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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species C in the reply filed on 07/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-7 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/14/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2016/0028056, as provided in the IDS filed 11/11/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery pack (Fig. 3, [0048]) including a battery module (300; Fig. 2, [0048]) and a battery pack frame (110, 120, 130, and 140 taken together; Fig. 3, [0049]) on which the battery module (300) is mounted (see Fig. 3), the battery module (300) comprising:
a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells (500) are stacked (Figs. 3 and 8; [0055]);
a module frame accommodating the battery cell stack (360; Figs. 2-3 [0058]);
end plates covering (at least partially) a front side and rear side of the battery cell stack respectively (portion of 360 on front and rear that possess elements 365 and 362, unlabeled on rear portion; Fig. 1) or alternatively, when viewing the exposed main planar portion the battery cell stack of Fig. 3 as “front side” with the “rear side” being the unexposed opposite surface contacting the battery pack frame (510; Figs. 6-8); and
a fastening member (150; Fig. 3) coupling the module frame to the battery pack frame (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses the end plate (either of the two interpretations from the rejection of claim 1) does not comprise a mounting hole for coupling the end plate to the battery pack frame (see Figs. 1 and 3 which do not disclose mounting holes for such claimed purpose).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0028056, as provided in the IDS filed 11/11/2022), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2018/0029493).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses the fastening member (150) comprises at least one strap ([0052]) that surrounds an outer side of the module frame (see Fig. 3) and at least one fastener (screw, 205, with through hole, 115; [0053]) that fastens an end of the at least one strap to the battery pack frame (at, e.g. 110 by way of 115; see Fig. 3).
While Lee does not explicitly disclose that the fastener is at least one welding point, because welds are well-known fastening techniques used alongside and/or instead of screws, bolts, etc., it would have been, obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have routinely substituted or combined known fastening techniques, including welding, in order to arrive at the claimed “at least one welding point” with a reasonable expectation that such would provide a successful fastening of an end of the at least one strap to the battery pack frame.
Additionally, Kobayashi teaches in battery packs (Figs. 4 and 7) welding as an appropriate means of fastening bolts in order to provide appropriate fastening between bolts and a receiving through-hole (e.g. nut, 214 with bolt, 216; [0077-0089]).
Thus, it would have further been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have welded a nut to the frame (e.g. 110), thus having at least one welding point, so to appropriately receive a bolt in order to fasten the at least one strap to the battery pack frame of Lee, as taught by Kobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses the at least one strap comprises a first strap that surrounds a side surface and an upper surface of the module frame (Lee: any one of the 150, Fig. 3) and a second strap (Lee: any other of the 150, Fig. 3) that intersects a length direction of the battery module (see Fig. 3) and surrounds the upper surface of the module frame (see Fig. 3) and the end plate (see at least the alternative interpretation from the rejection of claim 1; 510).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-5pm ET.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 5712727769. 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.
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/16/2026