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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claim 11, in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/9/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/26/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference (i.e. the two non-patent literatures) listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al (US 2020/0411819) in view of Yasuo et al (JP No. 11097054, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 1, Seki discloses a battery pack (Abstract), wherein figs. 3A-B depicts the battery pack [11] comprises: a battery cells [14] and a “cell compression means” (i.e. claimed “surface pressure maintaining part”) [17] that is disposed between surfaces of adjacent batter cells [14] of the battery cells [14] and applies a surface pressure to the adjacent battery cells [14] (para 0045-0048). Figs. 3A-B further depict the surface pressure maintaining part [17] includes: a pair of “end plates” (i.e. claimed “inclination members”) [20] arranged between the adjacent battery cells [14] , the inclination members [20] moving in a “stacking direction” (i.e. claimed “horizontal direction”) (also shown as gray shaded arrows), and have spaces formed therein between each other (para 0045-0048); and a “wedge member” (i.e. claimed “insertion member)” [19] inserted between the pair of inclination members [20] to allow sliding of the inclination members [20], and a hole (i.e. claimed “internal space”) [19a] therein (para 0045-0048). Fig. 3A further depicts the insertion member [19] includes a pair of corners (i.e. claimed “pair of lateral protrusion members”) extending outward from side surfaces of the insertion member [19] , wherein the lateral protrusions are fully capable of being brough into thermal or physical contact with upper-facing surfaces of the inclination members [20] when the insertion member [19] is inserted between the pair of inclination members [20]. The cropped figure below of Seki’s fig. 3A serves to clarify the internal space and lateral protrusions.
PNG
media_image1.png
403
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Seki is limited in that the surface pressure maintaining part [17] comprising a sliding portion that includes a support bar extending in a horizontal direction between the pair of inclination members [20] is not suggested.
Yasuo teaches in each figs. 6-7 variations of a fastening structure (i.e. surface pressure maintaining part) for fastening a “number of plate-shaped members [10] [that] are stacked” for batteries (para 0001 and 0012), similar to the battery cells [14] being stacked of Seki; Yasuo also depicts in each of figs. 6-7 the plate-shaped members [10] are pressed together via “pressing plate” [4] (or plural pressing plates [4] of fig. 6) to fasten (para 0006), also similar to each inclination member [20] of Seki that presses the battery cells [14] together. Yasuo further depicts in figs. 6-7 and 9 a sliding portion [30],[31],[90] disposed below and connecting a lower region of one or more pressing plates [4], wherein the sliding portion [30],[31],[90] includes: a “tie rod” [30] and “fastening member” [31] (e.g. claimed ”support bar” [30],[31]) extending in a horizontal direction below all of the plate-shaped members [10] (para 0006); and an “elastic member” [90] disposed concentrically around the support bar [30],[31] (para 0002, 0006, and 0016), wherein the sliding portion [30],[31],[90] is capable of supporting or guiding the one or more pressing plates [4] to slide in the horizontal direction while preventing the one or more pressing plates [4] from being separated from a predetermined horizontal path (para 0006-0009 and 0014-0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the sliding portion [30],[31],[90] of Yasuo below the pair of inclination members (i.e. pressing plates) [20] of the surface pressure maintaining part [17] of Seki to gain the advantage (or yield the predictable result) of fastening stacked battery cells [14].
With respect to claim 2, modified Seki further depicts in figs. 3A-B each of the inclination members [20] has: a “cell stack-supporting surface” (i.e. claimed “first surface”) [20b] in surface contact with a corresponding contact surface of one of the adjacent battery cells [14] (para 0047), and an “abutment face” (i.e. claimed “second surface”) [19b] in surface contact with the insertion member [19] (para 0047), wherein the second surface [19b] has an inclination portion having an area reduced toward a lower side (fig. 3A)
With respect to claim 8, Yasuo further depicts in fig. 9 the support bar [30],[31] formed as a pair of cylindrical members comprising an inner member (i.e. the tie rod) [30] inserted into an outer member (i.e. the fastening member or “nut”) [31] (para 0002 and 0006).
Claims 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al (US 2020/0411819) and Yasuo et al (JP No. 11097054, machine translation cited below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rhein et al (US 10,573,938).
With respect to claims 3-4 and 10, the combination of references Seki and Yasuo is cited as discussed for claim 1. Seki figs. 3A-B depict a “battery case” [12] and “battery cover” [13] (e.g. claimed “module case”) [12],[13] containing the battery cells [14] (para 0048), wherein fig. 3A depicts a height of the surface pressure maintaining part [17] in a vertical direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction is lower than a height of the module case [12],[13] when the insertion member [19] is inserted between the inclination members [20].
However the combination of references is limited in that the module case [12] of Seki comprising buffer protrusions disposed around the module case [12] is not specifically suggested.
Rhein teaches in fig. 1-2 a battery pack comprising plural battery cells [102] and a “cover assembly” (i.e. claimed “module case”) [104] comprising temperature monitoring assemblies (i.e. claimed “sensor units”) [158] spaced along an entire surface (e.g. disposed around) of the module case [104] (Abstract; col. 5, lines 11-27); figs. 5 and 7 show each of the temperature monitoring assemblies [158] as including a buffer protrusion with a hollow therein that are “compressible and/or deflectable” (e.g. pressed or unpressed) from engagement with at least one of the battery cells [102] based on a temperature (and thus also pressure) of a volume of the at least one battery cell [102] (col. 6, lines 9-63). The temperature monitoring assemblies [158] are connected to a computer or processor to provide detected information of “temperature, pressure, voltage, and the like” to a user (col. 4, lines 4-23). Rhein cites the advantage of the temperature monitoring assemblies as reducing risk of damage to associated electrical cables (col. 1, lines 53-67; col. 2, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the temperature monitoring assemblies (which each includes a buffer protrusion and hollow therein) of Rhein onto the module case [12] of the combination of references to gain the advantage of reducing risk of damage to associated electrical cables.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al (US 2020/0411819) and Yasuo et al (JP No. 11097054, machine translation cited below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2023/0187759)
With respect to claims 5 and 9, the combination of references Seki and Yasuo is cited as discussed for claim 1. However the combination of references is limited in that while Seki’s figs. 3A-B depicts the inclination members [20] and insertion member [19] as solid or ‘filled’ structures, the inclination members [20] and insertion member [19] having frame portions are not specifically suggested.
Kim teaches a battery pack [1] comprising plural battery units [5] containing plural battery cells [3] (Abstract; para 0049), similar to the battery pack [11] of Seki. Kim further depicts in figs. 10-11 a surface pressure maintaining part comprising a “wedge part” (i.e. insertion member) [47] and an “inclined surface” (i.e. inclination member) [43] for horizontally pressing the battery cells [3] (within battery units [5]) against each other when the insertion member [47] is inserted vertically as shown in fig. 11 (para 0066-0067), also similar to Seki’s fig. 3A. Kim further depicts in figs. 10-11: the inclination member [43] includes a “guide surface” (i.e. claimed “first frame portion”) [51] formed in a bar shape and arranged in a horizontal direction, and the insertion member [47] includes a second frame portion formed in a bar shape and arranged in the horizontal direction (para 0067-0069); figs. 10-11 further show the first frame portion [51] and the second frame portion (of insertion member [47]) respectively support the inclination member [43] and insertion member [47] against pressure (para 0066-0071). Kim cites the advantages of the insertion member [47] pressing vertically downward to press horizontally the inclination member [43] in order to press horizontally the battery units [5] (which includes the battery cells [3]) towards a center (which includes against each other) to provide structural stability and securing surface pressure of the battery cells [3] (para 0061-0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate both the inclination member with the first frame portion and the insertion member with the second frame portion taught by Kim for each inclination member and insertion member of the combination of references to gain the advantages of structural stability and securing surface pressure of the battery cells. In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate both inclination member with the first frame portion and the insertion member with the second frame portion taught by Kim for each inclination member and insertion member of the combination of references to yield the predictable result of pressing the battery cells together.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al (US 2020/0411819) and Yasuo et al (JP No. 11097054, machine translation cited below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Evans (US 4,033,424).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of references Seki and Yasuo is cited as discussed for claim 1. However the combination of references is limited in that each of the inclination members [20] having first fastening protrusions that interlock with second fastening protrusions of the insertion member [19] are not suggested.
Evans teaches a hold-down device for restraining at least one battery (Abstract), wherein figs. 3-4 show a “ratchet mechanism” having a movable “upper clamping member” [62] and “lower clamping member” [52] that contact each other with a “fastener” [66] moving the upper clamping member [62] with respect to the lower clamping member [52] (col. 2, lines 50-68; col. 3, lines 1-12), similar to the insertion member [19] of Seki moved with respect to an inclination member [20] via bolt [18]. Evans’ figs. 3-4 further depict the lower clamping member (i.e. Seki’s inclination member [20]) comprises “teeth” (i.e. claimed “first fastening protrusions”) [54] interlocking with “teeth” [64] (i.e. claimed “second fastening protrusions”) of the movable upper clamping member [62] (i.e. Seki’s insertion member [19]) (col. 2, lines 63-68). Evans cites the advantages of the first and second fastening protrusions [54],[64] as preventing extension or upward movement of the movable upper clamping member [62] in addition to restricting both inadvertent horizontal and vertical movements of the at least one battery (col. 4, lines 24-29 and 40-48; col. 5, lines 46-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate both the first and second fastening protrusions of Evans onto respectively each of the inclination members [20] and insertion member [19] of Seki to gain the advantages (or yield the predictable results) of preventing undesirable upward movement of the insertion member [19] in addition to restricting undesirable vertical and horizontal movements of the insertion member [19], inclination members [20], and battery cells [14] of Seki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 7-12 filed 10/16/2025 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify previously recited “each having a space therein” as “each of the pair of inclination members having a space therein”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify previously recited “in place” as “inserted between the pair of inclination members”.
102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8-12 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Seki and Yasuo being applied in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights