DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/3/2022 has been fully considered. The amendments to claims 11, and 20 filed on 11/26/2025 is entered, no new matter has been added. Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and are a combination of persuasive, and not persuasive. This is a second nonfinal rejection because the rejection of claim 1 is a new rejection, not necessitated by amendment.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to claims 11, and 20 filed on 11/26/2025 is entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and are a combination of persuasive, and not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, applicant persuasively argues that the drawing objections ought to be reconsidered and withdrawn. In particular, applicant specifically explains where the drawings teach the material that was previously objected to as not shown in the drawings. Thus, the drawing objections are withdrawn.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, applicant argues that the previous interpretation of cold plate 147 as the lower wall fails to teach all the limitations of the lower wall particularly because it is not secured to the inner walls of the crossmember portions. This is persuasive, and the previous 102 and 103 rejections to claims 1, 11, and 20 are not maintained.
However, upon reconsideration of Stevens, 128 “floor portion” can be reasonably interpreted as a lower wall which meets the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 as set forth in the anticipation rejections and obviousness rejection below. This reinterpretation affects dependent claims that included the lower wall, and rejections to those dependent claims have been updated to reflect this change.
This is a second nonfinal rejection because the rejection of claim 1 is a new rejection, not necessitated by amendment. While it is still a 102 rejection in view of Stevens, it is a new rejection.
Regarding claims 2-10, and 12-19, applicant argues that these appropriately depend upon claims 1 or 11 and should thus be allowable at least by merit of their dependency. Because claims 1 and 11 are rejected, this argument is not persuasive.
Drawings
Applicant persuasively argues that the drawing objections ought to be reconsidered and withdrawn. In particular, applicant specifically explains where the drawings teach the material that was previously objected to as not shown in the drawings. Thus, the drawing objections are withdrawn.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 11688910 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Stephens teaches a structural assembly for a battery structure of an electric vehicle, the structural assembly comprising:
a first lower wall configured to support a first cell stack (128 “floor portion” taught by figure 9); and
a pair of first cross members spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the electric vehicle, each cross member of the pair of first cross members supporting a respective side of the first cell stack and configured to extend substantially an entire width of the battery structure (136 “cross member portions” taught in at least figure 8),
wherein each cross member of the pair of first cross members comprises an outer wall, an inner wall spaced apart from the outer wall, and connecting members that connect the outer wall to the inner wall, the outer wall, the inner wall, and connecting members cooperate with each other to define an internal cavity (taught by figures 8a and 9), and
wherein the inner walls of the pair of first cross members are secured to the first lower wall to form a unitized structure that houses the first cell stack (taught by figure 9).
Regarding claim 5, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens also teaches further comprising a lid secured to the pair of first cross members by mechanical fasteners and covering the first cell stack (26 “cover” taught by figure and column 8 lines 14-17 “The cover 26 may be attached over the tub component in a manner that is relatively easy to remove and that maintains the sealed battery containment area, such as via bolts or screws or other removable fasteners”).
Regarding claim 6, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens also teaches further comprising a cold plate housed within the unitized structure and disposed between the first cell stack and the lower wall, the cold plate in a heat transfer relationship with the first cell stack (147 “cold plate” taught in figure 9).
Regarding claim 7, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens also teaches wherein the first lower wall is in a heat transfer relationship with the first cell stack (taught by figure 9).
Regarding claim 11, Stevens teaches a battery structure for an electric vehicle, the battery structure comprising:
a battery housing (10 “a vehicle battery tray” taught by figure 3); and
a plurality of modular array structural assemblies disposed within and secured to the battery housing (taught by figures 2, 3, and 8), each array structural assembly configured to house a cell stack (54 “a series of battery cells or plates or pouches” taught in figure 3), each array structural assembly comprising:
a lower wall configured to support the cell stack and in a heat transfer relationship with the cell stack (128 “floor portion” taught by figure 9); and
a pair of cross members spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the electric vehicle and extending in a transverse direction relative to the longitudinal direction of the electric vehicle, each cross member of the pair of cross members supporting a respective side of the cell stack and including an inner wall secured to the lower wall to form a unitized structure (136 “cross member portions” taught in at least figure 8),
wherein one cross member of the pair of cross members of one array structural assembly is adjacent to another cross member of the pair of cross members of another array structural assembly (taught by at least figures 2, 3, and 8).
Regarding claim 12, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens also teaches wherein each cross member comprises an outer wall, an inner wall spaced apart from the outer wall, and connecting members connecting the outer wall and the inner wall to each other (taught by figures 8a and 9).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 11688910 B2) in view of Yaita (US 11801742 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens teaches wherein the inner wall of one cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall and the inner wall of the other cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall (taught by figure 9).
However, Stevens does not teach that the inner wall of one cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall by one or more first mechanical fasteners nor that the first lower wall and the inner wall of the other cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall by one or more second mechanical fasteners.
Yaita teaches wherein the inner wall of one cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall by one or more first mechanical fasteners and the inner wall of the other cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall by one or more second mechanical fasteners (125 “a fastening bolt” taught by figures 3, and 11 and column 11 lines 51-54 “the upper cross member 73 is coupled to the lower cross member 72 and the tray floor 75 by a fastening bolt 125, the upper and lower coupling collar 124, and the fastening nut 129.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cross members of Stevens to have the inner walls be attached to the first lower wall by mechanical fasteners as taught by Yaita, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because mechanical fasteners are easily removable allowing for parts to be more easily maintained or replaced.
Regarding claim 3, Stevens in view of Yaita teaches the structural assembly of claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Stevens also teaches further comprising a pair of intermediate walls (taught by annotated figure 9 attached below), one intermediate wall of the pair of intermediate walls disposed between the one cross member and the first cell stack and secured to the one cross member by the one or more first mechanical fasteners, the other intermediate wall of the pair of intermediate walls disposed between the other cross member and the first cell stack and secured to the other cross member by the one or more second mechanical fasteners (taught by figure 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Stevens in view of Yaita teaches the structural assembly of claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Stevens also teaches wherein the pair of intermediate walls have a thickness that is less than a thickness of the pair of first cross members (taught by figure 9).
Regarding claim 8, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens does not teach wherein the pair of first cross members extend downwardly past the first lower wall.
Yaita teaches wherein the pair of first cross members extend downwardly past the first lower wall (129 “fastening nut” taught as part of 72 “lower cross member” and extending downward of a first lower wall 75 “tray floor” by figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cross members of Stevens to be attached to the first lower wall by fasteners as taught by Yaita, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because mechanical fasteners are easily removable allowing for parts to be more easily maintained or replaced.
Regarding claim 13, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens also teaches wherein one cross member of the pair of cross members is secured to the lower wall and the other cross member of the pair of cross members is secured to the lower wall (taught by figure 9).
However, Stevens does not teach that the inner wall of one cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall by one or more first mechanical fasteners nor that the first lower wall and the inner wall of the other cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall by one or more second mechanical fasteners.
Yaita teaches wherein the inner wall of one cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall by one or more first mechanical fasteners and the inner wall of the other cross member of the pair of first cross members is secured to the first lower wall by one or more second mechanical fasteners (125 “a fastening bolt” taught by figures 3, and 11 and column 11 lines 51-54 “the upper cross member 73 is coupled to the lower cross member 72 and the tray floor 75 by a fastening bolt 125, the upper and lower coupling collar 124, and the fastening nut 129.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cross members of Stevens to have the inner walls be attached to the first lower wall by mechanical fasteners as taught by Yaita, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because mechanical fasteners are easily removable allowing for parts to be more easily maintained or replaced.
Claim(s) 9, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 11688910 B2) in view of Kellner 1 (US 12021254 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens does not teach a first electrical pad partially disposed within and supported by one cross member of the pair of first cross members and a second electrical pad partially disposed within and supported by the other cross member of the pair of first cross members.
Kellner 1 teaches a first electrical pad partially disposed within and supported by one cross member of the pair of first cross members and a second electrical pad partially disposed within and supported by the other cross member of the pair of first cross members (7 “electrical connector” taught in figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the electricity pads of Kellner 1 into the cross members of Stevens, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because Stevens does not teach how to run the electricity from the cell stacks to electric devices throughout the vehicle. Incorporating the electricity pads of Kellner 1 is one method of enabling Stevens to power electric devices with the cell stacks.
Regarding claim 15, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens does not teach a first conductive pad partially disposed within and supported by the one cross member and a second conductive pad partially disposed within and supported by the another cross member.
Kellner 1 teaches a first conductive pad partially disposed within and supported by the one cross member and a second conductive pad partially disposed within and supported by the another cross member (7 “electrical connector” taught in figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the electricity pads of Kellner 1 into the cross members of Stevens, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because Stevens does not teach how to run the electricity from the cell stacks to electric devices throughout the vehicle. Incorporating the electricity pads of Kellner 1 is one method of enabling Stevens to power electric devices with the cell stacks.
Regarding claim 20, Stevens teaches a battery structure for an electric vehicle, the battery structure comprising:
a battery housing (10 “a vehicle battery tray” taught by figure 3); and
a plurality of array structural assemblies disposed within and secured to the battery housing (taught by figures 2, 3, and 8), each array structural assembly configured to house a cell stack (54 “a series of battery cells or plates or pouches” taught in figure 3), each array structural assembly comprising:
a lower wall configured to support the cell stack and in a heat transfer relationship with the cell stack (128 “floor portion” taught by figure 9);
a pair of cross members spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the electric vehicle and extending in a transverse direction relative to the longitudinal direction of the electric vehicle, each cross member of the pair of cross members supporting a respective side of the cell stack and comprising an outer wall, an inner wall, and connecting members connecting the outer wall and the inner wall to each other (136 “cross member portions” taught in at least figure 8), the inner wall of the cross member secured to the lower wall to form a unitized structure (taught by figure 9); and
wherein one cross member of the pair of cross members of one array assembly is adjacent to another cross member of the pair of cross members of another array assembly (taught by at least figures 2, 3, and 8).
Stevens does not teach a first conductive pad partially disposed within and supported by the one cross member of the pair of cross members; and
a second conductive pad partially disposed within and supported by the other cross member of the pair of cross members
Kellner 1 teaches a first conductive pad partially disposed within and supported by the one cross member of the pair of cross members; and
a second conductive pad partially disposed within and supported by the other cross member of the pair of cross members (7 “electrical connector” taught in figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the electricity pads of Kellner 1 into the cross members of Stevens, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because Stevens does not teach how to run the electricity from the cell stacks to electric devices throughout the vehicle. Incorporating the electricity pads of Kellner 1 is one method of enabling Stevens to power electric devices with the cell stacks.
Claim(s) 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 11688910 B2) in view of Kellner 2 (US 12355047 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens also teaches further comprising: a second cell stack (114 “battery module” taught by figures 8a, and 9); and
a pair of second cross members spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the electric vehicle and secured to ends of the second lower wall, each cross member of the pair of second cross members supporting a respective side of the second cell stack and configured to extend substantially an entire width of the battery structure (taught by figure 3),
Stevens does not explicitly teach a second lower wall configured to support the second cell stack and in a heat transfer relationship with the second cell stack.
However, MPEP 2144.04 V. B. indicates that if it is desirable for any reason to separate an integral part, it would be obvious to make the integral part separable for that purpose (see In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349). In this case the first lower wall is an integral part. Separating the first lower wall into at least a second lower wall would be desirable because it would allow different floors to be removed to access and maintain the different cell stacks.
Stevens does not teach wherein one cross member of the pair of second cross members is fluidly connected to one cross member of the pair of first cross members.
Kellner 2 teaches wherein one cross member of the pair of second cross members is fluidly connected to one cross member of the pair of first cross members (10 “coolant inlet openings” taught by figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cross members of Stevens to be fluidly connected as taught in Kellner 2, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Stevens does not teach how to run coolant to the cold plates (47 “cold plates” taught in figure 9). Thus modifying the cross members of Stevens to have fluid connections such as that taught in Kellner 2 would enable coolant to be piped to the cold plates, thus allowing the cell stacks to be cooled.
Regarding claim 14, Stevens teaches the structural assembly of claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Stevens also teaches wherein a fluid conduit connects the one cross member and the another cross member to each other.
Kellner 2 teaches wherein a fluid conduit connects the one cross member and the another cross member to each other (10 “coolant inlet openings” taught by figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cross members of Stevens to be fluidly connected by a fluid conduit as taught in Kellner 2, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Stevens does not teach how to run coolant to the cold plates (47 “cold plates” taught in figure 9). Thus modifying the cross members of Stevens to have a fluid conduit such as that taught in Kellner 2 would enable coolant to be piped to the cold plates, thus allowing the cell stacks to be cooled.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 11688910 B2) in view of Kellner 1 (US 12021254 B2) and in further view of Yaita (US 11801742 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Stevens in view of Kellner 1 teaches the structural assembly of claim 15, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Stevens nor Kellner 1 teach a separate conductive tab having a first portion secured to the first conductive pad and a second portion secured to the second conductive pad
Yaita teaches further comprising a separate conductive tab having a first portion secured to the first conductive pad and a second portion secured to the second conductive pad (63 “auxiliary battery” taught in figure 4 and column 12 lines 27-36 “The upper deck 74 is provided with an auxiliary battery 63 such as a high-voltage junction board and an electronic control unit (controller, ECU). A high-voltage junction box is, for example, an auxiliary device that supplies electricity of the driving battery module 62 to a driving motor (not illustrated). The ECU is, for example, a battery management unit that controls discharge and charge between the driving battery module 62 and the driving motor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the separate conductive tab of Yaita onto the structural assembly of Stevens in view of Kellner 1, so as to connect first and second conductive pads, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because having the conductive pads connected to a separate tab allows control of “discharge and charge between the driving battery module 62 and the driving motor” (Yaita column 12 lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 17, Stevens in view of Kellner 1 and in further view of Yaita teaches the structural assembly of claim 16, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Yaita also teaches wherein the conductive tab is secured to the first and second conductive pads by one or more mechanical fasteners (taught by figures 4 and 10).
Regarding claim 18, Stevens in view of Kellner 1 teaches the structural assembly of claim 15, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Stevens nor Kellner 1 teach a conductive tab integral with the first conductive pad and secured to the second conductive pad.
Yaita teaches a conductive tab connected with the first conductive pad and secured to the second conductive pad.
(63 “auxiliary battery” taught in figure 4 and column 12 lines 27-36 “The upper deck 74 is provided with an auxiliary battery 63 such as a high-voltage junction board and an electronic control unit (controller, ECU). A high-voltage junction box is, for example, an auxiliary device that supplies electricity of the driving battery module 62 to a driving motor (not illustrated). The ECU is, for example, a battery management unit that controls discharge and charge between the driving battery module 62 and the driving motor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the separate conductive tab of Yaita onto the structural assembly of Stevens in view of Kellner 1, so as to connect first and second conductive pads, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because having the conductive pads connected to a separate tab allows control of “discharge and charge between the driving battery module 62 and the driving motor” (Yaita column 12 lines 34-36).
However, neither Stevens, Kellner 1, nor Yaita, teach that the conductive tab is integral with the first conductive pad. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductive tab connected to the first conductive pad as integral, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 19, Stevens in view of Kellner 1 and in further view of Yaita teaches the structural assembly of claim 18, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Stevens, nor Kellner 1, nor Yaita teach wherein the conductive tab is partially disposed within the another cross member.
However FEES teaches the conductive tab is partially disposed within the another cross member (620 “pipe” taught in figure 6 and paragraph 87 “A BJB 615 is mounted onto the battery module mounting area 605 and coupled to battery modules sealed inside the battery module compartments via a pipe 620 that includes an optional optical pathway for infrared (IR) or optical communication, LV wiring (or LV busbars), or a combination thereof”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the separate conductive tab of Stevens in view of Kellner and in further view of Yaita to be partially disposed in the another cross member as taught by FEES, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would provide a pathway out of the structural assembly so as to electrically connect the cell stacks to an electric motor or other electric device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613