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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received January 12, 2026:
Claims 3, 8, 12-15, and 20 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request. Claims 21-27 have been added. Claim 11 is rejoined, as it has been written to fit the elected species. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 16-27 are pending.
The core of the previous prior art rejections is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejections are necessitated by the amendment. Thus the action is final.
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 and claim 26 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites a second cell stack having a second plurality of battery cells (line 3). However, the presence of a plurality of battery cells and a cell stack exist (cite din claim 25, antecedent basis set forth in claim 1). It is unclear how the second cell stack and second plurality of cells relates to the plurality of cells and the stack (broader and encompasses “second” of these). Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. Since claim 26 is dependent upon claim 25, it is rejected for the same reason.
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, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0328285 (Jeon) in view of US 2022/0059894 (Stephens et al.) and US 2017/0294693 (Tong et al.).
As to claim 1, Jeon teaches a traction battery pack (for a vehicle; para 0002), comprising:
an enclosure assembly including an enclosure tray (battery tray [63]) (fig. 6);
a cell stack (battery module [1]) housed within the enclosure assembly and including a plurality of battery cells (battery cells [9]) (figs. 1, 6); and
a divider fin (unit cover [8] and cooling fin [5]) arranged between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (figs. 1-3),
wherein the divider fin (unit cover [8] and cooling fin [5]) includes an upper fin portion (unit cover [8]) and a lower fin portion (lower flanged out portion of cooling fin [5]) that interfaces with the enclosure tray (battery tray [63]) (figs. 1-3, 6) (elected species A).
Jeon does not teach (a) an enclosure cover, (b) the upper fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure cover, and the lower fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure tray.
With respect to (a), Stephens et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of having a cover [26] associated with an enclosure tray (tub compartment [20]) (fig. 2-4; para 0056). The motivation for having a cover associated with a tray for holding batteries is that the cover prevents gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area through an upper opening of the tub component (tray) (para 0056). 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 have a cover (for the battery tray/tub) (as taught by Stephens et al. and applied to Jeon) to prevent gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area through an upper opening of the tub component (tray). (Note: The combination would yield the upper fin portion (of Jeon) is configured to interface with the enclosure cover (rendered obvious by Stephens et al.), as the cover is provided without an intermediate structure (see fig. 2) (elected species A).)
With respect to (b): Tong et al. in the same field of endeavor teach of having a heat dissipation plate [12] with fins [12a] (divider) which are bonded with a thermally conductive adhesive to a cover plate [11] via grooves [11a] (figs. 1, 4) (the upper fin portion is configured to interface with the enclosure cover by a first fastener). The motivation for having a thermally conductive adhesive used to couple the cover and the divider fin (the upper fin portion is configured to interface with the enclosure cover by a first fastener) is to improve bonding reliability between the two structures (para 0059). 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 have the upper fin portion is configured to interface with the enclosure cover by a first fastener order to improve bonding reliability between the divider fin and the upper enclosure structure. Note: Although Tong et al. only shows the divider fin coupled via thermally conductive adhesive to one of the two enclosure structures (namely upper fin portion coupled to the cover/upper enclosure structure), the same reasoning can be applied to the lower fin portion and the lower enclosure structure – to improve bonding reliability between the lower fin portion and the lower enclosure structure. At the very least, the use and thermally conductive adhesive between the lower fin portion and the lower enclosure structure would be a duplication of parts, where it have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have thermally conductive adhesive between the divider fin and the lower enclosure structure, 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). Accordingly, the combination would render the claimed invention obvious (the upper fin portion is configured to interface with the enclosure cover by a first fastener, and the lower fin portion is configured to interface with the enclosure tray by a second fastener).
As to claim 2, Jeon does not teach the plurality of battery cells are stacked between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam.
However, Stephens et al. teach of using first and second cross-member beams (cross member portions [36], additionally having stiffening portions [42] and foreward and reward wall sections [38, 40] associated therewith), which battery cells are stacked between (via modules [14]) (figs. 2-4; para 0051-0053). The motivation for having cross member beams (cross member portions [36], additionally having stiffening portions [42] and foreward and reward wall sections [38, 40] associated therewith) is to configure the space of the tub component [20] for the battery modules [14], while preventing cross-contamination of battery modules, as well as providing support (para 0051-0053). 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 have a plurality of battery cells are stacked between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam in order to configure the space of the tub/tray for the battery modules while preventing cross-contamination of battery modules, as well as providing support.
As to claim 4, Jeon teaches a mid-fin portion (straight portion of cooling fin [5]) extending between the upper fin portion (unit cover [8]) and the lower fin portion (lower flanged out portion of cooling fin [5]), wherein the mid-fin portion is positioned between the first battery cell and the second battery cell (fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Jeon teaches that the lower fin portion (lower flanged out portion of cooling fin [5]) and the mid-fin portion (straight part of cooling fin [5]) is a single-piece, unitary structure (figs. 2-3).
Jeon does not teach that the upper fin portion (unit cover [8]) is part of the single-piece unitary structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the unit cover [8] in a single-piece, unitary structure with the cooling fin [5] (lower fin portion and mid-fin portion), since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). See also MPEP §2144.04(V)(B).
As to claim 6, at least one of the upper fin portion (unit cover [8]) or the lower fin portion (lower flanged out portion of cooling fin [5]) extends at a transverse angle relative to the mid-fin portion (straight part of cooling fin [5]) (figs. 2-3).
As to claim 7, the divider fin (unit cover [8] and cooling fin [5]) includes an I-shaped cross-section (fig. 2) (elected species 1).
As to claim 9, the combination renders the limitation (the upper fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure cover or the first intermediate structure by a first fastener, and the lower fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure tray or the second intermediate structure by a second fastener) obvious, as Tong et al. has been relied upon to render obvious the use of thermally conductive adhesive applied to between the upper fin portion the enclosure cover (constituting a first fastener) and between the lower fin portion and the enclosure tray (constituting the second fastener). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 10, the combination renders the limitation (the first fastener and the second fastener each include an adhesive or a weld bead) obvious, as Tong et al., relied upon to render obvious the first fastener and the second fastener teaches the use of an adhesive (para 0059). See the rejection to claim 9 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 11, the combination 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) obvious, as Tong et al., relied upon to render obvious the first fastener and the second fastener teaches the use of an thermally conductive adhesive (para 0059) (thus constituting both an adhesive and a thermal interface material, wherein the thermally conductive material rendered obvious would be between the lower fin portion and the enclosure tray). See the rejection to claim 9 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 16, Jeon teaches a traction battery pack, (for a vehicle; para 0002), comprising:
a battery cell stack (battery module [1]); and
a divider fin (unit cover [8] and cooling fin [5]) arranged to partition the battery cell stack into at least a first compartment and a second compartment (figs. 1-4, 6),
wherein the divider fin contacts a lower enclosure structure of the traction battery pack (battery tray [63]) (figs. 1-3, 6) (elected species A).
Jeon does not teach (a) an upper enclosure, such that (b) the divider fin structurally couples the upper enclosure structure to the lower enclosure structure (as in line with elected species A).
With respect to (a): Stephens et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of having a cover [26] associated with an enclosure tray (tub compartment [20]) (fig. 2-4; para 0056). The motivation for having a cover associated with a tray for holding batteries is that the cover prevents gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area through an upper opening of the tub component (tray) (para 0056). 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 have a cover (for the battery tray/tub) (as taught by Stephens et al. and applied to Jeon) to prevent gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area through an upper opening of the tub component (tray). (Note: The combination would yield the upper fin portion (of Jeon) in contact with the enclosure cover (rendered obvious by Stephens et al.), as the cover is provided without an intermediate structure (see fig. 2) (elected species A).)
With respect to (b): Tong et al. in the same field of endeavor teach of having a heat dissipation plate [12] with fins [12a] (divider) which are bonded with a thermally conductive adhesive to a cover plate [11] via grooves [11a] (figs. 1, 4). The motivation for having a thermally conductive adhesive used to couple the cover and the divider is to improve bonding reliability between the two structures (para 0059). 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 have the divider fin structurally coupled to the upper enclosure structure (cover) via thermally conductive adhesive in order to improve bonding reliability between the divider fin and the upper enclosure structure. Note: Although Tong et al. only shows the divider fin coupled via thermally conductive adhesive to one of the two enclosure structures (namely the cover/upper enclosure structure), the same reasoning can be applied to the other enclosure structure (namely the lower enclosure structure) – to improve bonding reliability between the divider fin and the (lower) enclosure structure. At the very least, the use and thermally conductive adhesive between the divider fin and the lower enclosure structure would be a duplication of parts, where it have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have thermally conductive adhesive between the divider fin and the lower enclosure structure, 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). Accordingly, the combination would render the claimed invention obvious (i.e. the divider fin structurally couple the upper enclosure structure to the lower enclosure structure on order to improve bonding reliability between the divider fin and the enclosure structure).
As to claim 17, Jeon teaches the divider fin includes an upper fin portion (unit cover [8]) and a lower fin portion (lower flanged out portion of cooling fin [5]) (fig. 2).
Regarding 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, this limitation has been rendered obvious by the combination with Tong et al, which renders obvious having adhesive between the upper fin portion and the upper fastener (as the first fastener) and adhesive between the lower fin portion and the lower enclosure structure (as the second fastener). 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 renders the limitation (the first fastener and the second fastener each include an adhesive or a weld bead) obvious, as Tong et al., relied upon to render obvious the first fastener and the second fastener teaches the use of an adhesive (para 0059). 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 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 lower enclosure structure) obvious, as Tong et al. renders obvious the use of a thermally conductive adhesive as the first fastener and the second fastener (para 0059). 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 21, the combination renders obvious that the divider fin establishes a continuous structural load path that extends from the upper enclosure structure, through the divider fin, and into the lower enclosure structure (as the combination includes all the structural features as claimed, and thus the same structural load path between the features (upper enclosure structure, divider fin, and lower enclosure structure) is present as well). 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 22, the combination renders obvious the upper fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure cover and the lower fin portion is secured directly to the enclosure tray (as set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake); accordingly, the combination structurally couples the enclosure cover and the enclosure tray together and thereby increases a structural stiffness of the traction battery pack (as the combination includes all the structural features as claimed, thus the same effect as claimed is achieved barring further details/specification).
As to claim 24, Jeon et al. teaches batteries of lead tabs [7] (fig. 1) and lead tab fasteners [13] (fig. 2), wherein the batteries are placed in the battery tray (figs. 6).
Thus the combination with Stephens et al. renders the limitation (wherein the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam each include openings for accommodating cell tabs of the plurality of battery cells) obvious, as Stephens et al. renders obvious the presence of the first and second cross-member beams (see the rejection to claim 2 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake). The combination would yield Jeon et al.’s lead tabs [7] and lead tab fasteners [13] facing the cross-member beams of Stephens et al. (see the orientation of batteries via fig. 6 of Jeon and fig. 3 of Stephens et al.). Lead tab fasteners [13] can be interpreted as part of the claimed cross-member beams, thus having openings as claimed. 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 25, Jeon does not teach the plurality of battery cells of the cell stack are held between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam, and 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, Stephens et al. teach of using first and second cross-member beams (cross member portions [36], additionally having stiffening portions [42] and foreward and reward wall sections [38, 40] associated therewith), which battery cells of the cell stack are stacked between (via modules [14]); additionally, Stephens et al. teach the presence of third cross-member beam and a fourth cross-member beam, which battery cells of a second cell stack are stacked between (figs. 2-4; para 0051-0053). The motivation for having cross member beams (cross member portions [36], additionally having stiffening portions [42] and foreward and reward wall sections [38, 40] associated therewith) is to configure the space of the tub component [20] for the battery modules [14], while preventing cross-contamination of battery modules, as well as providing support (para 0051-0053) (as applied to the first and second cross beams regarding the stack; and the third and fourth cross beams regarding the second stack). 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 have the plurality of battery cells of the cell stack are held between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam, and 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 in order to configure the space of the tub/tray for the battery modules while preventing cross-contamination of battery modules, as well as providing support.
As to claim 26, the combination renders the limitation (wherein 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) obvious, as Stephens et al., relied upon to render obvious the first, second, third, and fourth cross-member beams, as well as the enclosure cover (see the rejection to claim 1 and claim 25 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake), further teaches of venting therein, and thus any space between a second and third cross beam (and some must exist to allow for the fitting of the packs) constitutes the claimed venting passageway (figs. 5, 8, 23-24; para 0079).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Stephens et al. and Tong et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0037647 (Nguyen et al.).
Jeon teaches the use of a divider fin (unit cover [8] and cooling fin [5]) in conjunction with a foam pad (deformation absorbing material [25], foam material embodied) configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces (para 0029; fig. 3).
Jeon does not teach that the divider fin is sandwiched between a first foam pad and a second foam pad (that are configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces).
However, Nguyen et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of the use of a divider fin (internal heat fin [112]) sandwiched between a first foam pad and a second foam pad (thermal gap pads [115] and [122]; foam-like material embodied) (that are configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces (ensuring contact for expanding and contracting elements)) (fig. 7; para 0160). The substitution of one foam pad in conjunction with a divider fin (that is configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces) (Jeon)
with a divider fin sandwiched between a first foam pad and a second foam pad (that are configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces) (Nguyen et al.) would yield the predictable result of providing a foam/divider combination 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 of one foam pad in conjunction with a divider fin (that is configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces) (Jeon) with a divider fin sandwiched between a first foam pad and a second foam pad (that are configured to accommodate battery cell swelling forces) (Nguyen et al.), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing a foam/divider combination 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).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Stephens et al., WO 2021/060735 (Shin et al.), and Tong et al. (Note: US 2022/0320628 is relied upon as the English translation of the WO document, as both correspond to the same PCT.)
As to claim 27, Jeon teaches a traction battery pack (for a vehicle; para 0002), comprising:
an enclosure assembly including an enclosure tray (battery tray [63]) (fig. 6);
a battery cell stack (battery module [1]) arranged within the enclosure assembly;
a divider fin (unit cover [8] and cooling fin [5]) arranged to partition the battery cell stack into at least a first compartment and a second compartment, wherein the cooling fin [5] has a deformation absorbing material [25] between two layers (figs. 1-3);
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 (figs. 1-3) (any plurality of cells between a plurality of defined divider fins reads on the claimed invention);
Jeon does not teach (a) an enclosure cover, (b) that the divider fin is 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, and (c) a first adhesive fastener that structurally couples a lower fin portion of the divider fin directly to the enclosure tray; and a second adhesive fastener that structurally couples an upper fin portion of the divider fin directly to the enclosure cover (wherein the divider fin, the first adhesive fastener, and the second adhesive fastener cooperate to increase a structural stiffness of the traction battery pack).
With respect to (a), Stephens et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of having a cover [26] associated with an enclosure tray (tub compartment [20]) (fig. 2-4; para 0056). The motivation for having a cover associated with a tray for holding batteries is that the cover prevents gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area through an upper opening of the tub component (tray) (para 0056). 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 have a cover (for the battery tray/tub) (as taught by Stephens et al. and applied to Jeon) to prevent gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area through an upper opening of the tub component (tray). (Note: The combination would yield the upper fin portion (of Jeon) is configured to interface with the enclosure cover (rendered obvious by Stephens et al.), as the cover is provided without an intermediate structure (see fig. 2) (elected species A).)
With respect to (b): Shin et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of having cooling fins [510] surrounding an intermediate layer, specifically an insulation member [530] (para 0041; figs. 2-4). The motivation for having cooling fins surround an insulating intermediate layer is to allow heat to disperse from battery cells in which an abnormal situation occurs while also preventing heat from being directly transferred to neighboring battery cells, thus preventing the greater risk of explosion of the battery module (para 0006-0007, 0021). 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 have the divider fin 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 (via thermally conductive fins around a thermally insulating layer, as taught by Shin et al., as applied to the structure Jeon (specifically making the intermediate deformation absorbing material [25] thermally insulating) in order to allow heat to disperse from battery cells in which an abnormal situation occurs while also preventing heat from being directly transferred to neighboring battery cells, thus preventing the greater risk of explosion of the battery module
With respect to (c): Tong et al. in the same field of endeavor teach of having a heat dissipation plate [12] with fins [12a] (divider) which are bonded with a thermally conductive adhesive to a cover plate [11] via grooves [11a] (figs. 1, 4) (a second adhesive fastener that structurally couples an upper fin portion of the divider fin directly to the enclosure cover). The motivation for having a thermally conductive adhesive used to couple the cover and the divider fin (a second adhesive fastener that structurally couples an upper fin portion of the divider fin directly to the enclosure cover) is to improve bonding reliability between the two structures (para 0059). 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 have the upper fin portion is configured to interface with the enclosure cover by a first fastener order to improve bonding reliability between the divider fin and the upper enclosure structure. Note: Although Tong et al. only shows the divider fin coupled via thermally conductive adhesive to one of the two enclosure structures (namely upper fin portion coupled to the cover/upper enclosure structure), the same reasoning can be applied to the lower fin portion and the lower enclosure structure – to improve bonding reliability between the lower fin portion and the lower enclosure structure. At the very least, the use and thermally conductive adhesive between the lower fin portion and the lower enclosure structure would be a duplication of parts, where it have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have thermally conductive adhesive between the divider fin and the lower enclosure structure, 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). Accordingly, the combination would render the claimed invention obvious (a first adhesive fastener that structurally couples a lower fin portion of the divider fin directly to the enclosure tray; and a second adhesive fastener that structurally couples an upper fin portion of the divider fin directly to the enclosure cover). Note: As the claimed structure is rendered obvious, the same effect – wherein the divider fin, the first adhesive fastener, and the second adhesive fastener cooperate to increase a structural stiffness of the traction battery pack – would be achieved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents:
Applicant argues that Jeon does not teach a cover, thus the proposed combination with Stephens (having a cover) would require redesigning the claimed invention (including the fin being directly secured) in such a manner that obviousness exists.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stephens provides a motivation for adding a lid (the cover prevents gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area through an upper opening of the tub component (tray) (para 0056)). Tong et al. provides motivation for having a fin being directly secured to the compartment that holds the batteries (to improve bonding reliability between the two structures (para 0059)). It is unclear why the prior art teaching would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (as the teachings are all to battery modules and casings for holding battery modules). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that Tong fails to cure the deficiencies of Jeon and Stephens.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tong et al. provides motivation for having a fin being directly secured to the compartment that holds the batteries (to improve bonding reliability between the two structures (para 0059)). See also the rejection to claim 1 above for more details (incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Regarding claim 16 and its dependents:
Applicant argues that Tong’s adhesive is applied to a heat dissipation plate and not a divider fin and thus is not drawn towards structural coupling or compartmentalization.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tong et al. is applied to Jeon which teaches a heat dissipating divider fin. Thus, the argument does not take the combination into account and is piecemeal analysis. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, the claim language does not preclude the divider be heat conductive, and does not define the structure of the compartmentalization over the prior art. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection or record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the divider fin of the instant application has a different function than Tong’s.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art reads on the claimed structure. Thus, the claimed invention has been rendered obvious. In response to applicant's argument that the divider fin of the instant application has a different function than Tong’s, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection or record is maintained.
Regarding the new claims:
Applicant argues that the new claims recite features not taught or suggested by the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. All of the claims are rejected (see above for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection or record is maintained.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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