DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on January 2nd, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4-12, 14, and 16 have been amended. Claim 20 is newly added.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Reinshagen, as set forth in the previous Office Action, has been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection over the prior art cited below are set forth.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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.
Claim 1, line 4 recites the limitation “on battery cells.” It is wholly unclear as to whether these battery cells are in reference to the battery cells as defined in line 1 of Claim 1 or are another, completely separate entity. The limitation “on battery cells” also appears in line 7 of Claim 1.
Claim 3, line 2 recites the limitation (with emphasis) “the outer profile element substantially in the center thereof.” The limitation “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “substantially in the center” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is wholly unclear what characteristics are required for the contact between the inner profile element and the outer profile element to be defined as substantially in the center. For example, is there a specific deviation from the midpoint of the center of the outer profile element wherein contact can occur and still be deemed substantially in the center.
Claim 5, line 3 recites the limitation “the modulus of elasticity.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, line 1 recites the limitation “the outer side.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12, line 12 recites the limitation “at least two opposite end plates.” It is wholly unclear as to whether the “at least one end plate” as defined in line 2 of Claim 1, from which Claim 12 depends upon, is included with or excluded from the at least two opposite end plates. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the at least two opposite end plates comprises the at least one end plate as defined in Claim 1 and an opposite end plate.
Claim 12, line 3 recites the limitation “on battery cells.” It is wholly unclear as to whether these battery cells are in reference to the battery cells as defined in line 1 of Claim 11, from which Claim 12 depends upon, or are another, completely separate entity.
Claim 13, line 2 recites the limitation (with emphasis) “two substantially perpendicular side walls.” The limitation “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “substantially perpendicular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is wholly unclear what characteristics are required for the angle between the side walls and the end plates to be defined as substantially perpendicular. For example, is there a specific range in values for the angle between the end plates and the side walls that is deemed substantially perpendicular.
Claim 14, line 7 recites the limitation “on battery cells.” It is wholly unclear as to whether these battery cells are in reference to the battery cells as defined in line 4 of Claim 14 or are another, completely separate entity.
Claim 14, line 8 recites the limitation “at least one battery cell.” It is wholly unclear as to whether this at least one battery cell is in reference to the battery cells as defined in line 4 of Claim 14 or is another, completely separate entity.
Claim 20, line 4 recites the limitation “on battery cells.” It is wholly unclear as to whether these battery cells are in reference to the battery cells as defined in line 1 of Claim 20 or are another, completely separate entity. The limitation “on battery cells” also appears in line 7 of Claim 20.
Further clarification is required.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10-11, and 15-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Prior Art
Deponte US PG Publication 2015/0214570 (“Deponte”)
Hilliard US PG Publication 2008/0085439 (“Hilliard”)
Fees US PG Publication 2018/0108891 (“Fees”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deponte US PG Publication 2015/0214570.
Regarding Claim 20, Deponte discloses a cell housing including at least rigid module frame 15 (corresponding to the instantly claimed housing) for a battery module for receiving battery cells ([0006], [0047], entire disclosure dependent upon), the housing comprising: at least one rigid end plate 17,18 containing an inner profile element (including at least the expanded foam material disposed between the cell housing and the chemicals carrier) and an outer profile element (including at least the peripheral edge of the end plate), wherein the inner profile element is formed and designed such that, within a first deformation path (i.e. just the pressure applied from the inner profile element), the inner profile element provides a first elastic bias on battery cells arranged in the housing (i.e. to maintain the cambered shape), wherein the inner profile element and the outer profile element are formed and designed such that, once the first deformation path is exceeded (i.e. after restraining), the inner profile element interacts with the outer profile element to exert a second elastic bias (i.e. the combination of the force from the inner profile element and the outer profile element) on the battery cells arranged in the housing (Figs. 2A-4B, [0020], [0042]-[0046]), and wherein the outer profile element is formed in one piece in the form of a leaf spring ([0003], [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
1157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 4A and 4B of Deponte
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deponte US PG Publication 2015/0214570 in view of Hilliard US PG Publication 2008/0085439.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Deponte discloses a cell housing including at least rigid module frame 15 (corresponding to the instantly claimed housing) for a battery module for receiving battery cells ([0006], [0047], entire disclosure dependent upon), the housing comprising: at least one rigid end plate 17,18 containing an inner profile element (including at least the expanded foam material disposed between the cell housing and the chemicals carrier) and an outer profile element (including at least the peripheral edge of the end plate), wherein the inner profile element is formed and designed such that, within a first deformation path (i.e. just the pressure applied from the inner profile element), the inner profile element provides a first elastic bias on battery cells arranged in the housing (i.e. to maintain the cambered shape), wherein the inner profile element and the outer profile element are formed and designed such that, once the first deformation path is exceeded (i.e. after restraining), the inner profile element interacts with the outer profile element to exert a second elastic bias (i.e. the combination of the force from the inner profile element and the outer profile element) on the battery cells arranged in the housing (Figs. 2A-4B, [0020], [0042]-[0046]), and at least one battery cells operatively connected to the inner profile element (wherein the expanded foam material is included within the battery cell) ([0013]).
While Deponte discloses wherein the outer profile element of is a metal plate ([0021]), Deponte fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer profile element is a roll-profiled sheet metal plate. However, Hilliard discloses a structure for housing electrolytic devices (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Hilliard teaches that rolled metal sheets are desirable materials for electrolytic devices as the rolled metal sheets can be easily manipulated to have a desired thickness or size ([0145]-[0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the outer profile element of Deponte such that the metal plate is a roll-profiled sheet metal so that the material can be easily manipulated to achieve a desired thickness or size, as taught by Hilliard.
Regarding Claim 2, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element and the outer profile element interact with one another in such a manner that once the first deformation path is exceeded (i.e. after restraining), the inner profile element comes into contact with the outer profile element (Fig. 4B, [0020], [0042]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 2, and Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element comes into contact with the outer profile element substantially in the center thereof (Figs. 4A-4B, [0020], [0042]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 4, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element is made of an expanded foam material ([0013]) and the outer profile element is made of metal ([0021]). Further, Deponte discloses wherein the battery cells have targeted elasticity ([0042]) and the cells can experience a prestressed and a post stressed position corresponding to the step of the restraining principle ([0042]). Based on the differences of these materials and their capabilities, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element has a first modulus of elasticity and the outer profile element has a second modulus of elasticity, wherein the first modulus of elasticity of the inner profile element sets the first elastic bias on the battery cells within the first deformation path (i.e. only applying the curvature of the expanded foam material) and wherein the first modulus of elasticity of the inner profile element, combined with the second modulus of elasticity, sets a second electric bias on the battery cells within a second deformation path (i.e. the combination of both the curvature of the expanded foam material and the pressure from the end plates).
Regarding Claim 5, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein the modulus of elasticity of at least one of the inner profile element and the outer profile element is selected (i) to correspond to a battery module configuration of the battery module to be received in the housing (i.e. selecting a specific material for the inner profile element such that the cambered cells can fit within the housing, [0011]-[0013]) and (ii) to provide a desired elastic bias to be applied to the battery cells by the end plate (Figs. 2A-4B, [0013], [0020]-[0021], [0042]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 7, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein the outer profile element is formed in one piece ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 8, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element is formed in one piece ([0013]-[0014]).
Regarding Claim 10, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein the outer side of the outer profile element is the outer side of the housing as defined by the rigidi module frame 15 (Fig. 5, [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 12, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein at least two end plates 17,18 each comprising an inner profile element and an outer profile element (as defined in Claim 1 above) are provided, and wherein the end plates 17,18 exert an elastic bias (via force) on the battery cells arranged therebetween ([0026], [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 13, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 12, and Deponte discloses wherein the housing has two substantially perpendicular side walls as defined by pull plates 19 with respect to the end plates 17,18 (Figs. 2A-4B, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 16, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 5, and Deponte discloses wherein selecting the modulus of elasticity comprises adapting the material of the inner profile element (which meets the instantly claimed limitation of at least one of: wall thickness of at least one of: the inner profile element and the outer profile element, the material of at least one of: the inner profile element and the outer profile element, and the shape of at least one of: the inner profile element and the outer profile element) ([0011]-[0013], [0042]).
Regarding Claim 17, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 7, and Deponte discloses wherein the outer profile element is formed in the form of a leaf spring ([0003]).
Regarding Claim 18, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 8, and Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element is U-shaped (i.e. outwardly curved so as to achieve a cambered effect) (which meets the instantly claimed limitation of an arcuate structure or a U-shaped structure) ([0011]-[0012]).
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deponte US PG Publication 2015/0214570 in view of Hilliard US PG Publication 2008/0085439.
Regarding Claim 1, Deponte discloses a cell housing including at least rigid module frame 15 (corresponding to the instantly claimed housing) for a battery module for receiving battery cells ([0006], [0047], entire disclosure dependent upon), the housing comprising: at least one rigid end plate 17,18 containing an inner profile element (including at least the spring plates 4’ and pull plates 19) and an outer profile element (including at least the peripheral edge of the end plate), wherein the inner profile element is formed and designed such that, within a first deformation path (i.e. just the pressure applied from the inner profile element), the inner profile element provides a first elastic bias on battery cells arranged in the housing (i.e. to maintain the cambered shape), wherein the inner profile element and the outer profile element are formed and designed such that, once the first deformation path is exceeded (i.e. after restraining), the inner profile element interacts with the outer profile element to exert a second elastic bias (i.e. the combination of the force from the inner profile element and the outer profile element) on the battery cells arranged in the housing (Figs. 2A-4B, [0020], [0042]-[0046]), and at least one battery cells operatively connected to the inner profile element (wherein the expanded foam material is included within the battery cell) ([0013]).
While Deponte discloses wherein the outer profile element of is a metal plate ([0021]), Deponte fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer profile element is a roll-profiled sheet metal plate. However, Hilliard discloses a structure for housing electrolytic devices (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Hilliard teaches that rolled metal sheets are desirable materials for electrolytic devices as the rolled metal sheets can be easily manipulated to have a desired thickness or size ([0145]-[0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the outer profile element of Deponte such that the metal plate is a roll-profiled sheet metal so that the material can be easily manipulated to achieve a desired thickness or size, as taught by Hilliard.
Regarding Claim 6, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element is made of metal ([0003]). Deponte fails to explicitly disclose wherein the inner profile element is a roll-profiled sheet metal plate. However, Hilliard discloses a structure for housing electrolytic devices (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Hilliard teaches that rolled metal sheets are desirable materials for electrolytic devices as the rolled metal sheets can be easily manipulated to have a desired thickness or size ([0145]-[0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the inner profile element of Deponte such that the metal plate is a roll-profiled sheet metal so that the material can be easily manipulated to achieve a desired thickness or size, as taught by Hilliard.
Regarding Claim 9, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein an inner side of the outer profile element is sectionally connected to an outer side of the inner profile element ([0022], [0026], [0040]-[0042]).
Regarding Claim 11, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 1, and Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element and the outer profile element are sectionally connected to one another by welding or screwing (which meets the instantly claimed limitation of fat least one of a material-bonded connection and a force-fit connection) ([0040]-[0042]).
Regarding Claim 19, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed housing according to Claim 9, and Deponte discloses wherein the inner profile element partially encloses the outer profile element after restraining has occurred ([0040]-[0042]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deponte US PG Publication 2015/0214570 in view of Hilliard US PG Publication 2008/0085439, as applied to Claim 14, further in view of Fees US PG Publication 2018/0108891.
Regarding Claim 15, Deponte in view of Hilliard teaches the instantly claimed battery module according to Claim 14. While Deponte discloses wherein the battery cell may be a lithium-ion battery cell ([0009]), Deponte in view of Hilliard fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one battery cell is at least one of a prismatic cell and a pouch cell.
However, Fees discloses a battery module comprising a plurality of lithium ion battery cells ([0040]). Fees teaches wherein prismatic or pouch battery cell arrangements, sometimes referred to as a soft pack, are efficient in terms of battery cell stacking ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of Deponte in view of Hilliard such that the at least one battery cell is either a prismatic or pouch battery cell in order to be efficient in terms of battery cell stacking, as taught by Fees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights