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 Amendment
The amendment filed 01/05/2026 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The examiner acknowledges the addition of new claim 32 and acknowledges the further cancellation of claims 20-21.
The amendments to claims 26 and 29 address the objections made in the previous office action, and the objections are consequently withdrawn. Applicant’s argument to the objection to claim 31 is persuasive; therefore, the objection to claim 31 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 22-32 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jan 05, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections over Seki et al (US 2020/0411819 A1), with further supporting evidence provided by reference “chamfer,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries; (Remarks: p6-9)
Applicant argues against the reading of abutment face 20a of Seki (Fig. 1A) as a “chamfered leading edge” in addressing the limitations of claim 1, asserting that it “must be a localized edge geometry formed by removing material at a corner and configured to facilitate insertion.” The Examiner respectfully notes that the definition as cited by Applicant cannot be found in the instant specification. Additionally, as pointed out in the Office Action of 10/30/2025, the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of chamfer is based on evidentiary reference Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries teaching that a chamfer is a cut made along a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°; specifically, the Dictionary defines chamfer as “a cut made along an edge or on a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°.” The abutment face 20a features a leading edge that is chamfered. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument made against the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of “a chamfered leading edge” is not persuasive.
The Examiner also notes that the load plate 20 having a chamfered leading edge 20a “guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area” by directing the positioning of the cell stack to its final destination, that is, by directing the cell stack into its coordinates in the cell-receiving area, and does so by compressing the cell stack and preventing it from expanding beyond the cell-receiving area). Additionally, the cited prior art of Seki teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation, such as how an element was installed. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Therefore, Applicant’s argument made against the rejection of Seki over the claim limitation of “the at least one load plate having a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area” is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument against the use of Seki to teach the limitation of claim 9 reciting “the chamfered leading edge of the at least one load plate configured to contact the wedge as the cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area,” one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that wedge 19 contacts the chamfered leading edge 20a, and the associated compression arising from the force of the wedge facilitates the positioning of the cell stack to its final destination within the enclosure structure, i.e. as the cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area, as explained in the previous Office Action of 10/30/2025 (p13, last paragraph), and therefore reads on the recited structure of the limitation of the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections over Ueda (JP 6680145 B2); (Remarks: p9)
Applicant argues that Ueda fails to teach the limitation of amended claim 22 reciting “the first and second wedges are positioned within the cell-receiving area prior to installation of the cell stack, and wherein the cell stack, together with the first and second load plates, is subsequently received into the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges,” adding that the wedges are inserted together with the cell stack.
The Examiner respectfully notes that claim 22 is drawn to a product/apparatus claim and that the cited prior art of Ueda teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product, including the first and second wedges 16 in the cell-receiving area 56, as well as the first and second load plates 20 and cell stack 14 in the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges (annotated Fig. 1 of Ueda, included on p15 of the Office Action of 10/30/2025). The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Therefore, the limitation “the first and second wedges are positioned within the cell-receiving area prior to installation of the cell stack, and wherein the cell stack, together with the first and second load plates, is subsequently received into the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges” does not distinguish the claimed assembly from that of Ueda.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Yamanaka (JP 2020095895 A) in view of Meng et al (CN 208596723 U), with further supporting evidence provided by reference “chamfer,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries; (Remarks: p9-p12)
Applicant argues that Yamanaka fails to teach the limitation of claim 1 reciting “at least one load plate of the cell stack, the at least one load plate having a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area.” Yamanaka teaches the load plates 21 with a hypotenuse incline that reads on a chamfered leading edge because it has a cut made along a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°, consistent with the definition of chamfer by evidentiary reference Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries (“a cut made along an edge or on a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°”). Barring a definition of chamfer in the instant specification, Applicant’s argument made against the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of “a chamfered leading edge” is not persuasive.
As noted in the Office Action of 10/30/2025, Yamanaka teaches the coordinated function of the load plates 21 and the second plate elements 22 directs the cell stack into a press-fitted position that fixes the cell stack into its cell-receiving area in the battery case, i.e. as it is received within the cell-receiving area (p22, last paragraph of Office Action of 10/30/2025). Thus, Yamanaka’s teaching of the load plates facilitating the press-fitting of the cell stack into its final destination of the cell-receiving area in the battery case reads upon “the at least one load plate having a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area.”
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Yamanaka fails to teach the limitation of claim 9, with specific emphasis placed on the phrase “cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area,” the Examiner respectfully notes that claim 9 is drawn to a product/apparatus claim and that the cited prior art of Yamanaka teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Therefore, the limitation “as the cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area” does not distinguish the claimed assembly from that of Yamanaka.
The Examiner also asserts that Yamanaka does in fact teach the chamfered leading edge of load plate 21 is configured to contact the wedge 22 as the cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area. The Examiner interprets the fixing of the cell stack into the coordinates of its final destination as the receiving of the cell stack within the cell-receiving area, as was previously explained in the Office Action of 10/30/2025 (p22 last paragraph, p23 first paragraph); therefore, Yamanaka’s teaching reads upon the claimed limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Yamanaka fails to teach the limitation of amended claim 22 reciting “the first and second wedges are positioned within the cell-receiving area prior to installation of the cell stack, and wherein the cell stack, together with the first and second load plates, is subsequently received into the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges,” the Examiner respectfully notes that claim 22 is drawn to a product/apparatus claim and that the cited prior art of Yamanaka teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Therefore, the limitation “the first and second wedges are positioned within the cell-receiving area prior to installation of the cell stack, and wherein the cell stack, together with the first and second load plates, is subsequently received into the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges” does not distinguish the claimed assembly from that of Yamanaka.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Yamanaka fails to teach the limitation of claim 23, the Examiner regrets the typo in the header including claim 23. Accordingly, the header pertaining to the rejections over Yamanaka in view of Meng et al has been revised to read “Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 20, 22, 24-26, 28-29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (JP 2020095895 A) in view of Meng et al (CN 208596723 U). Further supporting evidence is provided by reference “chamfer,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries.”
Regarding claim 25, Applicant’s argument regarding the structural distinction between wedges as an extruded structure and wedges that are not extruded structures is not persuasive. Applicant does not recite structural characteristics of an extruded structure that would impart distinct and identifiable structural characteristics which would be given patentable weight. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that claim 25 is a product by process claim and also maintains the original rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that no rejection is presented against claim 27, presumably argued with respect to the prior art reference of Yamanaka, the Examiner points out that the rejection against claim 27 over Yamanaka in view of Meng et al and in further view of Ueda, with supporting evidence provided by Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary is provided on p30-32 of the 10/30/2025 Office Action.
Regarding claim 28, Applicant’s argument that Yamanaka fails to teach the limitation of “wherein the first and second wedges are rigidly affixed to the sheet metal enclosure structure” is not persuasive. Yamanaka teaches the wedges being press-fitted between the first plate element 21 and the side wall 34 of the enclosure, which would be expected to result in the wedges applying compression. The wedges cannot be removed from the enclosure structure as indicated by Yamanaka’s teaching that “the stack is effectively prevented from separating from the battery case” once the plurality of secondary batteries 10, and the first plate elements 21 and the second plate elements (wedges) 22 are placed inside the enclosure structure, thus reading upon the limitation of the first and second wedges being rigidly affixed to the enclosure structure. Additionally, the wedges do not adjust vertical position relative to the enclosure structure to apply compression.
Regarding claim 29, Applicant’s argument that Yamanaka fails to teach the limitation of “the first and second wedges immovably fixed to the sheet metal enclosure structure” is not persuasive. Yamanaka teaches the wedges being press-fitted between the first plate element 21 and the side wall 34 of the enclosure, which would be expected to result in the wedges applying compression. The wedges cannot be removed from the enclosure structure as indicated by Yamanaka’s teaching that “the stack is effectively prevented from separating from the battery case” once the plurality of secondary batteries 10, and the first plate elements 21 and the second plate elements (wedges) 22 are placed inside the enclosure structure, thus reading upon the limitation of the first and second wedges being immovably fixed to the enclosure structure. Additionally, the wedges do not adjust vertical position relative to the enclosure structure to apply compression.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that no rejection is presented against claim 30, presumably argued with respect to the prior art reference of Yamanaka, the Examiner points out that the rejection against claim 30 over Yamanaka in view of Meng et al and in further view of Ueda, with supporting evidence provided by Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary is provided on p32-33 of the 10/30/2025 Office Action.
Regarding claim 31, Applicant argues that there is no teaching of the load plates in Yamanaka having a chamfered leading edge. However, Yamanaka teaches the load plates 21 with a hypotenuse incline that reads on a chamfered leading edge because it has a cut made along a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°, consistent with the definition of chamfer by evidentiary reference Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries (“a cut made along an edge or on a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°”). Barring a definition of chamfer in the instant specification, Applicant’s argument made against the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of “a chamfered leading edge” is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seki et al (US 2020/0411819 A1). Further supporting evidence is provided by reference “chamfer,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries.
Regarding claim 1, Seki teaches a battery pack assembly for a vehicle ([0004] line 1), comprising: a cell stack 15 disposed along a cell stack axis and an enclosure structure 12 that holds the cell stack 15 within a cell-receiving area (Figure 1A). Seki also teaches the use of wedge 19 that exerts a force on and receives a reactive compressive force from side wall 12b of the enclosure which in turn exerts a compressive force on the plate 20 which applies compression to the cell stacks 15 along the cell stack axis ([0036]-[0038] lines 1-7). Given that Seki teaches a battery pack assembly for a vehicle application, it is expected that the battery pack assembly can be used as a traction battery pack assembly. Seki teaches (Col 5 para 2 lines 1-2) that the enclosure structure is made of metal and Fig. 1A shows that that the enclosure structure is formed of a sheet, therefore, the enclosure structure is a sheet metal enclosure structure. Seki also teaches (Fig. 1A) a load plate 20 wherein its face 20b abuts against the end face of cell stacks 15 ([0034] lines 11-14), applying compression to the cell stacks and working to suppress expansion of the rectangular cells ([0038] lines 1-7), and wherein another face 20a provides a reaction force load rightward in the figure against the wedge member 19 that supports it from tilting ([0038] lines 7-18); thereby acting as a load plate. Incline 20a has the claimed chamfered leading edge on the load plate 20, because it reads on a cut made along a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90° (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries). Seki’s description of the load plate reads on the limitation of the “load plate having a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area” because its action as taught above directs, or guides, the positioning of the cell stack into its coordinates in the cell-receiving area by compressing the cell stacks and preventing them from expanding beyond the cell-receiving area. The claim limitation as written does not require a specific sequence of events to occur for the load plate having a chamfered leading edge in order to guide the cell stack into the cell-receiving area.
Regarding claim 3, Seki teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1 and Seki further teaches (Fig. 1A) that the sheet metal enclosure structure 12 is an enclosure tray.
Regarding claim 5, Seki teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and further teaches there is a first load plate 20 at a first axial end of the cell stack and a second load plate 16 (Col 5: lines 19-23) at an opposite second axial end of the cell stack. The second load plate 16 is a load plate because it functions to suppress expansion of the cells when the wedge 19 moves downward and its abutment face 19b applies compression (a load) to the cell stacks 15 and 15 (Col 6: lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 7, Seki teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and Seki further teaches (Fig. 1B) wherein the sheet metal enclosure structure 12 circumferentially surrounds the cell stack 15 ([0023]; [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Seki teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and Seki further teaches (Fig. 1A) a wedge 19 disposed between enclosure wall 12e and the cell stack 15 ([0034]-[0035]). Within the combination above, Seki teaches (Fig. 1A) a load plate 20 wherein face 20a provides a reaction force load rightward in the figure against the wedge member 19 that supports it from tilting ([0038] lines 7-18), thereby contacting the wedge, and Figure 1A shows the cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area; Seki teaches the load plate 20 has a chamfered leading edge; therefore the figure shows that the chamfered leading edge 20a of the load plate 20 contacts the wedge 19 when the cell-stack is in the cell-receiving area.
Additionally, Seki discloses in [0014], “Since the axial force of the bolt is increased by the wedge effect of the inclined first abutment face and becomes a compressive force for the cell stack, it is possible to apply strong compression to the cell stack with a simple structure and to suppress expansion of the rectangular cell.” From this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the force of the wedge 19 (associated with the bolt structure) is increased by load plate 20 by means of contact with its inclined first abutment face 20a, and that a resulting compression is applied to the cell stack in the stacking direction in the interior of the battery case, thereby enabling expansion of the rectangular cell to be suppressed, and that facilitates the cell stack’s positioning or receiving in the cell-receiving area. Accordingly, Seki teaches the limitation of “a wedge disposed between a wall of the sheet metal enclosure structure and the cell stack, the chamfered leading edge of the at least one load plate configured to contact the wedge as the cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area.”
Regarding claim 10, Seki teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and Seki further teaches (Fig. 1B) that the cell stack is a first cell stack (top row of 15 in figure) and further comprises at least one second cell stack (bottom row of 15 in figure) held within the cell-receiving area of the sheet metal enclosure structure. Based on Fig. 1B, the second cell stack is expected to be subjected to the same compression structure as cell stack 1 and is therefore compressed along a respective cell stack axis.
Claims 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda (JP 6680145 B2).
Regarding claim 22, Ueda teaches a traction battery pack assembly comprising:
(Machine translation of [0002] teaches lithium ion batteries of the invention for use in driving electric vehicle, multiple battery cells and separators can be stacked together into a battery stack; [0013] teaches one or more battery stacks can be in a battery module; a battery module reads on a battery pack assembly and can be utilized as a traction battery pack assembly)
a cell stack including a plurality of battery cells disposed along a cell stack axis between first and second load plates; a sheet metal enclosure structure; first and second wedges that are fixed in position within a cell-receiving area of the sheet metal enclosure structure, the cell stack held axially between the first and second wedges within a cell receiving area of the sheet metal enclosure structure,
(An annotated version of Fig. 1 of Ueda, described in [0014], is included below to show battery stack 14, i.e., a cell stack, including a plurality of battery cells 18 denoted by a bracketed line and disposed along a cell stack axis between first and second load plates 20. The labeled first and second load plates 20 are considered load plates because they bear loads; [0020] discloses, “the battery stack 12 is an expandable body having a spring constant in the stacking direction because it includes the separators 20 made of resin,” and [0034] teaches the restraint load Ft applied to the battery stack is the product of the deformation amount of the battery stack and the spring constant. Paragraph [0021] and Fig. 2 teach a module case 50 housing the cell stack in housing space 56, i.e., cell-receiving space, is made of a metal such as aluminum, with cover 54 formed by a sheet, therefore the enclosure structure reads on a sheet metal enclosure. Figs. 1-3 and [0027] teach a pair of end plates 16 arranged axially at both ends of the claimed cell stack and which correspond the first and second wedges, also described in paragraph [0031].
Ueda teaches in paragraph [0035] that once a desired restraining load is applied to the battery stack, the battery stack 12, made up of battery assembly (cell stack) 14 and a pair of end plates (wedges) 16 ([0020] lines 3-4), is fixed. Thus, the first and second wedges 16 are fixed in position within the cell-receiving area of the sheet metal enclosure structure).
Annotated Fig. 1 of Ueda:
PNG
media_image1.png
466
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the sheet metal enclosure structure compressing the cell stack along the cell stack axis through the first and second wedges, the first and second wedges each having an inner side interfacing directly with the cell stack and an outer side interfacing directly with a side wall of the sheet metal enclosure structure.
(Fig. 3, described in [0031] shows compressive force F5 from the sheet metal enclosure structure acting on the cell stack along the cell stack axis through the right-side (second) wedge 16; given the symmetrical positions of the wedges 16 with respect to their position to the battery cells, it is expected that the same compressive force would be exerted from the enclosure structure to the cell stack along the cell stack axis through the left-side (first) wedge 16 as well. The first and second wedges 16 both have an inner side directly interfacing with the cell stack, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 of Ueda shown above. Fig. 3 shows an outer side 17 interfacing directly with a side wall 58 of the sheet metal enclosure structure ([0031]).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the first and second wedges are positioned within the cell-receiving area prior to installation of the cell stack, and wherein the cell stack, together with the first and second load plates, is subsequently received into the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges,” the cited prior art of Ueda teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product, including the first and second wedges 16 in the cell-receiving area 56, as well as the first and second load plates 20 and cell stack 14 in the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Therefore, the limitation “the first and second wedges are positioned within the cell-receiving area prior to installation of the cell stack, and wherein the cell stack, together with the first and second load plates, is subsequently received into the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges” does not distinguish the claimed assembly from that of Ueda.
Regarding claim 23, Ueda teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22 and as shown in Fig. 2, Ueda further teaches wherein the inner sides are disposed along a vertical plane, wherein the outer sides each include an area that is angled relative to the vertical plane.
Regarding claim 24, Ueda teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22, and as shown in Fig. 2, Ueda further teaches the inner sides and the outer sides are opposed surfaces of a singular structure.
Regarding claim 25, Ueda teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 24 but does not teach use of an extrusion process to form the singular structure. Claim 25 is considered a product-by-process claim, wherein the product is the traction battery pack assembly of claim 24 with the claimed first and second wedges. Ueda teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation, and the generally recited extruded process doesn’t impart a definite structure. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 26, Ueda teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22. Ueda teaches in paragraph [0035] that once a desired restraining load is applied to the battery stack, the battery stack 12, made up of battery assembly (cell stack) 14 and a pair of end plates (wedges) 16 ([0020] lines 3-4), is fixed. Thus, the first and second wedges 16 are unmoving, and thus, each has a fixed width dimension as claimed, as pointed out in the annotated Fig. 2 below.
Alternatively, Ueda also teaches the wedges 16 can be made of metal or resin having sufficient rigidity ([0020]), therefore the wedges would be expected to maintain their shape and have an unchanging, or fixed, width.
Annotated Fig. 2 of Ueda:
PNG
media_image2.png
294
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Ueda teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22. Ueda further teaches in the machine translation of [0035] that various methods are possible for fixing the cell stack 12 (which [0014] teaches as including battery stack 14 and a pair of end plates/wedges 16) in a desired inserted position, including also screwing or welding as suitable alternative methods for fixing the cell stack ([0038]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the arts at the time the invention was filed to have recognized welding of each of the first and second wedges to the sheet metal enclosure structure as a suitable option for fixing the cell stack to the sheet metal enclosure structure.
Regarding claim 28, Ueda teaches the traction battery pack of claim 22, and Ueda teaches in paragraph [0035] that once a desired restraining load is applied to the battery stack, the battery stack 12, made up of battery assembly (cell stack) 14 and a pair of end plates (wedges) 16 ([0020] lines 3-4), is fixed. Thus, the first and second wedges 16 are rigidly affixed to the sheet metal enclosure structure such that the wedge does not adjust position relative to the sheet metal enclosure structure to apply compression (the wedge-applied compression was previously taught in addressing the limitations of claim 22).
Regarding claim 29, Ueda teaches a traction battery pack assembly comprising:
(Machine translation of [0002] teaches lithium ion batteries of the invention for use in driving electric vehicle, multiple battery cells and separators can be stacked together into a battery stack; [0013] teaches one or more battery stacks can be in a battery module; a battery module reads on a battery pack assembly and can be utilized as a traction battery pack assembly)
a cell stack including a plurality of battery cells disposed along a cell stack axis between first and second load plates; first and second wedges; and a sheet metal enclosure structure, the cell stack held axially between the first and second wedges within a cell receiving area of the sheet metal enclosure structure,
(Fig. 1 of Ueda shows the battery pack assembly, described in [0014], wherein an annotated version of the figure was included above previously to show battery stack 14 including a plurality of battery cells 18 denoted by the bracketed line and disposed along a cell stack axis between first and second load plates 20. The labeled first and second load plates 20 are considered load plates because they bear loads; for example, [0020] discloses, “the battery stack 12 is an expandable body having a spring constant in the stacking direction because it includes the separators 20 made of resin,” and [0034] teaches the restraint load Ft applied to the battery stack is the product of the deformation amount of the battery stack and the spring constant. Paragraph [0021] and Fig. 2 teach a module case 50 housing the cell stack in housing space 56, i.e., cell-receiving space, is made of a metal such as aluminum, with cover 54 formed by a sheet, therefore the enclosure structure reads on a sheet metal enclosure. Figs. 1-3 and [0027] teach a pair of end plates 16 arranged axially at both ends of the claimed cell stack and which correspond the first and second wedges, also described in paragraph [0031]).
The sheet metal enclosure structure compressing the cell stack along the cell stack axis through the first and second wedges, the first and second wedges immovably fixed to the sheet metal enclosure structure such that the wedge does not adjust position relative to the sheet metal enclosure structure to apply compression.
(Fig. 3, described in [0031] shows compressive force F5 from the sheet metal enclosure structure acting on the cell stack along the cell stack axis through the right-side (second) wedge 16; given the symmetrical positions of the wedges 16 with respect to their position to the battery cells, it is expected that the same compressive force would be exerted from the enclosure structure to the cell stack along the cell stack axis through the left-side (first) wedge 16 as well. Ueda teaches in paragraph [0035] that once a desired restraining (compressive) load is applied to the battery stack, the battery stack 12, made up of battery assembly (cell stack) 14 and a pair of end plates (wedges) 16 ([0020] lines 3-4), is fixed. Thus, the first and second wedges 16 are immovably fixed to the sheet metal enclosure structure such that the wedge does not adjust position relative to the sheet metal enclosure structure to apply compression.)
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al (US 2020/0411819 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meng et al (CN 208596723 U). Further supporting evidence is provided by reference “chamfer,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries.
Regarding claim 2, Seki teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, but does not teach that the sheet metal enclosure structure is stamped.
In the same field of endeavor, Meng teaches an enclosure structure 2 for containing a battery pack for an electric vehicle, wherein the enclosure structure 2 can be made of stamped steel plate and that it has the advantage of mass production and stable and reliable quality (Fig 1; Abstract; translation: p4 para 3). Given that steel is a type of metal alloy, Meng’s taught stamped steel plate enclosure reads on the limitations of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Seki’s traction battery pack assembly to use a stamped steel plate as taught by Meng for the benefits of ease in mass production.
Regarding claim 8, Seki teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, but does not teach that the sheet metal enclosure structure is stamped.
In the same field of endeavor, Meng teaches an enclosure structure 2 for containing a battery pack for an electric vehicle, wherein the enclosure structure 2 can be made of stamped steel plate and that it has the advantage of mass production and stable and reliable quality (Fig 1; Abstract; translation: p4 para 3). Given that steel is a type of metal alloy, Meng’s taught stamped steel plate enclosure reads on the limitations of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Seki’s traction battery pack assembly to use a stamped steel plate as taught by Meng for the benefits of ease in mass production.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 22, 24-26, 28-29, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (JP 2020095895 A) in view of Meng et al (CN 208596723 U). Further supporting evidence is provided by reference “chamfer,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries.
Regarding claim 1, Yamanaka teaches a traction battery pack assembly, comprising: a cell stack disposed along a cell stack axis;
(Fig. 1 shows a plurality of secondary batteries 10 that form the cell stack along a horizontal axis that is the axis along which the cells are stacked; i.e., a cell stack axis; machine translation of [0011] describes Fig. 1. Yamanaka teaches in [0007] the battery pack can be used in a vehicle, which indicates it can be utilized as a traction battery pack assembly)
an enclosure that holds the cell stack within a cell-receiving area and compresses the cell stack along the cell stack axis; and at least one load plate of the cell stack, the at least one load plate having a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area.
(Fig. 1 and [0014] teach an enclosure 30 that holds the cell stack within a cell-receiving area and [0019] describes inserting or press-fitting second plate element 22 between the first plate element 21 and the side wall 34 of the enclosure, which would be expected to result in a compressive load on the cell stack from the enclosure along the cell stack axis.
Fig. 1 and [0018] teach two load plates 21 on either side of the battery stack, and the figure shows that the hypotenuse incline of the load plate 21 has a chamfered leading edge because it reads on a cut made along a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°, as defined by evidentiary reference Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries in “chamfer.” [0019] discloses that after the plurality of secondary batteries 10 and the load plate 21 are placed inside the battery enclosure structure 30, the second plate element 22 is inserted or press-fitted between the load plate 21 and the side wall 34, thereby teaching load plate 21 guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area.
Specifically, the coordinated function of the first plate elements (i.e., load plates) 21 and the second plate elements 22 directs the cell stack into a press-fitted position that fixes the cell stack into its cell-receiving area in the battery case ([0019], [0020]), or in other words, as it is received within the cell-receiving area. Examination of Fig. 1 of Yamanaka’s press-fitted structure indicates that the chamfered leading edge of at least one load plate 21 is configured to contact the wedge 22 as the cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area, thereby the combination reads upon the limitation of the at least one load plate as claimed.
Yamanaka does not teach the enclosure structure is made of metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Meng teaches an enclosure structure 2 for containing a battery pack for an electric vehicle, wherein the enclosure structure 2 can be made of stamped steel plate and that it has the advantage of mass production and stable and reliable quality (Fig 1; Abstract; translation: p4 para 3). Given that steel is a type of metal alloy, Meng’s taught stamped steel plate enclosure reads on the limitations of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yamanaka’s traction battery pack assembly to use a stamped steel plate as taught by Meng for the benefits of ease in mass production.
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and as pointed out previously in addressing claim 1, Meng of the combination teaches that the enclosure structure is a stamped sheet metal enclosure structure (Fig 1; Abstract; translation: p4 para 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and Yamanaka teaches in Figure 1 and [0014] the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the sheet metal enclosure structure has a shape that opens upward. Therefore, it is structurally equivalent to a tray and is an enclosure tray.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and Yamanaka teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one load plate includes a first load plate at a first axial end of the cell stack and a second load plate at an opposite second axial end of the cell stack (as previously pointed out in addressing claim 1, Fig. 1 and [0018] teach two load plates 21 on either side of the battery stack in the direction of the cell stacking axis.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and Yamanaka further teaches wherein the sheet metal enclosure structure circumferentially surrounds the cell stack (Yamanaka describes in [0002] that the outer surface of each end plate, which faces the inner surface of the module case, is formed in a shape that conforms to the inner surface, and also discloses the battery stack is press-fitted into the lower case, which suggests that the enclosure structure circumferentially surrounds the cell stack).
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and given that steel is a type of metal alloy, Meng’s taught stamped steel plate enclosure of the prior art combination reads on the limitations of the claim (Fig 1; Abstract; translation: p4 para 3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and Yamanaka further teaches (Fig. 1) a wedge 22 disposed between a wall of the sheet metal enclosure structure 30 and the cell stack made of battery cells 10. Also shown in Fig. 1 and taught in [0019], the chamfered leading edge of the load plate 21 is configured to contact the wedge 22 as the cell stack is received within the cell-receiving area.
Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 1, and Yamanaka further teaches wherein the cell stack is a first cell stack, and the traction battery pack assembly further comprises at least one second cell stack held within the cell-receiving area of the sheet metal enclosure structure and compressed along a respective cell stack axis (Fig. 1 of Yamanaka shows the cell stack is a plurality of cells 10. The first cell stack can be half of the cell stack, i.e., the stack of cells starting from the cell to the right of left-side load plate 21 until the center cell, and the second cell stack would then be the remaining half of the cell stack, that is, the stack of cells starting from the cell immediately to the right of the center cell until the cell to the left of right-side load plate 21. The first and second cell stacks are stacked along the same axis as the cell stack and therefore are compressed along the cell axis of the cell stack, which also corresponds to each one’s cell stack axis).
Regarding claim 22, Yamanaka teaches a traction battery pack assembly, comprising:
A cell stack including a plurality of battery cells 10 disposed along a cell stack axis between first and second load plates (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of secondary batteries 10 that form the cell stack along a horizontal axis that is the axis along which the cells are stacked, i.e., a cell stack axis, and shows first plate elements 21 to the left and the right of the batteries and which correspond to the first and second load plates, as described in [0018]-[0019]. Machine translation of [0011] describes Fig. 1. Yamanaka teaches in [0007] the battery pack can be used in a vehicle, which indicates it can be utilized as a traction battery pack assembly.)
An enclosure structure; and first and second wedges that are fixed in position within a cell-receiving area of the enclosure structure; and
(Fig. 1 shows second plate elements 22 to the left and right of the batteries and which correspond to first and second wedges. [0019] describes “the second plate element 22 is inserted or press-fitted between the first plate element 21 and the side wall 34,” thereby acting as a wedge.
Yamanaka teaches in [0007], [0020], and Fig. 1 “the stack is effectively prevented from separating from the battery case” once the plurality of secondary batteries 10, and the first plate elements 21 and the second plate elements (wedges) 22 are placed inside a cell-receiving area of an enclosure structure, thereby corresponding to first and second wedges that are fixed in position within a cell-receiving area of the enclosure structure.),
The cell stack is held axially between the first and second wedges within a cell receiving area of the enclosure structure, the enclosure structure compressing the cell stack along the cell stack axis through the first and second wedges, the first and second wedges each having an inner side interfacing directly with the cell stack and an outer side interfacing directly with a side wall of the enclosure structure.
(Fig. 1 and [0014] teach an enclosure structure 30 that holds the cell stack within a cell-receiving area and [0019] describes inserting or press-fitting second plate element 22 between the first plate element 21 and the side wall 34 of the enclosure, which would be expected to result in a compressive load on the cell stack from the enclosure along the cell stack axis through the second plate elements 22 acting as the first and second wedges. Fig. 1 also shows that the cell stack is held axially between the first and second wedges 22 within the cell-receiving area of the enclosure structure. As indicated in Fig. 1, the first and second wedges 22 have an inner side interfacing directly with the stack of battery cells 10, that is, the cell stack, and also an outer side interfacing directly with a side wall 34S of the enclosure structure, as taught in [0016].)
Regarding the limitation “wherein the first and second wedges are positioned within the cell-receiving area prior to installation of the cell stack, and wherein the cell stack, together with the first and second load plates, is subsequently received into the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges,” the cited prior art of Yamanaka teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Therefore, the limitation “the first and second wedges are positioned within the cell-receiving area prior to installation of the cell stack, and wherein the cell stack, together with the first and second load plates, is subsequently received into the cell-receiving area between the first and second wedges” does not distinguish the claimed assembly from that of Yamanaka.
Yamanaka does not teach the enclosure structure is a sheet metal enclosure structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Meng teaches an enclosure structure 2 for containing a battery pack for an electric vehicle, wherein the enclosure structure 2 can be made of stamped steel plate and that it has the advantage of mass production and stable and reliable quality (Fig 1; Abstract; translation: p4 para 3). Given that steel is a type of metal alloy, Meng’s taught stamped steel plate enclosure reads on the limitations of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yamanaka’s traction battery pack assembly to use a stamped steel plate as taught by Meng for the benefits of ease in mass production.
Regarding claim 24, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22, and Fig. 1 of Yamanaka shows that the inner sides and the outer sides are opposed surfaces of a singular structure.
Regarding claim 25, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 24 but does not teach use of an extrusion process to form the singular structure. Claim 25 is considered a product-by-process claim, wherein the product is the traction battery pack assembly of claim 24 with the claimed first and second wedges. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation, and the generally recited extruded process doesn’t impart a definite structure. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 26, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22. Yamanaka teaches in [0007] and [0020] “the stack is effectively prevented from separating from the battery case” once the plurality of secondary batteries 10, and the first plate elements 21 and the second plate elements (wedges) 22 are placed inside the enclosure. Thus, the first and second wedges 22 are unmoving, and thus, each has a fixed width dimension as claimed, as pointed out in the annotated Fig. 1 below.
Annotated Fig. 1 of Yamanaka, version 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
199
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22, and Yamanaka teaches in [0007] and [0020] “the stack is effectively prevented from separating from the battery case” once the plurality of secondary batteries 10, and the first plate elements 21 and the second plate elements (wedges) 22 are placed inside the enclosure. Therefore, the first and second wedges 22 are immovable, or rigidly affixed, to the enclosure structure such that the wedges press-fitted as described in paragraph [0019] do not adjust position relative to the enclosure structure to apply compression. Within the combination, Meng teaches the enclosure can be a sheet metal enclosure structure, as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 22. Accordingly, the combination teaches the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 29, Yamanaka teaches a traction battery pack assembly, comprising:
A cell stack including a plurality of battery cells 10 disposed along a cell stack axis between first and second load plates (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of secondary batteries 10 that form the cell stack along a horizontal axis that is the axis along which the cells are stacked, i.e., a cell stack axis, and shows first plate elements 21 to the left and the right of the batteries and which correspond to the first and second load plates, as described in [0018]-[0019]. Machine translation of [0011] describes Fig. 1. Yamanaka teaches in [0007] the battery pack can be used in a vehicle, which indicates it can be utilized as a traction battery pack assembly.)
First and second wedges; and
(Fig. 1 shows second plate elements 22 to the left and right of the batteries and which correspond to first and second wedges. [0019] describes “the second plate element 22 is inserted or press-fitted between the first plate element 21 and the side wall 34,” thereby acting as a wedge.)
An enclosure structure, the cell stack held axially between the first and second wedges within a cell receiving area of the enclosure structure, the enclosure structure compressing the cell stack along the cell stack axis through the first and second wedges, the first and second wedges immovably fixed to the enclosure structure such that the wedge does not adjust position relative to the sheet metal enclosure structure to apply compression.
(Fig. 1 and [0014] teach an enclosure structure 30 that holds the cell stack within a cell-receiving area and [0019] describes inserting or press-fitting second plate element 22 between the first plate element 21 and the side wall 34 of the enclosure, which would be expected to result in a compressive load on the cell stack from the enclosure along the cell stack axis through the second plate elements 22 acting as the first and second wedges. Fig. 1 also shows that the cell stack is held axially between the first and second wedges 22 within the cell-receiving area of the enclosure structure.
Yamanaka teaches in [0007] and [0020] “the stack is effectively prevented from separating from the battery case” once the plurality of secondary batteries 10, and the first plate elements 21 and the second plate elements (wedges) 22 are placed inside the enclosure, therefore the first and second wedges are immovably fixed to the enclosure structure such that the wedge does not adjust position relative to the enclosure structure to apply compression.)
Yamanaka does not teach the enclosure structure is a sheet metal enclosure structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Meng teaches an enclosure structure 2 for containing a battery pack for an electric vehicle, wherein the enclosure structure 2 can be made of stamped steel plate and that it has the advantage of mass production and stable and reliable quality (Fig 1; Abstract; translation: p4 para 3). Given that steel is a type of metal alloy, Meng’s taught stamped steel plate enclosure reads on the limitations of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yamanaka’s traction battery pack assembly to use a stamped steel plate as taught by Meng for the benefits of ease in mass production.
Regarding claim 31, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 29, and Yamanaka further teaches the first and second load plates each has a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area. Fig. 1 and [0018] teach two load plates 21 on either side of the battery stack, and the figure shows that the hypotenuse incline of each load plate 21 has a chamfered leading edge because it reads on a cut made along a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°, as defined by evidentiary reference Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries in “chamfer.” Paragraph [0019] discloses that after the plurality of secondary batteries 10 and the load plate 21 are placed inside the battery enclosure structure 30, the second plate element 22 is inserted or press-fitted between the load plate 21 and the side wall 34, thereby teaching load plate 21 guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area.
Specifically, the coordinated function of the first plate elements (i.e., load plates) 21 and the second plate elements 22 directs the cell stack into a press-fitted position that fixes the cell stack into its cell-receiving area in the battery case ([0019], [0020]), or in other words, as it is received within the cell-receiving area. Therefore, the pair, or first and second, load plates 21 each has a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area as claimed.
Regarding claim 32, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22, and Yamanaka further teaches the first and second load plates each has a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area. Fig. 1 and [0018] teach two load plates 21 on either side of the battery stack, and the figure shows that the hypotenuse incline of each load plate 21 has a chamfered leading edge because it reads on a cut made along a corner so that it slopes rather than being at 90°, as defined by evidentiary reference Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries in “chamfer.” Paragraph [0019] discloses that after the plurality of secondary batteries 10 and the load plate 21 are placed inside the battery enclosure structure 30, the second plate element 22 is inserted or press-fitted between the load plate 21 and the side wall 34, thereby teaching load plate 21 guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area.
Specifically, the coordinated function of the first plate elements (i.e., load plates) 21 and the second plate elements 22 directs the cell stack into a press-fitted position that fixes the cell stack into its cell-receiving area in the battery case ([0019], [0020]), or in other words, as it is received within the cell-receiving area. Therefore, the pair, or first and second, load plates 21 each has a chamfered leading edge that guides the cell stack into the cell-receiving area as claimed.
Claims 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (JP 2020095895 A) in view of Meng et al (CN 208596723 U), as applied to claims 22 and 29, and further in view of Ueda (JP 6680145 B2). Further supporting evidence is provided by reference “chamfer,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries.
Regarding claim 27, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 22, but it does not teach wherein the first and the second wedges are each welded to the sheet metal enclosure structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Ueda teaches in the machine translation of [0035] that various methods are possible for fixing the cell stack 12 (which [0014] teaches as including battery stack 14 and a pair of end plates/wedges 16) in a desired inserted position, including mechanical coupling of surfaces 17 of wedges 16 to surfaces 58 of the enclosure structure, and also screwing or welding as suitable alternative methods for fixing the cell stack ([0038]). Thus, Ueda teaches the fixing of the cell stack in a desired position, presumably once it is in the cell-receiving area.
Primary reference Yamanaka discloses in [0005] that an object of their invention is to prevent a secondary battery and end plates from coming off the battery case while suppressing increases in the weight and cost of the battery case, which provides a motivation for fixing the cell stack to the enclosure as taught by Ueda. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to have welded the first and second wedges to the sheet metal enclosure structure of modified Yamanaka once the cell stack is received in its cell-receiving area, given that Ueda teaches welding is a suitable option for fixing the cell stack to the enclosure structure.
Regarding claim 30, the combination above teaches the traction battery pack assembly of claim 29, but it does not teach wherein the first and the second wedges are welded to the sheet metal enclosure structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Ueda teaches in the machine translation of [0035] that various methods are possible for fixing the cell stack 12 (which [0014] teaches as including battery stack 14 and a pair of end plates/wedges 16) in a desired inserted position, including mechanical coupling of surfaces 17 of wedges 16 to surfaces 58 of the enclosure structure, and also screwing or welding as suitable alternative methods for fixing the cell stack ([0038]). Thus, Ueda teaches the fixing of the cell stack in a desired position, presumably once it is in the cell-receiving area.
Primary reference Yamanaka discloses in [0005] that an object of their invention is to prevent a secondary battery and end plates from coming off the battery case while suppressing increases in the weight and cost of the battery case, which provides a motivation for fixing the cell stack to the enclosure as taught by Ueda. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to have welded the first and second wedges to the sheet metal enclosure structure of modified Yamanaka once the cell stack is received in its cell-receiving area, given that Ueda teaches welding is a suitable option for fixing the cell stack to the enclosure structure.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (JP 6680145 B2).
Regarding claim 30, Ueda teaches the traction battery pack of claim 29, and Ueda further teaches in the machine translation of [0035] that various methods are possible for fixing the cell stack 12 (which [0014] teaches as including battery stack 14 and a pair of end plates/wedges 16) in a desired inserted position, including mechanical coupling of surfaces 17 of wedges 16 to surfaces 58 of the enclosure structure, and also screwing or welding as suitable alternative methods for fixing the cell stack ([0038]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the arts at the time the invention was filed to have recognized welding of each of the first and second wedges to the sheet metal enclosure structure as a suitable option for fixing the cell stack to the sheet metal enclosure structure. The first and second wedges 16 both have an inner side directly interfacing with the cell stack, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 of Ueda shown above. Fig. 3 shows an outer side 17 interfacing directly with a side wall 58 of the sheet metal enclosure structure ([0031]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 25 March 2026