DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 19 are amended.
Claim 4, 5, 13, 18 are cancelled.
Claims 24 and 25 are new.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/19/2025 have been entered.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kossanyi (US 2022/0097341 A1) in view of Berger et al (US 2012/0251863 A1) as evidenced by (https://muxbolts.com/fasteners/bolts/sleeve-bolts/#:~:text=Automotive%20and%20Heavy%20Machinery%3A%20In,suspension%20systems%2C%20and%20drivetrain%20assemblies) and Miloaga et al (US 20210305544 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kossanyi teaches a sandwich panel for use in a vehicle comprising at least a core layer covered on both sides with a fibrous layer to form a sandwich (akin to top belt and bottom belt), both sides being binded to the core material, characterized in that the sandwich panel further comprises at least a resilient slab foam layer (Paragraph 0012; foam material is porous). Kossanyi teaches that the first and second fibrous mat covering both sides of the core structure comprises glass, carbon, basalt or aramid fibers, or any possible mixture with these fibers (Paragraph 0034). This indicates fiber reinforced plastic material used for top and bottom belt per claim.
Kossanyi further teaches that the core layer is made from natural fibers or a natural material like paper or cardboard (Paragraph 0041; porous and fibrous). Kossanyi also teaches that the first and second fibrous layers are stacked in contact with the core layer on both sides, and then performing compression molding process to join the layers (Paragraph 0056-0059). This type of processing shows that the core is joined on its lower surface with a bottom belt and on its upper surface with a top belt.
Kossanyi does not teach that the core is shaped as a base plate having a planar upper and lower surface.
However, Berger teaches that the battery support structure includes a flat surface or floor 12 which implies a planar upper and lower surface (Paragraph 0031). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the core with a planar upper and lower surface in order to provide containment and support for the battery pack (Paragraph 0014).
Kossanyi teaches the presence of other features incorporated in the panel such as mounting appliances, nuts etc (Paragraph 0055), but does not specifically teach that the top and bottom belt are directly joined together in edge areas that laterally protrude over the core in areas of mounting holes in the protecting member.
However, Berger teaches that the cover and support have horizontal flanges with holes (akin to lateral protrusions) that align and are sized to accept mechanical fasteners (Paragraph 0044). The flanges are on the edge of the protecting member/support. The type of mechanical fastener is not limited in Berger. Hence, the fastener can be a sleeve type fastener commonly used in automotives (see evidentiary reference regarding sleeve bolts used in automative applications). Miloaga also provides a battery enclosure where attachment members 116 are configured to secure the outer covers to a bottom panel. The bottom panel may also include attachment members such as threaded inserts, overmolded into the structure of the bottom panel. The attachment member may include a bushing (same as sleeve) integrally connected to the outer covers and through which the screw passes to secure the outer covers, top cover and bottom panel (Paragraph 0048). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide mounting holes along the edge of the panel equipped with a sleeve to achieve proper fastening of battery protective covers.
Regarding Claim 2,
Kossanyi teaches that the core layer is formed using composite materials made of natural fibers and thermoplastic (Paragraph 0068; porous and fibrous naturally grown fiber composite material).
Regarding Claim 3,
Kossanyi does not teach the use of porous and fibrous structural material containing cellulose fibers in lignin matrix. Per instant specification, this includes all sorts of grown wood material found in stem, roots of trees/shrubs/plants.
However, Berger teaches that the core is a light weight material such as balsa wood, which would contain cellulose fibers in lignin matrix. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the core using cellulose fibers in matrix lignin (balsa wood) in order to reduce the weight of the battery enclosure (Paragraph 0033), and in turn reduce overall vehicle mass (Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 6,
Kossanyi teaches that the sandwich panel comprises at least on one surface of the panel raised protrusions in the skin layer formed, like a raised pattern in the form of knobs, waves or embellishments, surface patterning similar to wood or leather graining, stiffening ribs, or beams. Such protrusions are mounted on the core (Claim 13 from Kossanyi).
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 9,
Kossanyi teaches that the surface of the sandwich panel contains embellishments in the form of a raised pattern on the surface of the part with knobs and ribs mainly filled by polyurethane (Paragraph 0078). Kossanyi also teaches the use of material that is made from aramid or natural fibers (Paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 10,
Kossanyi does not teach the top belt with a wave-like shape that has a form-locking fit with the wave-like reinforcement structure of the core.
However, Berger teaches that stiffening features such as ribs are formed by displacing a section of floor 22 and so creating a complementary recess 27 and a contoured undersurface 25’ in floor 22. This forms a wave shape in the top layer of the sandwich panel (Paragraph 0032). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a top belt with a wave-like shape that has a form-locking fit with the wave-like reinforcement structure of the core in order to increase the overall stiffness of the support (Paragraph 0016).
PNG
media_image1.png
340
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11,
Kossanyi does not teach that the beams are arranged parallel to one another or parallel to an edge or arranged in a frame like manner or comprise a cross bar.
However, Berger teaches that the stiffening ribs are similarly oriented or crisscrossed in a grid pattern (Paragraph 0016; akin to a frame like or cross bar pattern). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the beams as claimed in order to increase the overall stiffness of the support and cover of the battery pack (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 14,
Kossanyi does not teach that the top and bottom belt are directly joined together in edge areas that laterally protrude over the core in areas of mounting holes in the protecting member.
However, Berger teaches that the cover and support have horizontal flanges (akin to lateral protrusions) that align with matching holes and are sized to accept fasteners (Paragraph 0044). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such laterally protrusions with mounting holes to achieve proper fastening of battery protective cover.
Regarding Claim 15,
Kossanyi teaches that the surface contains a raised rim at the edge of the molded part (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding Claim 17,
Kossanyi teaches that the thickness of the core layer is preferably variable (Paragraph 0039). In terms of the limitation about the core has a wedge-shaped edge that tapers off, in Figure 3 it is shown that the core has a tapered region as annotated in figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
367
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 has the limitations of Claim 1 with the addition of the protective member defining a substantially planar structure, and the mounting holes are located substantially within the planar structure of the protective member. Refer to rejection of Claim 1 above for other limitations.
Kossanyi does not teach the above limitation. However, Berger teaches that the battery enclosure structure has a cover and support, and both may be shallow, flat-bottomed pans with pan walls which terminate in a flange oriented parallel to the bottom of the pan. The support and cover will typically have a common plan view form, but may also be of significantly different shapes, particularly different depths. This implies that the bottom support can be of negligible depth resulting in a substantially planar structure of the protecting member, and accordingly, the mounting holes on this protective member will be on the substantially planar surface. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protective member as a substantially planar structure, and the mounting holes located substantially within the planar structure. Person of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so, in order for the enclosure to generally mimic the form of the battery pack and provide support (Paragraph 0014). Just as the battery pack may be regular or irregular in plan or of constant or variable height, so may the enclosure and bottom support.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 has the limitations of claim 24 with the addition of the mounting holes protruding through the top belt, bottom belt and the core and equipped with a sleeve.
Kossanyi teaches the presence of other features incorporated in the panel such as mounting appliances, nuts etc (Paragraph 0055), but does not specifically teach that the mounting holes protruding through the top belt, bottom belt and the core and equipped with a sleeve.
However, Berger teaches that the cover and support have horizontal flanges with holes (akin to lateral protrusions) that align and are sized to accept mechanical fasteners (Paragraph 0044). In Figure 7 (annotated below) one can see that the hole protrudes through all the layers of the support and is fastened with a screw and nut. The type of mechanical fastener is not limited in Berger. Hence, the fastener can be a sleeve type fastener commonly used in automotives (see evidentiary reference regarding sleeve bolts used in automative applications). Miloaga also provides a battery enclosure where attachment members 116 are configured to secure the outer covers to a bottom panel. The bottom panel may also include attachment members such as threaded inserts, overmolded into the structure of the bottom panel. The attachment member may include a bushing (same as sleeve) integrally connected to the outer covers and through which the screw passes to secure the outer covers, top cover and bottom panel (Paragraph 0048). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mounting holes protrude through the top belt, the bottom belt and the core to provide proper mounting means and strength.
PNG
media_image3.png
489
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kossanyi in view of Berger as evidenced by (https://muxbolts.com/fasteners/bolts/sleeve-bolts/#:~:text=Automotive%20and%20Heavy%20Machinery%3A%20In,suspension%20systems%2C%20and%20drivetrain%20assemblies) and Miloaga et al, and further in view of Rho et al (US2021027764 A1).
Kossanyi does not teach that the base plate is made of heavier material, and the beam is made of lighter material.
However, Rho teaches that in a sandwich panel, the core material may have density that ranges from about 0.5 g/cm3 to about 1.2 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0055). Both the base plate and beam are considered part of the core assembly. Thus, the base plate could be made of material with higher density from Rho and the beam made from lower density material from Rho. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different density material for base plate and beam.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kossanyi in view of Berger, as evidenced by (https://muxbolts.com/fasteners/bolts/sleeve-bolts/#:~:text=Automotive%20and%20Heavy%20Machinery%3A%20In,suspension%20systems%2C%20and%20drivetrain%20assemblies) and Miloaga et al and further in view of Kim et al (US 20210296728 A1).
Kossanyi teaches that the core thickness is between 2 and 30 mm. This thickness range substantially overlaps the claimed range for core thickness in the instant claim 16. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kossanyi, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Kossanyi does not teach that the top and bottom belt have a thickness of less than 1.5 mm or equal to 1 mm.
However, Kim teaches that the first and second sheet may be made to the thickness of about 0.1 mm to 10 mm. In this range, it is possible to attain the excellent mechanical strength and formability and shock absorbing properties (Paragraph 0532). This thickness range substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 16. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kim, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Kossanyi does not teach the second core thickness of less than 30 mm in an area where a beam is mounted.
However, Berger teaches that rib elevation can be 10 mm or greater (Paragraph 0016). This thickness range substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 16. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Berger, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kossanyi in view of Berger as evidenced by (https://muxbolts.com/fasteners/bolts/sleeve-bolts/#:~:text=Automotive%20and%20Heavy%20Machinery%3A%20In,suspension%20systems%2C%20and%20drivetrain%20assemblies) and Miloaga et al, and further in view of Do-Hyoung et al (US 2021/0296728 A1).
Kossanyi does not teach a bore hole for mounting the protecting member such that it is machined through atleast one beam.
However, Do-Hyoung teaches that the inner frame has fastening holes that couples all the layers of the battery protecting plate (Paragraph 0128). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to machine holes in the beam of the protecting member in order to fasten the top, core and bottom layers.
PNG
media_image4.png
352
579
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kossanyi in view of Berger, Kim, and Do-Hyoung, as evidenced by (https://muxbolts.com/fasteners/bolts/sleeve-bolts/#:~:text=Automotive%20and%20Heavy%20Machinery%3A%20In,suspension%20systems%2C%20and%20drivetrain%20assemblies) and Miloaga et al.
Claims 19-23 provide method steps to make the product of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19 : step a, the core being made of porous and fibrous material has been discussed under Claim 1 rejection based on Kossanyi and Berger. This step does not provide any additional structural element to claim 19.
Steps b, c are about joining the bottom belt and top belt to the core with an adhesive. Kim teaches that the inner frame 100 and the outer frame 400 made of a steel material may be attached to the cooling block 300 made of a fiber-reinforced plastic composite by an adhesive. (Paragraph 0116).
Regarding Claim 20: step d is about machining the core to obtain a desired shape. Berger teaches that a light weight material can be used as core layer and this material can be shaped to desired form using machining (Paragraph 0033).
Step e is about inserting the core in a positive locking manner to form a monolithic cavity free component. Berger teaches different layered arrangements that are cavity free and depict the core inserted between the top and bottom layers (Figure 4 and Figure 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
479
249
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
444
195
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, step d includes 3D milling of the core to form tapered edges. The core has tapered edges as shown in the rejection of Claim 17 based on Kossanyi. The method of machining the core is established in rejection of step d of Claim 20 based on Berger. 3D milling also known as CNC 3D machining is a particular type of machining methodology which is deemed obvious based on teaching in Berger related to the use of machining for shaping the core. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 3D milling to shape the core and taper its edges in order to align to the structure of the battery protective member.
Regarding Claim 22, step f is about including a reinforcement beam that is mounted on the base plate, and that is parallel to the edge of the protecting member. Berger teaches that the ribs can be parallel in a suitable direction, and can be constructed by bonding material to a reinforced polymer layer and support layer (Paragraph 0033). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform step f in order to attach the beam to the base plate of the core to improve structural support for the battery protective member.
Regarding Claim 23, the method comprises machining a hole through the base plate and the beam for mounting the protective member to the battery structure. Do-hyoung teaches that the inner frame has fastening holes that couples all the layers of the battery protecting plate (Paragraph 0128). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to machine holes through the base plate and beam in order to provide a fastening method with the battery structure of the electric vehicle.
References of Interest
Examiner notes the following references of interest as pertinent to the subject matter.
Steiner et al (US 20140287641 A1)
Jerez (US 20170226674 A1)
Bryer et al (US 7913788 B1)
Gundogan et al (US 20210384581 A1)
Dupper et al (US 20200373531 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 8 that Kossanyi teaches sandwich panels for general vehicle applications focusing on aesthetic and structural properties. Examiner disagrees with this argument. Kossanyi provides an invention that can be used as a sandwich panel in vehicles to withstand high bending loads, and pressure and tensile stresses while being a more versatile light weight alternative (Paragraph 0004 and 0010). Also, Kossanyi teaches application as load floor or battery cover (Paragraph 0054).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Luttwak reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on that reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Berger teaches a battery enclosure and support structures that are different from the claimed invention that is to be mounted underneath the battery structure. Examiner disagrees. The bottom support plate of Berger is akin to the protective member of the claimed invention, and the claim rejections in this action are based on that similarity. The above rejection also shows how the bottom support plate is substantially planar based on Berger’s teachings.
Applicant argues that Kim and Rho are not from an analogous field of invention. Examiner asserts that Kim is related to battery protecting plates, and Rho is related to sandwich panels with application in vehicles providing a material with high mechanical strength, high formability and lighter weight. This shows that both references are within the realm of analogous art for the claimed invention. The claimed invention relates to providing an improved protection system for a battery structure of an electric (including hybrid) vehicle, which is comparably light-weight, needs less space in height direction to absorb impact energy, is easy to manufacture and easy to be mounted in the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783