use of a cover frame (Lee [0096]). In addition, it should be noted that moving the attachment plate from the bottom of the stack to the top does not patentably distinguish the claims over the prior art. Applicant's remarks refer to a new claim 21 intended to further clarify the relevant limitations, but no such claim was included in the amendment.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant contends that Wang requires a liquid cooling system that would add weight and complexity in direct contradiction to the goals of Handing (p. 18). However, the system of Wang is not a liquid cooling system. The hollow channels in the side plates of Wang are air-flow channels (Wang Abstract), entirely consistent with the teachings of Handing, which allow for a forced flow of a heat exchange medium through the hollow channels (Handing [0013]).
The rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2011/0151311 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0315366 A1) and Handing et al. (US 2018/0212216 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Lee teaches a battery module comprising a battery stack (unit cells 110), a bottom plate (lower frame 130), end plates (150) sandwiching the stack in the stacking direction, and side plates (140) covering the other sides, with coupling protrusions (vertical supports 140b) extending up from the side plates and coupling protrusions (bent portions 132) extending down from the bottom plate (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
1956
2468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The plates are attached at their ends to the end plates 150 and have therefore necessarily been adjusted in length (and therefore shape) based on the length of the stack.
Lee does not teach that the first coupling protrusions extend from a hollow structure. Wang teaches a battery thermal management system comprising hollow side plates (manifolds 70 and 74; Wang Figs. 2 and 3). Wang teaches that this system allows for thermal regulation of the battery cells (Wang [0026]) with uniform temperature distribution (Wang [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the cooling system of Wang into the battery of Lee in order to uniformly regulate the temperature of the cells, including the hollow side plates from which the coupling protrusions would protrude.
Lee does not teach that the second coupling protrusions extend from a hollow structure. Handing teaches a base plate for battery modules with a hollow structure (Handing Fig. 1 and [0065]). Handing teaches that this allows for reduced weight and increased strength (Handing [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the base plate of Lee hollow as taught by Handing to allow for reduced weight and increased strength, and the second coupling protrusions would necessarily protrude downward from this structure.
Lee does not teach that the protrusions are configured to attach a cover plate to the stacks. Lee gives examples in which the battery stacks are fixed to a lower surface (base frame 160, Lee Fig. 4 and [0076] or base frame 360, Lee Fig. 8 and [0096]). Lee teaches that the battery stacks may be coupled to an external or cover frame by means of the first protrusion (Lee [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to couple the stacks to either or both of an upper and lower cover, since Lee teaches that either are acceptable options. Alternatively, moving the connecting plate from the bottom to the top of the stacks amounts to an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C (stating that rearranging prior art parts is prima facie obvious), citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Lee does not teach the use of different coupling holes in the first protrusion for fixing the cover plate and fixing the battery stack. Lee discloses two different types of coupling holes on the first protrusion: horizontal (Lee Fig. 4) and vertical (Lee Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any combination of the listed options, including using horizontal coupling holes to fix the stacks to each other and vertical coupling holes to fix the stack to the supporting structure (i.e. the cover).
PNG
media_image2.png
869
2265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches that forming the plates by extrusion allows for a reinforced, light metal profile (Handing [0055]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to form the plates by extrusion to achieve a reinforced, light metal profile
Regarding claim 3, the thermal management system comprises side plates with air inlets (72) and outlets (74) forming two cooling paths flowing in the stacking direction and in communication with each other by gaps between adjacent battery cells (56) (Wang Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, the thermal management system comprises side plates with air inlets (72) and outlets (74) forming two cooling paths flowing in the stacking direction and in communication with each other by gaps between adjacent battery cells (56) (Wang Fig. 5).
The second protrusions of modified Lee include different coupling holes for fixing the battery stack and for fixing the side plate of the same battery module (Lee Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
831
1366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5, Modified Lee gives examples in which the battery stacks are fixed to a lower surface (base frame 160, Lee Fig. 4 and [0076] or base frame 360, Lee Fig. 8 and [0096]). Lee teaches that the battery stacks may be coupled to an external or cover frame by means of the first protrusion (Lee [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to couple the stacks to either or both of an upper and lower cover, since Lee teaches that either are acceptable options.
The battery modules are fixed vertically to one another to form stacks, and the stacks are fixed in parallel to each other by coupling the stacks to the frame (Lee Figs. 4 and 8).
Modified Lee does not teach the use of different coupling holes in the first protrusion for fixing the cover plate and fixing the battery stack. Modified Lee discloses two different types of coupling holes on the first protrusion: horizontal (Lee Fig. 4) and vertical (Lee Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any combination of the listed options, including using horizontal coupling holes to fix the stacks to each other and vertical coupling holes to fix the stack to the supporting structure (i.e. the cover).
The second protrusions of modified Lee include different coupling holes for fixing the battery stack and for fixing the side plate of the same battery module (Lee Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 6-8, Modified Lee gives examples in which the battery stacks are fixed to a lower surface (base frame 160, Lee Fig. 4 and [0076] or base frame 360, Lee Fig. 8 and [0096]). Lee teaches that the battery stacks may be coupled to an external or cover frame by means of the first protrusion (Lee [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to couple the stacks to either or both of an upper and lower cover, since Lee teaches that either are acceptable options.
The battery modules are fixed vertically to one another to form stacks, and the stacks are fixed in parallel to each other by coupling the stacks to the frame (Lee Figs. 4 and 8).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches the use of the battery in a vehicle (Lee [0108]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee teaches that forming the plates by extrusion allows for a reinforced, light metal profile (Handing [0055]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to form the plates by extrusion to achieve a reinforced, light metal profile
Modified Lee gives examples in which the battery stacks are fixed to a lower surface (base frame 160, Lee Fig. 4 and [0076] or base frame 360, Lee Fig. 8 and [0096]). Lee teaches that the battery stacks may be coupled to an external or cover frame by means of the first protrusion (Lee [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to couple the stacks to either or both of an upper and lower cover, since Lee teaches that either are acceptable options.
Modified Lee does not teach the use of different coupling holes in the first protrusion for fixing the cover plate and fixing the battery stack. Modified Lee discloses two different types of coupling holes on the first protrusion: horizontal (Lee Fig. 4) and vertical (Lee Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any combination of the listed options, including using horizontal coupling holes to fix the stacks to each other and vertical coupling holes to fix the stack to the supporting structure (i.e. the cover).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the system of modified Lee includes a battery thermal management system comprising side plates with air inlets (72) and outlets (74) forming two cooling paths flowing in the stacking direction and in communication with each other by gaps between adjacent battery cells (56) (Wang Fig. 5).
The second protrusions of modified Lee include different coupling holes for fixing the battery stack and for fixing the side plate of the same battery module (Lee Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 18, Modified Lee gives examples in which the battery stacks are fixed to a lower surface (base frame 160, Lee Fig. 4 and [0076] or base frame 360, Lee Fig. 8 and [0096]). Lee teaches that the battery stacks may be coupled to an external or cover frame by means of the first protrusion (Lee [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to couple the stacks to either or both of an upper and lower cover, since Lee teaches that either are acceptable options.
Modified Lee does not teach the use of different coupling holes in the first protrusion for fixing the cover plate and fixing the battery stack. Modified Lee discloses two different types of coupling holes on the first protrusion: horizontal (Lee Fig. 4) and vertical (Lee Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any combination of the listed options, including using horizontal coupling holes to fix the stacks to each other and vertical coupling holes to fix the stack to the supporting structure (i.e. the cover).
The second protrusions of modified Lee include different coupling holes for fixing the battery stack and for fixing the side plate of the same battery module (Lee Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, the battery modules are fixed vertically to one another to form stacks, and the stacks are fixed in parallel to each other by coupling the stacks to the frame (Lee Figs. 4 and 8).
Claim(s) 9-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wang and Handing as applied to claims 5-8 and 18 above, and further in view of Sundararajan et al. (US 2014/0147717 A1) and Gunther et al. (US 2019/0273231 A1).
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Lee does not teach any particular means for attaching the battery to a vehicle body. However, fixing portions extending from a covering component for the purpose of attaching a battery to a vehicle body are well known. See, for example, Sundararajan (feet 36, Fig. 3) and Gunther (mounting flange 11, Figs. 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional means to attach the battery of modified Lee to the vehicle body, including by fixing portions extending from the cover.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, modified Lee does not teach any particular means for attaching the battery to a vehicle body. However, fixing portions extending from a covering component for the purpose of attaching a battery to a vehicle body are well known. See, for example, Sundararajan (feet 36, Fig. 3) and Gunther (mounting flange 11, Figs. 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional means to attach the battery of modified Lee to the vehicle body, including by fixing portions extending from the cover.
The plates of modified Lee have a skeletal structure (Lee Fig. 2 and Handing Figs. 1-4).
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights