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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 3-8 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 3 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 2 of Claim 3 describes a “bottom part” but nowhere prior to line 3 of Claim 3 is a “bottom surface” recited. It would not be apparent to the skilled artisan if “the bottom surface” of Claim 3 is referring to the “bottom part” of Claim 3 or a different feature altogether. The examiner notes that for purposes of examination, “the bottom surface” will be read as “the bottom part”. Claims 4-8 are also rejected due to their dependency upon Claim 3.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 2 of Claim 9 describes a “bottom part” but nowhere prior to line 3 of Claim 9 is a “bottom surface” recited. It would not be apparent to the skilled artisan if “the bottom surface” of Claim 9 is referring to the “bottom part” of Claim 9 or a different feature altogether. The examiner notes that for purposes of examination, “the bottom surface” will be read as “the bottom part”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brandley et al. (US 2022/0294058 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 07/12/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Brandley discloses a battery pack (composite battery enclosure, 40) comprising: a lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20) on which a plurality of battery modules (batteries, 30) are mounted and an upper pack frame (top composite cover, 10) located in an upper part of the plurality of battery modules (batteries, 30) (Figure 1, [0059-0060]). Brandley further discloses a rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) included in the lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20) (Figures 4 and 5, [0066, 0078]). Brandley further discloses that the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) comprises a reinforcing member (base section core material, 26), and that the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) is formed of a core material which may be a viscoelastic material which has energy absorption properties (Figures 4 and 5, [0067-0068, 0078]), thus the reinforcing member (base section core material, 26) may be considered to include a viscoelastic damper. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2, Brandley further discloses that the at least one reinforcing member (base section core material, 26) is two or more reinforcing members (base section core material, 26) formed inside the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) (see annotated Figure 5 below). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
PNG
media_image1.png
231
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Brandley US 2022/0294058 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Brandley further discloses that the lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20) comprises a bottom part (battery retaining area, 24) on which the plurality of battery modules are mounted (batteries, 30) (Figure 4, [0077]). Brandley further discloses side surface frames (outer cross members, 21, and monolithic fiber sections, 23) along each edge of the bottom surface (battery retaining area, 24) of the lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20), and an inner beam (left-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) that partitions an interior of the lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20) (Figure 4, [0077]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Brandley further discloses that the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) is included in the inner beam (left-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) (Figure 5, [0078]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Brandley further discloses an additional beam (right-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) located in contact with the inner beam (left-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) via the bottom part (battery retaining area, 24) (Figure 4).
The examiner notes that the instant claim does not require that the additional beam (right-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) and the inner beam (left-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) are in direct contact with one another. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Figure 4 of Brandley depicts that the inner beam (left-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) is in direct contact with the monolithic fiber sections (23) of the side surface frames (outer cross members, 21, and monolithic fiber sections, 23) (Figures 4 and 5). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) is included in at least one side surface frame (monolithic fiber sections, 23) of the side surface frames (outer cross members, 21, and monolithic fiber sections, 23) at least in a region wherein the inner beam (left-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) is in direct contact with the monolithic fiber sections (23) (Figure 4). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Brandley further discloses an additional beam (right-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) in contact with one surface of the at least one side surface frame (monolithic fiber sections, 23) (Figure 4). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8, Brandley further discloses that a first surface (see annotated Figure 4 below) of the additional beam (right-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) is in contact with the bottom part (battery retaining area, 24), and a second surface (see annotated Figure 4 below) of the additional beam (right-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) is in contact with the at least one side surface frame (monolithic fiber sections, 23) (Figure 4). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
PNG
media_image2.png
434
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Brandley US 2022/0294058 A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Brandley further discloses that the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) is formed from a core material which possessed open cells in a honeycomb structure (Figure 4, [0068, 0078]), as such the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) may be considered to be formed of a hollow structure. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
Regarding Claim 11, Brandley further discloses that the at least one reinforcing member (base section core material, 26) formed inside the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) (Figures 4 and 5). Brandley further discloses that the at least one reinforcing member (base section core material, 26) may include fastening parts (reinforcement plate, 50) located at both ends of the at least one reinforcing member (base section core material, 26), wherein the fastening parts (reinforcement plate, 50) are in contact with an inner surface (inside surface of base section core material, 26) of the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26) (Figures 5, and 7, [0080]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Regarding Claim 12, Brandley further discloses that the at least one reinforcing member (base section core material, 26) is located vertically (Figure 4).
The examiner notes that terms such as “vertically” as utilized in the claims do not convey any particular structural requirements other than establishing the location of the components of the battery pack relative to one another within the battery pack. The particular orientation of the battery pack does not provide any structural limitations to the battery pack itself. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
Regarding Claim 13, Brandley further discloses that the at least one reinforcing member (base section core material, 26) is located horizontally (Figure 4).
The examiner notes that terms such as “horizontally” as utilized in the claims do not convey any particular structural requirements other than establishing the location of the components of the battery pack relative to one another within the battery pack. The particular orientation of the battery pack does not provide any structural limitations to the battery pack itself. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandley et al. (US 2022/0294058 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 07/12/2024), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2022/0255172 A1).
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Brandley discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Brandley further discloses that the lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20) comprises a bottom part (battery retaining area, 24) on which the plurality of battery modules are mounted (batteries, 30) (Figure 4, [0077]). Brandley further discloses side surface frames (outer cross members, 21, and monolithic fiber sections, 23) along each edge of the bottom surface (battery retaining area, 24) of the lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20), and an inner beam (left-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4) that partitions an interior of the lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20) (Figure 4, [0077]). Brandley further discloses that the inner beam (left-side inner cross member, 22, see Figure 4), which comprises the rigid beam (additional core material, 27, and base section core material, 26), may be formed individually and assembled to the lower pack frame (bottom composite cover, 20) (Figure 4, [0067]).
Brandley is deficient in disclosing that the rigid beam is weld-coupled with at least one of the side surface frames and the inner beam.
Guo discloses a battery pack comprising a lower pack frame (lower box body, 100) and a rigid beam (stiffening beam, 3) (Figure 1, [0074]). Guo further discloses that the lower pack frame (lower box body, 100) includes a side surface frame (box frame, 1) around the perimeter of the lower pack frame (lower box body, 100) (Figure 1, [0066]). Guo further discloses that the rigid beam (stiffening beam, 3) is weld-coupled to the side surface frame (box frame, 1) to ensure a strong bond (Figure 1, [0069]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to attach the inner beam (and thus the rigid beam) to the lower pack frame by welding the inner beam to the side surface frame, as such an attachment configuration is known in the art as suitable and reliable for coupling a beam to a side surface frame in a lower pack frame, as taught by Guo. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon making the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724