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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Claims 1-9 have been amended.
Claims 11-16 have been newly added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/06/2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This Action has been made final.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 6 August 2025
All the 112(b) rejections from the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All the other rejections from the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation of “wherein the connection part is curved downward”. the connection part being curved “downward”, depends on from which position the curve starts. For example, a curve can be considered as being curved upward from a lower position to an upper position and that same curve can be considered as being curved downward from an upper position to a lower position. Either of said interpretation would read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation of “the reinforcing member is curved upward”. Curving upward can be considered as being curved upward from a lower position to an upper position and that same curve can be considered as being curved downward from an upper position to a lower position. Either of said interpretation would read on the claimed invention.
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 11-14 and 16 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.
Regarding claims 11, 13, 14, and 15, these claims require the limitations of “reinforcing member is L-shaped”, “the connection part forms an L-shaped”, and “the hold down bracket is L-shaped”. However, Applicant’s disclosure does not define what the requirement for an L-shaped is. For example, the original disclosure does not define the angle between the two sides of the elements. Thusly, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear. Therefore, any shapes that resembles an L-shaped would read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 requires the limitation of “the hold down bracket has a side surface part to form a U-shaped cross section”. However, Applicant’s disclosure does not define what the requirement for a U-shaped is. For example, the original disclosure does not define the angle between the side surfaces of the hold down bracket. Thusly, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear. Therefore, any shapes that resembles a U-shaped would read on the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0215895 A1 in view of Meng et al., CN 208873788 U (Cited in IDS, English translation attached for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a battery pack (Fig.8 and Fig.10) comprising:
At least one battery module (52 and 54; Fig.8) including a plurality of battery cells (51) [0047];
A pack frame (30; Fig.8) for housing the at least one battery module (52 and 54) [0033];
A hold down bracket (58; Fig.8) for fixing the at least one battery module to the pack frame (30) [0062], wherein the hold down bracket comprises:
A first fastening part (see annotated drawing below) fastened to the at least one battery module (54);
A second fastening part (see annotated drawing below) fastened to the pack frame;
A connection part for connecting the first fastening part to the second fastening part (see annotated drawing below);
Wherein the hold down bracket has a first surface facing the at least one batter module (52 and 54) and a second surface opposite the first surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tanaka does not specifically teach a reinforcing member coupled to the connection part, and wherein the reinforcing member is on the second surface of the hold down bracket.
However, Meng teaches a battery module (1), a pack frame (2), a hold down bracket (3) for fixing the at least one battery module to the pack frame, wherein the hold down bracket comprises a first fastening part fastened to the at least one battery module (1), a second fastening part fastened to the pack frame (2); a connection part for connecting the first fastening part to the second fastening part, a reinforcing member (4; pre-tightening plate)t (see Fig.1). the hold down bracket has a first surface facing the at least one battery module (1) and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the reinforcing member (4) is on the second surface of the hold down bracket. Meng teaches that utilizing the connection piece (3) along with the pre-tightening plate (4) increases the stability in the battery box of the battery module and makes a simple, firm, and a reliable fixing device that can be produced in batches (abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the pre-tightening plate of Meng, which corresponds to the claimed “reinforcing member”, to the connection part of the bracket (58) of Tanaka, in order to increase the stability in the battery pack and makes a simple, firm, and a reliable fixing device that can be produced in batches as taught by Meng(abstract). Note that modified Tanaka would have the reinforcing member on the second surface of the hold down bracket (58).
Regarding claim 2, the connection part of modified Tanaka (58; Fig.8) is curved downward (from the upper battery module 54 towards the lower battery module 52) and the reinforcing member does not cover the first fastening part of the hold down bracket. See annotated Fig.1 of Meng above, that shows the reinforcing member 4 does not cover the first fastening part of the hold down bracket.
Regarding claim 3, reinforcing member (4) of modified Tanaka is curved upward (see Fig.1 of Meng) from a lower position to an upper position, wherein the reinforcing member 4 does not extend to an end of the second fastening part of the hold down bracket. Note that the second fastening part of the hold down bracket 3 has five ends. The reinforcing member 4 does not extend to at least one of the ends. As indicated below, the reinforcing member extends on an upper end of the second fastening part, but does not extend to the front and lateral ends of the second fastening part.
PNG
media_image2.png
476
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Tanaka teaches that a side surface part of the connection and a side surface part of the reinforcing member are weld-joined while overlapping each other (English translation of Meng: Page 4, Example 1).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches that the at least one battery module comprises an upper battery module (54) and a lower battery module (52), and the upper battery module is stacked on the lower battery module (see Fig.8 of Tanaka).
Regarding claim 6, the first fastening part of the hold down bracket 58 is fastened to the upper battery module 54.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the connection part of Tanaka comprises a portion which is bent in an upward direction (from the lower battery module 52 towards the upper battery module 54).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka teaches a vehicle, corresponding to the claimed “device” comprising the battery pack (See abstract of Tanaka).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tanaka teaches that the reinforcing member (Meng: 4; Fig.1) is L-shaped.
Regarding claim 13, modified Tanaka teaches that the first fastening part, the second fastenting part and the connection part form an L-shape, and the reinforcing member (Meng: 4;Fig.1) is L-shaped.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka teaches that the hold down bracket 58 is L-shaped.
Regarding claim 15, modified Tanaka teaches that the reinforcing member (Meng: 4; Fig.1) directly contacts the connection part and is spaced apart from a top end of the first fastening member and a bottom end of the second fastening part.
PNG
media_image3.png
479
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the hold down bracket 58 of Tanaka is L-shaped (Fig.8).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0215895 A1 in view of Meng et al., CN 208873788 U (Cited in IDS, English translation attached for citations) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugawara, U.S. Publication No. 2017/0237053 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Tanaka teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not specifically teach a width of the first fastening part is wider than a width of the second fastening part (as required by claim 8), wherein the connection part becomes narrower in width as it goes from the first fastening part towards the second fastening (as required by claim 9).
However, Sugawara teaches brackets (30A and 30B) which is used to fasten a battery case to a battery pack [0038]. As indicated in Fig.11, the brackets have a wider first fastening part than the second fastening part, wherein the connection part becomes narrower in width as it goes from the fastening part towards the second fastening part.
PNG
media_image4.png
626
806
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the bracket of Sugawara for the bracket of modified Tanaka, because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, Part B).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0215895 A1 in view of Meng et al., CN 208873788 U (Cited in IDS, English translation attached for citations) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Conrardy et al., U.S. Publication No. 2007/0278915 A1.
Regarding claim 12, modified Tanaka teaches that the hold down bracket (58) has a side surface part to form a U-shaped cross section (see figure below) and the side surface part of the reinforcing member and the side surface part of the hold down bracket contact each other.
PNG
media_image5.png
432
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Tanaka does not specifically teach that the reinforcing member has a side surface part to form a U-shaped cross section.
However, Conrardy teaches L-shaped bracket to secure batteries in two dimensions (abstract), wherein the L-shaped bracket has a side surface part to form a U-shaped cross section (see Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of a side surface part of the L-shaped reinforcing member of modified Tanaka to form a U-shaped Cross section, because changing the shape of a side surface part of the reinforcing member would be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed side surface is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/06/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Tanaka in view of Nagano have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tanaka and Meng as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NIKI BAKHTIARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6 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.
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.
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights