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 August 6, 2025 has been received and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended to include a second direction in the description of the arrangement of the sub housings however this limitation was first introduced and defined in dependent claim 2. Claim 2 is still dependent on claim 1 and now contains a redundant description of this second direction.
Claim 18 also dependent on claim 1, also defines the second direction again.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by HIRSCHBECK et al., US 2019/0296294 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
546
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
HIRSCHBECK et al. teaches a battery pack housing, comprising a housing body (10), wherein the housing body comprises a plurality of connected sub-housings (30), and at least one reinforcing plate (33) is disposed in at least one of the sub-housings; each of the sub-housings comprises a top plate (34) and a bottom plate (32) arranged opposite to each other in a first direction, the first direction is a height direction of the housing, the at least one reinforcing plate is located between a top plate and a bottom plate, the at least one reinforcing plate is connected to the top plate and the bottom plate, and the at least one reinforcing plate divides an interior of the at least one of the sub-housings into a plurality of accommodating cavities; and a mounting portion is provided on the housing and is configured to be connected and fixed to an external load ([0058]).
HIRSCHBECK et al. further teach a pair of side walls (31) located at the longitudinal edges of the bottom plate ([0046]) which meet the instant limitations for the side beams 31. The submodules and end plates are described extensively in paragraphs [0048] & [0049] and Figure 2. The end plate between the two submodules meets the limitations for the partition plate.
PNG
media_image3.png
196
195
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The connection and sensing unit (35) meet the limitations for the connecting plate. The cooling channels (321) meet the limitations for the same.
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.
Claims 10, 13 -15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRSCHBECK et al., US 2019/0296294 A1 in view of SHIMAMURA et al, US 2006/0040173 A1.
Regarding claim 10, HIRSCHBECK et al. clearly teaches a battery pack comprising several battery modules wherein the battery pack battery submodules. HIRSCHBECK et al. does not teach the dimensions of the cavities that hold the battery modules. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to design the cavities to accommodate the desired size necessary to support the load of the vehicle before the effective filing date of the instant invention. Applicant is reminded of MPEP 2144.04 IV A, specifically Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claims 13-15, HIRSCHBECK et al. is clearly concerned with the safe operation of the battery however HIRSCHBECK et al. does not teach anti-explosive seals as required herein. SHIMAMURA et al. teach a battery module with a casing having one or more tearing valves such as a gas releasing hole for releasing internal pressure and is mounted by a joiner such as an adhesive [0045]. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the gas releasing valves of SHIMAMURA et al. of in the battery pack of HIRSCHBECK et al. at the time the application was filed so that the internal pressure is released when necessary for safe operation. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would apply the valves where necessary to ensure safe operation including on or near any holes. MPEP 2144.04. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRSCHBECK et al., US 2019/0296294 A1 in view of WU, US 2013/0122340 A1.
As described in the rejection of claim 1, HIRSCHBECK et al. clearly teaches a battery pack comprising several battery modules wherein the battery pack comprising cooling channels [0044]. HIRSCHBECK et al. does not teach heat dissipating fin as required herein. However WU teaches a battery pack having multiple battery modules and with a heat dissipation structure (abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the heat dissipating structure of WU in the battery pack of HIRSCHBECK et al. at the time the application was filed so that the heat of the battery modules will be dissipated into the air because of effective ventilation (abstract, [0013]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments over the rejections of HIRSCHBECK et al, US 2019/0296294 A1 are not convincing because the battery module of HIRSCHBECK et al. comprises an array of battery modules meaning the array has sub housings in an X direction and an orthogonal Y direction. The reinforcing plates are located in the Y direction as well.
The 35 USC 102 rejection over TANG et al., CN 111106279 A is withdrawn.
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 BARBARA GILLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM& 2nd Friday 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
BARBARA L GILLIAM
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights