DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-05-18, the following has occurred: Claims 1-5 and 8-9 have been amended; Claims 6-7 have been (previously) canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict (US 2017/0214013 to Benedict et al.) in view of Wen (CN 209896117 to Wen et al.) and Li (CN 113113708 to Li et al.), the Office cites to provided machine English translations.
Regarding Claim 1, Benedict teaches:
a battery module comprising a single-cell battery module 18 comprising a plurality of single-cell batteries 56 disposed in a stack with two end plates 62 disposed opposite to each other and disposed at two ends in the stacking direction (¶ 0044-0045, Fig. 2)
the end plates having non-penetrating mounting holes 82 disposed on bottom of the end plates (Fig. 5, ¶ 0059)
PNG
media_image1.png
736
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
566
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a supporting plate 90 disposed at the bottoms of the two end plates and connected thereto through fasteners 80 (¶ 0058-0059)
Benedict does not teach:
reinforcing ribs that extend along the height of the end plate bodies perpendicular to the stacking direction, with the non-penetrating holes extending along the height direction and disposed in and surrounded by the reinforcing ribs
each of the reinforcing ribs disposed between two adjacent holes that extend along a height direction of the end plates
Wen, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery module with end plates, teaches providing through holes that extend vertically through the plate, on either side of reinforcing ribs, substantially the same as the end plates of the instant invention (Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
552
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide vertical ribs and holes extending through the end plates of Benedict, as suggested by Wen, to improve its strength-to-weight ratio. It further would have been obvious to provide the non-penetrating holes of the end plate in Benedict within and surrounded by the ribs of said end plate, since the rib provides greater thickness for securing a fastener, and Wen teaches providing fastening holes disposed within and surrounded by through holes 11 and ribs between the holes. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Benedict also does not teach:
wherein the battery module is part of a battery pack comprising a battery box that houses the battery module, wherein the battery module and the battery box are fixedly connected by bolts passing through a bottom plate of the battery box and the supporting plate and extend into the non-penetrating mounting holes
Li, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack with battery module subcomponents, teaches a battery module/stack that is provided in a battery box or housing, wherein a bottom box plate 1 is fastened to a module cooling plate 4, and both are further fastened to end plate 5 of the module/stack via a bolt (Fig. 3, p. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
500
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cooling module plate like that in taught in Li in the battery pack of Benedict in order to improve stack cooling. It further would have been obvious to fasten the cooling plate to the battery box plate of Benedict through the non-penetrating holes of the end plates via a bolt that penetrates through all three, as taught in Li, with the motivation to secure the component parts to each other, as suggested by Benedict and rendered obvious by Li.
For further evidence of ordinary skill in the art, the Office also points to previously cited Suzuki (WO 2016/199563) and Chen (CN 217239669). Chen, from the same field of invention, regarding battery module end plates, teaches an end plate 100 with reinforcing ribs 50 extending vertically along the end plate, in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction of the battery module, further including connecting holes 16 which are non-penetrating holes that extend vertically into the ribs (Figs. 5-8).
PNG
media_image5.png
684
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Suzuki, also, from the same field of invention, regarding a stacked cell battery module with end plates, teaches end plates with ribs extending the entire height of the end plate body, that are fastened to a supporting bottom plate through the ribs (Fig. 5). Suzuki further teaches a non-penetrating through-hole on the top portion of the end plate for connecting to top plate 5, wherein the through-hole is positioned within and surrounded by a rib of the plate.
PNG
media_image6.png
934
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art of record reveals that a wide variety of webbings, ribs, and through holes were known in the art, and picking and choosing from amongst the various configurations appears to be a matter of ordinary engineering design within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, Benedict teaches:
each of the end plates comprising an end plate body with the mounting holes 82 extending vertically upward from a bottom without penetrating the body (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 3, Benedict teaches:
wherein the mounting holes 82 are less than half of a height of the end plate body (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 4, Benedict teaches:
wherein threads are disposed on an inner wall of the holes, the supporting plate and the two end plates fixedly connected by bolts 80 with threads (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 8, Benedict teaches:
side plates 58 or 72 opposite each other and connected to end plates (via the supporting bottom plate) to form a case for the cell stack (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 9, Benedict teaches:
a cover 66 disposed on a top of the case and covering the module (¶ 0047)
the supporting plate fixedly connected to the battery module (Figs. 2-3_
Benedict does not teach:
the supporting plate being a heat exchange plate
Li, however, teaches a bottom supporting plate 4 that is a heat-exchange plate (pp. 2-4). It would have been obvious to provide a heat-exchanging supporting plate in Benedict with the motivation to better control the temperature.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict (US 2017/0214013 to Benedict et al.) in view Wen (CN 209896117 to Wen et al.) and Li (CN 113113708 to Li et al.) in further view of Suenaga (US 2022/0013852 to Suenaga et al.), the Office cites to provided machine English translations.
Regarding Claim 5, Benedict teaches:
fasteners flush with the bottom surface (Fig. 5)
Benedict does not explicitly teach “countersunk head” bolts, which are interpreted to require tapered heads as was conventional in the art, though it does teach flush fastener heads. Suenaga, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack with side plates and end plates forming an enclosure for a battery cell stack, teaches use of countersunk head screws (¶ 0046). Countersunk head screws and/or bolts and/or fasteners were otherwise known in the fastening arts, offering predictable advantages and tradeoffs. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use countersunk head bolts, as claimed, since they were known substitutable equivalents for the fasteners shown in Benedict, and which are referred to generically in the disclosure as “fasteners.”
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-05-18 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the instant amendments, the rejections have been modified to rely on Wen and Li, which teach and/or render obvious the claimed ribs/holes and battery box.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights