DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2026/02/05 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 2026/02/05 the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 6-7 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are pending.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict (US 2017/0214013 to Benedict et al.) in view of Chen (CN 217239669 to Chen et al, the Office cites to provided machine English translation), with reference to Suzuki (WO 2016/199563 to Suzuki et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art.
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
Chen, however, 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_image3.png
242
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
684
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chen further teaches some holes positioned over ribs, extending into the rib/webbing, and “surrounded” by the ribs, within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase, since the holes are positioned within webs of the webbing.
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_image5.png
934
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide webbing for the end plate of Benedict, as suggested by Chen and Suzuki, 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 a rib of said end plate, since the rib provides greater thickness for securing a fastener, and Chen and Suzuki teach similar fastening holes provided in a webbed/ribbed end plate. 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).
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)
Benedict does not teach:
reinforcing ribs that extend the height of the end plate bodies, with the non-penetrating holes disposed in the ribs
Chen and Suzuki, however, teach threaded non-penetrating holes configured in ribs of an end plate. It would have been obvious to use a ribbed end plate, as taught in Chen and Suzuki, with the motivation to substitute a lightweight but strong end plate, in place of the flat plates of Benedict. It further would have been obvious to provide the vertical fastener holes shown in Benedict within the ribs, since the ribs provide the material substrate for supporting such fasteners.
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
Suzuki, however, teaches a bottom supporting plate 7 that is a heat-exchange plate (p. 5). It would have been obvious to provide a heat-exchanging supporting plate in Benedict with the motivation to better control the temperature.
Regarding Claim 10, Benedict teaches:
a battery pack comprising the module (Fig. 2)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict (US 2017/0214013 to Benedict et al.) in view of Chen (CN 217239669 to Chen et al, the Office cites to provided machine English translation), in further view of Suenaga (US 2022/0013852 to Suenaga et al.).
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 2026/02/05 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Applicant argues that Suzuki fails to teach a female screw extending in a rib through the lower plate. Benedict, however, teaches a screw extending through the lower plate, and Suzuki is relied upon only for the ribbing and the possibility of placing screws vertically through a rib. Chen is now additionally cited for teaching a variety of webbing patterns, including non-penetrating connecting holes in ribs for end plates.
Conclusion
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