DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-07-01, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 2 and 6-11 have been canceled; Claims 12-20 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 12-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-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.
Response to Arguments
The amendments filed 2026-07-01 included new limitations in amended claim 1. Upon further search and review, all the claims are rejected over new art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2021/0170853 to Schmidt et al.) in view of Alwan (US Patent No. 9,493,190 to Alwan et al.)
Regarding Claim 1, Schmidt teaches:
a battery pack frame (abstract) comprising a plurality of cross members, including “front” and “rear” cross members (Fig. 1) with a pair of side members 3 with vertical extensions 9 extending between the front cross member and the rear cross member (¶ 0058-0061)
each of the side cross member having a pair of side walls, a top wall, and a bottom wall defining a cavity into which a reinforcing insert 4 is disposed within the cavity which has a plurality of ridges and a plurality of valleys (Fig. 2, ¶ 0060-0064)
a plurality of extension member extending between each of the plurality of ridges and the plurality of valleys, i.e. the intervening portion of the corrugated wave between the crests and the troughs (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
952
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
a plurality of flanges positioned along each of the plurality of extension members that are coupled to the sidewalls for securing the reinforcing insert within the cavity
Alwan, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a reinforcement for a hollow elongate frame member, teaches providing flanges, like 42 on the extending portions between crests and troughs of an undulating reinforcement member within the frame member to improve fixing of the reinforcement member within the frame (Figs. 3A-3B, columns 2-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such flanges on the corrugated reinforcing members of Schmidt, with the motivation to improve the structural integrity as suggested by Alwan.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2021/0170853 to Schmidt et al.) in view of Burke (US Patent No. 5,080,950), in further view of Nishimura (US 2015/0357606 to Nishimura et al.), with reference to Hu (CN 103730616 to Hu et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 12, Schmidt teaches:
a battery pack frame (abstract) comprising a plurality of cross members, including “front” and “rear” cross members (Fig. 1) with a pair of side members 3 with vertical extensions 9 extending between the front cross member and the rear cross member (¶ 0058-0061)
each of the side cross member having a pair of side walls, a top wall, and a bottom wall defining a cavity into which a reinforcing insert 4 is disposed within the cavity which has a plurality of ridges and a plurality of valleys (Fig. 2, ¶ 0060-0064)
a plurality of reinforcing inserts disposed within the cavity, including upper and lower inserts (Fig. 2)
Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
first, second and third foam materials disposed above the upper reinforcing insert, in between the inserts, and below the lower reinforcing insert
Burke, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a reinforced frame member, teaches an outer frame structure, with a plurality of reinforcing inserts 16/18 inside the hollow body, and three foam materials 14/20/22, above, between, and below the reinforcing inserts as claimed (column 6 line 44 through column 7 line 23).
PNG
media_image3.png
411
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nishimura, also from the same field of invention, teaches providing a foam reinforcing filling in the side wall of a battery housing having a hollow frame (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
660
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Hu, also from the same field of invention, regarding a side all of a battery housing with a wavy, corrugated, reinforcing inner portion 123, teaches providing a filler in the corrugated spacing for improving fire resistance and shock resistance (Fig. 5, p. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
334
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide three foam filling materials in the side walls of Schmidt, between the reinforcing members, with the motivation to improve shock resistance and the like, as suggested by Hu and Nishimura.
Regarding Claim 16, Schmidt teaches:
a battery pack frame (abstract) comprising a plurality of cross members, including “front” and “rear” cross members (Fig. 1) with a pair of side members 3 with vertical extensions 9 extending between the front cross member and the rear cross member (¶ 0058-0061)
each of the side cross member having a pair of side walls, a top wall, and a bottom wall defining a cavity into which a reinforcing insert 4 is disposed within the cavity which has a plurality of ridges and a plurality of valleys (Fig. 2, ¶ 0060-0064)
a plurality of reinforcing inserts disposed within the cavity, including upper and lower inserts (Fig. 2)
Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
first, second and third foam materials, the first disposed between the plurality of ridges and the upper wall of the hollow body of the cross member, the second foam material disposed between the ridges and valleys, and the third between the valleys and the bottom wall of the hollow body of the cross member
Burke, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a reinforced frame member, teaches an outer frame structure, with a plurality of reinforcing inserts 16/18 inside the hollow body, and three foam materials 14/20/22, above, between, and below the reinforcing inserts as claimed (column 6 line 44 through column 7 line 23). Nishimura, also from the same field of invention, teaches providing a foam reinforcing filling in the side wall of a battery housing having a hollow frame (Fig. 2). Similarly, Hu, also from the same field of invention, regarding a side all of a battery housing with a wavy, corrugated, reinforcing inner portion 123, teaches providing a filler in the corrugated spacing for improving fire resistance and shock resistance (Fig. 5, p. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide three foam filling materials in the side walls of Schmidt, as claimed, with the motivation to improve shock resistance and the like, as suggested by Hu and Nishimura.
PNG
media_image6.png
401
397
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-5, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, or Schmidt in view of Burke and Nishimura, in further view of Thayer (US 2003/0183466 to Thayer et al.)
Regarding Claims 3-5, 13-15, and 17-19, Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
triangular wave, honeycomb, or semi-circular profiles
Thayer, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a reinforcing insert for a hollow body frame member, teaches wave, triangular, or square profiles (Figs. 4-6).
PNG
media_image7.png
1002
626
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Schmidt teaches “wavy or meandering cross-sectional shapes” (¶ 0066). Both semi-circular and triangular profiles were known corrugated patterns in the art. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the shape of the reinforcing insert to any other equally useful shape, such as the instantly claimed shape, as any shape would serve the same purpose, absent evidence of unexpected results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2021/0170853 to Schmidt et al.) in view of Burke (US Patent No. 5,080,950), in further view of Nishimura (US 2015/0357606 to Nishimura et al.) and Roozemond (US 2022/0073728 to Roozemond et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
polyurethane or polyamide foam having a density of 0.1-0.7 g/cm3
Roozemond, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a foam filler, teaches a polymer foam that can comprise polyurethane or polyamide (¶ 0046) at densities of 0.05-0.70, or, more specifically, 0.07-0.30 g/cm3 (¶ 0084). Given that Hu and Nishimura teach generic foams as filler that are suited for energy absorption, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to select conventional space-filling foams known in the art, such as those disclosed in Roozemond. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). The terms “polyamide foam” and “polyurethane foam” are interpreted broadly to include polymer foams that contain amide and urethane monomers, absent a more particular definition.
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
Prosecution Insights