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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 18/028,083 and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 01/25/2026.
Claims 1-9 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 1 and 3 have been amended. All amendments have been entered. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by STEPHENS (US 2018/0337377 A1).
STEPHENS teaches a battery tray 510 which is taken to be the claimed battery case, and includes support structure 524 and tub component 520 for supporting and containing the battery modules 514 (paragraph 0076). There is included at least a cover 526 attached to the tub and support structure (paragraph 0083 and Figures 21-23). The support structure 524 includes a floor panel 584 (paragraph 0079) which is taken to be the claimed bottom plate. The tub component 520 then includes a wall portion 530 that extend upward from the floor portion of the tub component (paragraph 0077). The wall portion 530 then is taken to be analogous to the claimed side frames and includes an inner and outer sidewalls (see figures 21-22). The support structure 524 including the longitudinal members 550 are taken to be the claimed mounting frame coupled to the outer sidewall of the side frame (see Figures 21-23 and paragraph 0078). The support structure includes cross members 580 (paragraph 0076) which is disposed on the floor panel 584 (paragraph 0079). The cross members are inserted into the side frames, and the end is in contact with the mounting frame by passing through the inner and outer sidewall of the side frame (see Figures 21-22). The cross members include at least the both ends in contact with the mounting material, 550, and pass through inner and outer sidewalls of the side frames, being the wall portions 530 (see Figure 22).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEPHENS (US 2018/0337377 A1) in view of CHEN (US 2021/0020877 A1).
Claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of STEPHENS. STEPHENS teaches the reinforcing material being the cross member 580 that attach at and span laterally between the longitudinal member 550 (paragraph 0076). The cross member 580 includes a body portion that passes between the inner and outer sidewall of the side frame 530 (see Figure 21). However, the cross member 580 does not include a support part extending from an end of the body and in contact with the inner sidewall of the side frame.
CHEN teaches a battery lower casing including a bottom plate and a plurality of fixing and cross beams (abstract). The lower casing 1 includes the fixing beams 11, cross beams 12, supporting bracket 13 and a bottom plate 14 (paragraph 0050). The bracket 13 includes a base plate 131 and limiting portions 132, and are connected to the end portions of the cross beams adjacent to the fixing beam (paragraph 0053). The base plate, the fixing beam, and cross beams may be connected by welding (paragraph 0054).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the supporting bracket of CHEN to connect the cross member to the sidewall of STEPHENS, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
With respect to claim 3. STEPHENS teaches as seen in Figure 21 that the sidewall includes a slit between the inner and outer sidewall 530 through which the end of the body of the cross member passes (see Figure 21).
With respect to claim 4. CHEN teaches welding between the cross beams and the fixing beams 11 (paragraph 0052-0054). Therefore it would be obvious to form the welding portion between the cross member 580 of STEPHENS and the slit of the frame 530, as this is where the supporting bracket is connected.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEPHENS (US 2018/0337377 A1) in view of CHEN (US 2021/0020877 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of DOI (JP 08067151 A).
Claim 5-6 are dependent upon claim 3 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of STEPHENS and CHEN. STEPHENS teaches the beams include ribs on the outer portion (paragraph 0063). These ribs are taken to be the claimed concave groove, and is present in the longitudinal member 550 (see Figures 25-26). STEPHENS does not explicitly teach that the end of the body portion of the beam 580, being the reinforcing material, is seated in the concave groove.
DOI teaches a battery frame which is fasted to a floor member and panel of a vehicle (paragraph 0017). The battery frame includes at least side frames provided with a plurality of insertion holes for a crossbar 8 (paragraph 0018). The cross bar has a flange, and is inserted through an insertion hole of the side frame and fastened and fixed to the opposite end (paragraph 0018).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the insertion holes for the crossbar, being the beams 580 of STEPHENS, to pass through the longitudinal member 550 of STEPHENS as taught by DOI, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results, as both STEPHENS and DOI relate to attaching cross beams to frame members, and then DOI teaches a known method of doing so. The insertion holes of DOI which is modifying STEPHENS would then form the insertion holes in the mounted frame, and the end of the body 580 is taken to pass through to attach using the flange or stopper of DOI. Since the outside of the longitudinal member 550 includes the concave groove, the flange or stopper connecting the cross beam to the outside of the longitudinal member is taken to be seated in the groove.
With respect to claim 7. CHEN then further teaches that the base plate, the fixing beam, and cross beams may be connected by welding (paragraph 0054). Therefore it would have been obvious to form a welding portion between the body and slit of the mounting frame, as this is an application of a known prior art method in order to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEPHENS (US 2018/0337377 A1) in view of MATECKI (US 2018/0050607 A1).
Claim 8 is dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of STEPHENS. However, STEPHENS does not teach the thickness of a plate for the reinforcing material, or the side frame, or the mounting frame.
MATECKI teaches the thick of the metal sheets may vary from 0.5 – 3 millimeters (paragraph 0049).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to adjust the thickness of the plate for the reinforcing material, a plate for the side frame and a plate for the mounting frame as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired strength. Specifically one having ordinary skill in art would recognize that the plate for mounting the battery tray would be the thickest, and that the thickness of cross member should be thicker than the side frame, as the cross members act as support for the battery tray. Then MATECKI teaches that it is known to adjust the thickness of the plate members.
Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of STEPHENS. STEPHENS does not explicitly teach that the side frame has at least one closed cross-section by bending a single plate two or more times and then welding the meeting ends thereof.
MATECKI teaches a battery support structure for a vehicle (abstract). The battery support structure 10 includes side reinforcement member 20 that form side portions of the vehicle battery support structure (paragraph 0039). As seen in Figure 17 the side reinforcement member then may be formed by bending a metal sheet at least two times (paragraph 0046). The side reinforcement members are then welded (paragraph 0048).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the side frame of STEPHENS with that of MATECKI, as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results. Specifically such a structure is taught to be beneficial as they may include an area adapted to absorb and reduce impact forces delivered to exterior portions (MATECKI paragraph 0004).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/034,953 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application ‘953 claims a battery case that includes a case body, cover, and bottom plate, a side frame, a mounting frame, and a reinforcement material passing at least through an inner side wall of the side frame.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed pages 4-7 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 01/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite that both ends of the reinforcing material are in contact with mounting frame by passing through the inner sidewall and outer sidewall of the side frame. On page 6 Applicant argues that STEPHENS does not teach this. Instead Application argues that one end of the cross member 580 penetrates a single wall portion 530 and contacts the longitudinal member 550. Applicant argues that in STEPHENS the wall portion 530 is composed of a single plate and one end of the cross member 580 penetrates the wall portion 530. The argument that the cross member only penetrates one of the equivalent to the inner or outer sidewall is not persuasive. The sidewalls of the side frame are taken to be the wall portion 530, where the cross member penetrates in between at least an inner and outer sidewall portion of the wall portion 530. See also Figure 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HODOYA (US 2012/0009008 A1) – HODOYA teaches a battery frame 10 which includes first frames 11, including a pair of frames 12 (paragraph 0023) . There may be second frames 13 that join to the first frames 11 at end portions via joint portions 14 (paragraph 0024). In the first frame 11 there may be flitting bores 16 which correspond to projecting portions from the joint portion 14 (paragraphs 0025-0027).
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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 JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights