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 .
Reopening after Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on August 4, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ULA C. RUDDOCK/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Response to Amendment
In response to the Appeal brief received June 4, 2026:
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-27 are pending.
The previous objection to the drawing of fig. 26 is withdrawn.
The previous 112 rejection is withdrawn.
The previous prior art rejection is withdrawn.
A new prior art rejection is set forth.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the April 9, 2026 after final have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that that the openings claimed be separately illustrated or labeled and cites that para 0052 recites the presence of such openings, and figs. 2-3 show that cross-member beams [38] have tabs extending toward and through the cross-member assemblies.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. No only are the claimed features not shown (as admitted in para 0052), the figures do not clearly depict the tabs in the claimed manner. Claim 24 requires “the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam each include openings for accommodating cell tabs of the plurality of cells” (emphasis added). Although multiple cross beams are shown in fig. 4, no indication of how each cross-beam [38] has openings that accommodate multiple cell tabs of the plurality of cell tabs (plurality claimed). (Rather, it seems that multiple cross-beams form an opening to accommodate tabs.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 16-19, 21-22, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0318082 (Oh et al.) in view of US 2023/0268581 (Rhee et al.).
As to claim 1, Oh et al. teach a traction battery pack (fig. 8; para 0085-0086), comprising:
an enclosure assembly including an enclosure tray (base plate [200]) and an enclosure cover (cover plate [400]) (figs. 1, 2, 6, 8);
a cell stack housed within the enclosure assembly and including a plurality of battery cells [100]; and
a divider fin (cross beam unit [300]) arranged between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the plurality of battery cells,
wherein the divider fin includes an upper fin portion (second flange [350]) directly in contact with the enclosure cover (cover plate [400]) and a lower fin portion (first flange [330]) directly in contact with the enclosure tray (base plate [200[).
Oh et al. do not teach that the upper fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure cover and a lower fin portion secured directly to the enclosure tray.
However, in the same field of endeavor (battery pack with a divider (thermal barrier assembly [1300]) (fig. 4)), Rhee et al. teach of using adhesive members [1410], [1420] to fill the gap between the thermal barrier assembly [1300]) and the upper cover [1130] and the lower cover [1120] (para 0053; fig. 2, 7, 8A, 8B). The motivation for using adhesive members [1410], [1420] to fill the gap between the gap between the thermal barrier assembly [1300]) and the upper cover [1130] and the lower cover [1120] is to compactly fill the gap therebetween and firmly fix the housing and the thermal barrier assembly to each other (para 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) have an adhesive layer between a divider and a cover and a divider and tray (as taught by Rhee et al. and applied to Oh et al., resulting in the upper fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure cover and a lower fin portion secured directly to the enclosure tray, as the combination renders obvious having adhesive between the divider and the cover and the divider and the tray, wherein Oh et al.’s divider has the upper and lower fins) in order to compactly fill any gap between the divider and cover and between the divider and tray, as well as to fix the divider to the housing.
As to claim 2, Oh et al. teach the plurality of battery cells are stacked between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam (fig. 6 shows at least two cross beam members/units [300]).
As to claim 4, Oh et al. teach a mid-fin portion (beam body [310]) extending between the upper fin portion (second flange [350]) and the lower fin portion (first flange [330]), wherein the mid-fin portion is positioned between the first battery cell and the second battery cell (fig. 6).
As to claim 5, Oh et al. teach the upper fin portion (second flange [350]), the lower fin portion (first flange [330]), and the mid-fin portion are formed as a single-piece, unitary structure (figs. 3, 4, 6).
As to claim 6, Oh et al. teach at least one of the upper fin portion (second flange [350]) or the lower fin portion (first flange [350]) extends at a transverse angle relative to the mid-fin portion (beam body [310]) (fig. 3).
As to claim 7, Oh et al. teach the divider fin (cross-beam unit [300]) includes an S-shaped cross-section, a C-shaped cross-section, or an I-shaped cross-section (I-shaped cross-section (elected species 1); fig. 4).
As to claim 9, the combination (Oh et al. in view of Rhee et al.) renders the limitation (the upper fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure cover by a first fastener, and the lower fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure tray by a second fastener) obvious, as the combination renders obvious placing adhesive (first fastener) between the second flange [350] (upper fin portion) and cover plate [400] (cover) and adhesive (second fastener) between the first flange [330] and base plate [200] (fig. 6 of Oh et al. for the structure; adhesive inclusion in Rhee et al.). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 10, the combination (Oh et al. in view of Rhee et al.) renders the limitation (the first fastener and the second fastener each include an adhesive or a weld bead) obvious, as the combination renders obvious placing adhesive (first fastener) between the second flange [350] (upper fin portion) and cover plate [400] (cover) and adhesive (second fastener) between the first flange [330] (lower fin portion) and base plate [200] (fig. 6 of Oh et al. for the structure; adhesive inclusion in Rhee et al.). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 11, the combination (of Oh et al. in view of Rhee et al.) renders the limitation (the first fastener includes an adhesive or a weld bead, and the second fastener includes a thermal interface material disposed between the lower fin portion and the enclosure tray), as the combination renders obvious placing adhesive (first fastener) between the second flange [350] (upper fin portion) and cover plate [400] (cover) and adhesive (second fastener) between the first flange [330] and base plate [200] (fig. 6 of Oh et al. for the structure; adhesive inclusion in Rhee et al.). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. The adhesive of Rhee et al. (rendered obvious in the rejection to claim 1) is thermally conductive (see para 0056), thus constituting a thermal interface material).
As to claim 16, Oh et al. teach a traction battery pack (fig. 8; para 0085-0086), comprising:
a battery cell stack (made of cells [100]) (figs. 2, 6); and
a divider fin (cross beam unit [300]) arranged to partition the battery cell stack into at least a first compartment and a second compartment (figs. 1, 2, 6),
wherein the divider fin (cross beam unit [300]) provides direct contact from an upper enclosure structure (cover plate [400]) to a lower enclosure structure (base plate [200]) of the traction battery pack (fig. 6).
Oh et al. do not teach that the direct contact structurally couples (the divider fin from an upper enclosure structure to a lower enclosure structure of the traction battery pack).
However, in the same field of endeavor (battery pack with a divider (thermal barrier assembly [1300]) (fig. 4)), Rhee et al. teach of using adhesive members [1410], [1420] to fill the gap between the thermal barrier assembly [1300]) and the upper cover [1130] and the lower cover [1120] (para 0053; fig. 2, 7, 8A, 8B). The motivation for using adhesive members [1410], [1420] to fill the gap between the gap between the thermal barrier assembly [1300]) and the upper cover [1130] and the lower cover [1120] is to compactly fill the gap therebetween and firmly fix the housing and the thermal barrier assembly to each other (para 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) have an adhesive layer between a divider fin and a cover and a divider and tray (as taught by Rhee et al. and applied to Oh et al., resulting in the structural coupling of the divider fin from an upper enclosure structure to a lower enclosure structure of the traction battery pack, as the combination renders obvious having adhesive between the divider and the cover and the divider and the tray, wherein Oh et al.’s divider is a divider fin) in order to compactly fill any gap between the divider and cover and between the divider and tray, as well as to fix the divider to the housing.
As to claim 17, Oh et al. teaches the divider fin (cross beam unit [300]) includes an upper fin portion (second flange [350]) and a lower fin portion (first flange [330]).
The combination (Oh et al. in view of Rhee et al.) renders the limitation (the upper fin portion secured to the upper enclosure structure by a first fastener, and the lower fin portion secured to the lower enclosure structure by a second fastener) obvious, as the combination renders obvious placing adhesive (first fastener) between the second flange [350] (upper fin portion) and cover plate [400] (upper enclosure structure) and adhesive (second fastener) between the first flange [330] (lower fin portion) and base plate [200] (lower enclosure structure) (fig. 6 of Oh et al. for the structure; adhesive inclusion in Rhee et al.). See the rejection to claim 16 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 18, the combination (Oh et al. in view of Rhee et al.) renders the limitation (the first fastener and the second fastener each include an adhesive or a weld bead) obvious, as the combination renders obvious placing adhesive (first fastener) between the second flange [350] (upper fin portion) and cover plate [400] (upper enclosure structure) and adhesive (second fastener) between the first flange [330] (lower fin portion) and base plate [200] (lower enclosure structure) (fig. 6 of Oh et al. for the structure; adhesive inclusion in Rhee et al.). See the rejection to claim 16 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 19, the combination (of Oh et al. in view of Rhee et al.) renders the limitation (the first fastener includes an adhesive or a weld bead, and the second fastener includes a thermal interface material disposed between the lower fin portion and the enclosure tray), as the combination renders obvious placing adhesive (first fastener) between the second flange [350] (upper fin portion) and cover plate [400] (upper enclosure structure) and adhesive (second fastener) between the first flange [330] (lower fin portion) and base plate [200] (lower enclosure structure) (fig. 6 of Oh et al. for the structure; adhesive inclusion in Rhee et al.). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. The adhesive of Rhee et al. (rendered obvious in the rejection to claim 1) is thermally conductive (see para 0056), thus constituting a thermal interface material).
As to claim 21, Oh et al. teach the divider fin (cross beam unit [300])
establishes a continuous structural load path that extends from the upper enclosure structure (cover plate [400]), through the divider fin (cross beam unit [300]), and into the lower enclosure structure (base plate [200]) (fig. 6) (para 0050, 0064-0068; strength enhancing via the structure mentioned).
As to claim 22, the combination (of Oh et al. and Rhee et al.) renders the limitation (the upper fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure cover and the lower fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure tray to structurally couple the enclosure cover and the enclosure tray together and thereby increase a structural stiffness of the traction battery pack) obvious, as the combination renders obvious placing adhesive (to be secured directly) between the second flange [350] (upper fin portion) and cover plate [400] (cover) and adhesive (to be secured directly) between the first flange [330] (lower fin portion) and base plate [200] (fig. 6 of Oh et al. for the structure; adhesive inclusion in Rhee et al.). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Oh et al. strength enhancing via their cross beam structure (para 0050, 0064-0068) (thus contributing to structural stiffness). Rhee et al. further sets forth that the adhesive fixes the divider to the housing (para 0057) (thus also increasing structural stiffness via fixing the divider and housing/cover in place).
As to claim 25, Oh et al. teach the plurality of battery cells [100] of the cell stack are held between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam (multiple cross beam-units [300]) (fig. 6). Oh et al. shows a third cross-member beam (third-cross member beam) with cells adjacent thereto (fig. 6).
Oh et al. do not teach further comprising a second cell stack having a second plurality of battery cells held between a third cross-member beam and a fourth cross-member beam.
However, Oh et al. teach that a battery pack may be fabricated of a plurality of batteries to reach the output voltage or charge/discharge capacity (para 0004), wherein the crossbeam units [300] can be positioned over predetermined lengths (para 0047). Thus, the motivation for the inclusion of more cells that required another crossbeam unit would be to have a battery pack to achieve a larger output voltage or charge/discharge capacity. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a second cell stack having a second plurality of battery cells held between a third cross-member beam and a fourth cross-member beam (by inclusion of more cells that required another crossbeam unit) would be to have a battery pack to achieve a larger output voltage or charge/discharge capacity. At the very least, having more cells and a fourth cross-member beam would be duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second cell stack having a second plurality of battery cells held between a third cross-member beam and a fourth cross-member beam, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
As to claim 26, Oh et al.’s teach a venting passageway extends between the second cross-member beam of the cell stack and the third cross-member beam of the second cell stack for expelling battery vent byproducts from the traction battery pack (space created therebetween, seen in figs. 1 and 6). (As the space is present, it constitutes a venting passageway in the event any byproducts are vented. Note: No claim language is present regarding a vent structure within the battery, or further structure to the passageway. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).)
As to claim 27, Rhee et al. teach a traction battery pack (vehicle use; para 0005), comprising:
an enclosure assembly including an enclosure tray (lower cover [1120]) and an enclosure cover (upper cover [130]) (fig. 2);
a battery cell stack (made of cells [1200]) arranged within the enclosure assembly (figs. 1-3);
a divider fin (heat resistant member [1310]) arranged to partition the battery cell stack into at least a first compartment and a second compartment for inhibiting a transfer of thermal energy between the first compartment and the second compartment (para 0069-0070; fig. 3);
a first plurality of battery cells of the battery cell stack is arranged within the first compartment, and a second plurality of battery cells of the battery cell stack is arranged within the second compartment (plurality of stacks of cells [1200]) (figs 2-3);
a first adhesive fastener (adhesive [1410]) that structurally couples the lower part of the divider fin directly to the enclosure tray (lower cover [1120]) (figs. 2, 7; para 0053); and
a second adhesive fastener (adhesive [1420]/[1420a]) that structurally couples of the upper part of the divider fin directly to the enclosure cover (upper cover [1130]) (figs. 2, 7; para 0053),
wherein the divider fin (heat resistant member [1310]), the first adhesive fastener, and the second adhesive fastener cooperate to increase a structural stiffness of the traction battery pack (para 0057, adhesive fixes the divider to the housing, thus also increases structural stiffness via fixing the divider and housing/cover in place).
Rhee et al. do not teach a lower fin portion and an upper fin portion (specifically such that the divider has an I-shaped cross-section as elected in species 1).
However, Oh et al. teach of a divider (beam member [300]) with a lower fin portion (first flange [330]) and an upper fin portion (second flange [350]) (fig. 6; para 0064, 0067).
The motivation for having a lower fin portion (first flange [330]) and an upper fin portion (second flange [350]) is to enhance the strength of the beam body (divider) (para 0064, 0067). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a lower fin portion and an upper fin portion (on the divider fin) in order to enhance the strength of the fin divider.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. in view of Rhee et al., as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of further in view of US 2015/0037647 (Nguyen et al.).
As to claim 23, Oh et al. do not teach (a) the divider fin is sandwiched between a first pad and a second pad that are configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces, wherein (b) the first pad and second pad are made of foam.
With respect to (a): In the same field of endeavor (battery pack with a divider (thermal barrier assembly [1300]) (fig. 4)), Rhee et al. teach sandwiching the divider fin (heat resistant member [1310]) between a first pad and a second pad (compression members [1320]) (fig. 4) to accommodate battery cell swelling forces (para 0073-0074).
The motivation for sandwiching the divider fin (heat resistant member [1310]) between a first pad and a second pad (compression members [1320]) (fig. 4) to accommodate battery cell swelling forces is to effectively absorb and buffer expansion pressure caused by the swelling of the battery (para 0074). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the divider fin is sandwiched between a first pad and a second pad that are configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces in order to effectively absorb and buffer expansion pressure caused by the swelling of the battery.
With respect to (b): It is noted that Rhee et al., relied upon to render obvious pads, teaches that such pads are made of elastic materials like polyurethane, silicone, and rubber (EPDM) (para 0073).
At this point, foam is still not rendered obvious. However, Nguyen et al., in the same field of endeavor (battery pack) teaches of using foam to account for expanding and contracting (i.e. swelling) between components in the battery module (para 0160). The substitution of one material to accommodate swelling of batteries for another (i.e. foam taught by Nguyuen et al. for elastic taught by Rhee et al.) would yield the predictable result of providing a pad that accommodates battery cell swelling forces (known function of the substitutable components). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute an elastic material (Rhee et al.) with foam material (Nguyen et al.) (as applied to both the first and second pad), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing a material that accommodates battery cell swelling forces (known function of the substitutable components). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of at least claim 24.
Claim 24 teaches the traction battery pack comprising the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam each include openings for accommodating cell tabs of the plurality of battery cells.
Oh et al. teaches cylindrical batteries without tabs. Additionally, the cross member beams [300] are a closed space for cooling water (cooling water channel [315]) (see fig. 6). Thus, no motivation exists to modify Oh et al. to arrive at the claimed invention.
Rhee et al. teach battery cells with tabs; however, no openings for fitting the tabs are present in the divider fin (heat resistant member [1310]). No motivation exists to modify Rhee et al. to arrive at the claimed invention.
Thus, none of the prior art teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights