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
The amendment filed 1/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 remain pending in this application. The examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 11 and 18 and the addition of claims 21-22.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the objection to claim 20 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/27/2025.
The examiner was able to find adequate support for priority after further review. The documentation argued by applicant was located in an Appendix.
The amendment filed 1/26/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the claims of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is noted below.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “molded” is used to describe the beam body in claim 1, 9, 10, 21, and 22. It is unclear where support may be found in the instant specification or instant drawings. While the term “overmolded” is used in the instant specification, “overmolded” is a narrower term of a specific type of molding i.e. a species of the genus “molded”. Thus, the use of the term “molded” in the instant specification has a broader BRI and lacks full support than the term “overmolded,” of which has support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11,660,950 B2) in view of Stephens et al. (US 2018/0337378 A1). Matecki et al. and Stephens et al. were cited in the Non-Final rejection filed 10/27/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Matecki et al. teaches a traction battery pack (see e.g. the vehicle battery support structure for hybrid or electric vehicle in column 1: lines 43-46), comprising:
a cell stack including a plurality of battery cells (see e.g. the battery modules 16 in column 1: line 66 to column 2: line 25 which inherently comprise multiple battery cells) arranged between a first cross- member beam and a second cross-member beam includes a molded beam body (see e.g. the cross members 44 and brackets 50 as shown in Fig. 3, 5, 8, and 13-16 and in annotated Fig. B and annotated Fig. C. See the beam body in annotated Fig. B. The term molded may be interpreted broadly as “to give shape to” or “shape something into a particular form” as noted in Merriam Webster Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary respectively. Molded may be interpreted as linking to forming a particular shape i.e. the beam body shape and not just the process of producing or material used).
Matecki et al. fails to explicitly teach each of the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam includes at least one pultruded reinforcement section disposed inside the molded beam body to structurally reinforce the molded beam body.
However, Stephens et al. teaches for a vehicle battery tray that the first and second tray components may each be pultruded as a single integral piece with different materials disposed at different sections of the respective tray component, where the different materials are selected to accommodate the desired performance characteristics of the corresponding section of the tray component and absorb and dissipate side-impact forces at the vehicle in Para. 6 and 60-63. tray components that may be pultruded include the longitudinally extending reinforcement members 224a of the outer tray component 220 and the cross members 230 of the upper or inner tray component 226 in Para. 60.
Additionally, when the method of pultruding is completed, different materials may be disposed at different sections of the respective tray component, such as carbon fiber disposed at the elongated reinforcement members or cross members and aramid or glass disposed at the upper or lower panel portions in Para. 10.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to pultrude the battery tray components of Matecki et al. because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as taught by Stephens et al. with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally the process of pultrusion would lead to consistent sized components in which one may vary the materials to accommodate desired performance characteristics and to absorb and dissipate side-impact forces at the vehicle as noted in Para. 6 and 10 of Stephens et al.
The combination of references would result in each of the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam including at least one pultrusion because pultrusions are formed via the process of pultrusion, such as the reinforcement sections of the main beam. The instant specification even notes that pultrusions are components formed via the pultrusion process in Para. 59-60.
Considering the same structure of a pultrusion and the purpose of dissipating and absorbs side-impact forces within the beam structure, the pultrusion structure would reasonably be capable of the function of “to structurally reinforce the molded beam body” because it’s reinforcing the body with the addition of pultrusions to the body structure to protect from side-impact forces.
PNG
media_image1.png
839
1266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated Fig. B of Fig. 8 of Matecki et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
855
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Annotated Fig. C of Fig. 13 of Matecki et al.
Regarding claim 2, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam establish a cross-member assembly that separates the cell stack from a second cell stack of the traction battery pack (see e.g. Matecki et al. teaches this as seen by the cross members 44 that separate module 16 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the first cross- member beam and the second cross-member beam includes an I-shaped cross section (see e.g. Matecki et al. teaches this as seen by the annotations of annotated Fig. B).
Regarding claim 8, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the first cross- member beam and the second cross-member beam includes a first pultruded reinforcement section that establishes a first pultrusion of the at least one pultruded reinforcement section and a second pultruded reinforcement section that establishes a second pultrusion of the at least one pultruded reinforcement section (see e.g. combined teachings of first and second cross-member beams and reinforcement sections of Matecki et al. as shown in Annotated Fig. B and pultrusions of Stephens et al. in rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of references would result in each of the first and second reinforcement members identified cross-member beams to include at least one protrusion each because the components would be pultruded of which forms pultrusions. The instant specification even notes that pultrusions are components formed via the pultrusion process in Para. 59-60).
Regarding claim 9, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 8, wherein the first pultrusion is disposed within an upper portion of the molded beam body, and the second pultrusion is disposed within a lower portion of the molded beam body (see e.g. combined teachings of first and second cross-member beams and reinforcement sections of Matecki et al. as shown in Annotated Fig. B and pultrusions of Stephens et al. in rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of references would result in each of the first and second reinforcement members identified cross-member beams to include at least one protrusion because the components would be pultruded of which forms pultrusions. The instant specification even notes that pultrusions are components formed via the pultrusion process in Para. 59-60. The first and second reinforcement members, as shown in Annotated Fig. B, are located at an upper and lower portion respectively of the battery support structure).
Regarding claim 10, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 9, wherein the molded beam body includes a mid-portion that connects between the upper portion and the lower portion (see e.g. Matecki et al. teaches this by the center of the beam body that connects the upper and lower portions that correlate respectively with the first and second reinforcement sections as shown in Annotated Fig. B), and further wherein the upper portion established an upper plateau, and the lower portion establishes a lower base (see e.g. Matecki et al. teaches wherein the upper portion establishes an upper plateau, and the lower portion establishes a lower base as seen in Fig. 7 and annotated Fig. B where there top of the upper portion is flat and the bottom of the lower portion is flat as further seen by the end of the cross-beam member 44 and the bracket 50 in Fig. 16 that is reasonably considered part of the cross-member beam as seen in Annotated Fig. B and Annotated Fig. C).
Claim 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11660950 B2) in view of Stephens et al. (US 2018/0337378 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Palmer et al. (US 2023/0136430 A1). Palmer et al. was cited in the Non-Final rejection filed 10/27/2025.
Regarding claim 3, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1.
Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. fails to explicitly teach comprising a venting passageway disposed between the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam.
However, Palmer et al. teaches in Para. 5 first and second support walls respectively on opposite sides of the first battery cell group and a canopy that extends between distal ends of the first and second support walls, above the first battery cell group. Proximal ends of the first and second support walls are supported on the base of the housing and the distal ends of the first and second support walls extend away from the base, above the plurality of battery cells forming an inner chamber within the housing. The enclosure partially surrounds the first battery cell group on three sides and establishes a physical and thermal barrier between the first battery cell group and the second battery cell group. Palmer et al. teaches in Para. 58 each canopy 176 of the first and second dynamic enclosures 124, 126 is hingedly coupled to the distal end 182 of the first support wall 172 and has a free end 198 that is configured to pivot about the distal end 182 of the first support wall 172 to transition the canopy 176 from a closed position (dashed lines) to an open position when an increase in pressure occurs as noted in Para. 59 hot gas and emissions may exit via the opening 204 and potentially through the vent 40 in Para. 42, Para. 60, and Fig. 1. In Para. 62 pressure exerted on the top 34 of the housing 16 may be transferred to protect and prevent physical damage to the battery cells. Palmer et al. explains this helps prevent thermal runaway and controls the flow of emissions in Para. 3 and 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the canopy and vent system as taught by Palmer et al. to the battery tray of Matecki et al. to prevent thermal runaway and control the flow of emissions as noted in Para. 3 and 4 of Palmer et al. The result forms a venting passageway above and between the beams or walls defining the cell group enclosure.
Regarding claim 4, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. and Palmer et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 3.
Matecki et al. teaches an enclosure cover and an enclosure tray by the cover in column 7: line 54 and the base plate 18 in column 9: line 46.
Matecki et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein an enclosure cover provides a vertically upper side of the venting passageway, and an enclosure tray or a heat exchanger plate provides a vertically lower side of the venting passageway.
However, Palmer et al. teaches in Para. 5 first and second support walls respectively on opposite sides of the first battery cell group and a canopy that extends between distal ends of the first and second support walls, above the first battery cell group. Proximal ends of the first and second support walls are supported on the base of the housing and the distal ends of the first and second support walls extend away from the base, above the plurality of battery cells forming an inner chamber within the housing. The enclosure partially surrounds the first battery cell group on three sides and establishes a physical and thermal barrier between the first battery cell group and the second battery cell group. Palmer et al. teaches in Para. 58 each canopy 176 of the first and second dynamic enclosures 124, 126 is hingedly coupled to the distal end 182 of the first support wall 172 and has a free end 198 that is configured to pivot about the distal end 182 of the first support wall 172 to transition the canopy 176 from a closed position (dashed lines) to an open position when an increase in pressure occurs as noted in Para. 59 hot gas and emissions may exit via the opening 204 and potentially through the vent 40 in Para. 42, Para. 60, and Fig. 1. In Para. 62 pressure exerted on the top 34 of the housing 16 may be transferred to protect and prevent physical damage to the battery cells. Palmer et al. explains this helps prevent thermal runaway and controls the flow of emissions in Para. 3 and 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the canopy and vent system as taught by Palmer et al. to the battery tray of Matecki et al. to prevent thermal runaway and control the flow of emissions as noted in Para. 3 and 4 of Palmer et al. The result forms a venting passageway above and between the beams or walls defining the cell group enclosure.
The result of the combined references would be the cover and base of Matecki et al. would help define the latter half of the venting passageway as the cover defines the canopy 176’s movement and the pathway as it exits. The base being flush with the batteries defines the passageway from not being below the batteries.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11,660,950 B2) in view of Stephens et al. (US 2018/0337378 A1) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Merino et al. (US 2022/0336900 A1). Merino et al. was cited in the Non-Final rejection filed 10/27/2025.
Regarding claim 12, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 8.
Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the first pultruded reinforcement section and the second pultruded reinforcement section are overmolded by the molded beam body.
However, Merino et al. teaches a battery tub and housing structure in the abstract. Merino et al. teaches overmolding beams at various points of the beam and in various configurations to secure it to various structures along the base and walls of the tub in Para. 47-50 and Fig. 10A-11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the first and second pultruded reinforcement sections to the beam body of Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. by the method of attachment of overmolding structures because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art of the first and second reinforcement sections and beam body in Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods of overmolding, as taught by Merino et al., with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. This would help to secure the features together as supported by Para. 47-50 of Merino et al..
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11,660,950 B2) in view of Stephens et al. (US 2018/0337378 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gong et al. (US 207558843 U). Gong et al. was cited in the Non-Final rejection filed 10/27/2025.
Regarding claim 13, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1.
Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one pultruded reinforcement section includes an E-shaped cross-section.
Gong et al. teaches in Para. 7. a battery tray comprising a lower tray, the middle frame and the upper tray are made of fibre reinforced composite material component such that the battery tray is featured with high strength, light weight, simple structure. In Para. 56-57 and Fig. 7 Gong et al. teaches the middle frame may be provided with ribs integrally formed to form a plurality of hollow frame structures to improve the strength. They may have a cross-section structure of the middle frame in Para. 15 and 57 that is “E”-shaped to form a stable structure that is more simplified, stronger, and improves production efficiency in Para. 57.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pultruded first and second cross-member beams of Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. to comprise an E-shaped cross-section to improve strength and production efficiency as noted in Para. 57.
Additionally, the instant specification does not appear to explain the significance of the specifically E-shaped cross-sections and why it is beneficial over other shapes. Therefore, why wouldn’t it be obvious to modify to an E-shaped cross-section?
Claims 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11,660,950 B2) in view of Wood et al. (US 20090017366 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Matecki et al. teaches a traction battery pack (see e.g. the vehicle battery support structure for hybrid or electric vehicle in column 1: lines 43-46), comprising:
a first cell stack including a first plurality of battery cells (see e.g. the battery modules 16 in column 1: line 66 to column 2: line 25 which inherently comprise multiple battery cells);
a second cell stack including a second plurality of battery cells (see e.g. any adjacent column of battery module 16 in Fig. 2 which inherently comprise multiple battery cells);
Matecki et al. teaches a first cross-member beam arranged between the first cell stack and the second cell stack (see e.g. the cross members 44 and brackets 50 as shown in Fig. 3, 5, 8, and 13-16 and in annotated Fig. A and in annotated Fig. C), wherein the first cross-member beam includes a beam body and a first reinforcement section and a second reinforcement section (see e.g. the annotations of annotated Fig. A) configured to structurally reinforce the beam body (see e.g. by how it is described in column 6: lines 9-25 that the cross members 44 span between the side reinforcement members 20 to transmit lateral loads and impact forces through generally linear load paths along the cross members 44 to prevent laterally inward deformation to the side reinforcement members 20 and thus limit disruption to the battery containment area),
Matecki et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the beam body includes a plurality of openings sized to receive cell tabs of the first plurality of battery cells.
However, Wood et al. teaches in Para. 56 and Fig. 3A and 4 terminal holes 50 that are openings of both of the beams 40 that are configured to receive terminals 24 and 25 of cells 22 and allow terminals 24, 25 to extend through web portion 41 but prevent casings 23 of cells 22 from extending through web portion 41 i.e. the main wall of the beam. Terminal shrouds 52 are outwardly extending flanges on the front side 42 of web portion 41 around the circumference of terminal holes 50 and generally serve to protect terminals 24, 25 of cells 22 and reduce the chance of short-circuiting and accidental shock.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the first and second reinforcement sections to incorporate the terminal holes 50 and terminal shroud 52, as taught by Wood et al., to the molded beam bodies of Matecki et al., in order to protect the battery cell terminals and reduce short-circuiting and accidental shock as noted in Par. 56 of Wood et al..
PNG
media_image3.png
735
1172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C. Annotated Fig. A of Fig. 2 of Matecki et al.
Regarding claim 15, Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 14, wherein the first cross-member beam is positioned adjacent to a second cross-member beam to establish a cross- member assembly that extends between the first cell stack and the second cell stack (see e.g. Matecki et al. teaches this by the annotations of Fig. A in which the first and second cross-member beams form a cross-member beam assembly between the first and second cell stack).
Regarding claim 17, Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 14, wherein the first reinforcement section is disposed within an upper portion of the beam body, and the second reinforcement section is disposed within a lower portion of the beam body (see e.g. Matecki et al. teaches this by the annotations of Annotated Fig. A), and further wherein the upper portion established an upper plateau, and the lower portion establishes a lower base (see e.g. Matecki et al. teaches wherein the upper portion establishes an upper plateau, and the lower portion establishes a lower base as seen in Fig. 7 and annotated Fig. B where there top of the upper portion is flat and the bottom of the lower portion is flat as further seen by the end of the cross-beam member 44 and the bracket 50 in Fig. 16 that is reasonably considered part of the cross-member beam as seen in Annotated Fig. B and Annotated Fig. C).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11,660,950 B2) in view of Wood et al. (US 20090017366 A1) et al. (US 2018/0337378 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Stephens et al. (US 2018/0337378 A1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11,660,950 B2) in view of Stephens et al. (US 2018/0337378 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wood et al. (US 20090017366 A1).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11,660,950 B2) in view of Wood et al. (US 20090017366 A1) and further in view of Wood et al. (US 20090017366 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 14.
Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the first reinforcement section and the second reinforcement section are pultrusions of the first cross-member beam.
However, Stephens et al. teaches for a vehicle battery tray that the first and second tray components may each be pultruded as a single integral piece with different materials disposed at different sections of the respective tray component, where the different materials are selected to accommodate the desired performance characteristics of the corresponding section of the tray component in Para. 6. Additionally, when the method of pultruding is completed, different materials may be disposed at different sections of the respective tray component, such as carbon fiber disposed at the elongated reinforcement members or cross members and aramid or glass disposed at the upper or lower panel portions in Para. 10.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to pultrude the battery tray components of Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as taught by Stephens et al. with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally the process of pultrusion would lead to consistent sized components in which one may vary the materials to accommodate desired performance characteristics as noted in Para. 6 and 10 of Stephens et al.
The combination of references would result in each of the first and second reinforcement members identified cross-member beams to include at least one protrusion because the components would be pultruded of which forms pultrusions. The instant specification even notes that pultrusions are components formed via the pultrusion process in Para. 59-60.
Regarding claim 20, Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 14.
Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the first reinforcement section and the second reinforcement section each include an L-shaped cross section or T-shaped cross section.
However, Stephens et al. teaches for a vehicle battery tray that the first and second tray components may each be pultruded as a single integral piece with different materials disposed at different sections of the respective tray component, where the different materials are selected to accommodate the desired performance characteristics of the corresponding section of the tray component and absorb and dissipate side-impact forces at the vehicle in Para. 6 and 60-63.The tray components that may be pultruded include the longitudinally extending reinforcement members 224a of the outer tray component 220 and the cross members 230 of the upper or inner tray component 226 in Para. 60.
Additionally, when the method of pultruding is completed, different materials may be disposed at different sections of the respective tray component, such as carbon fiber disposed at the elongated reinforcement members or cross members and aramid or glass disposed at the upper or lower panel portions in Para. 10. Stephens et al. teaches structural ribs parallel and perpendicular with the walls throughout the interior portions of the battery tray walls as part of the pultrusion process in Para. 45. The open interior portions 40 form rectangles or lower case L-shaped cross-sections as shown in Fig. 4-11 of Stephens et al. as shown in annotated Fig. D of examples of some of the rectangular cross-sections formed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to pultrude the battery tray components of Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as taught by Stephens et al. with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally the process of pultrusion would lead to consistent sized components in which one may vary the materials to accommodate desired performance characteristics and to absorb and dissipate side-impact forces at the vehicle as noted in Para. 6 and 10 of Stephens et al. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate these structural ribs of Stephens et al. in the pultrusion process into the cross-member beams of Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al., which includes the reinforcement sections, to provide additional structural support and reinforcement particularly necessary in the setting of vehicles. The result is that cross sections of the cross-member beams, including the reinforcement sections, will have interior portions that look like rectangles or lower case L-shaped cross-sections.
Additionally, the instant specification does not appear to explain the significance of the specifically L or T shaped cross-sections and why it is beneficial over other shapes. Therefore, why wouldn’t it be obvious to modify to an L or T shaped cross-section?
PNG
media_image4.png
304
517
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure D. Annotated Fig. D
Regarding claim 21, Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1.
Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the molded beam body includes a plurality of openings sized to receive cell tabs of the plurality of battery cells.
However, Wood et al. teaches in Para. 56 and Fig. 3A and 4 terminal holes 50 that are openings of the beam 40 that are configured to receive terminals 24 and 25 of cells 22 and allow terminals 24, 25 to extend through web portion 41 but prevent casings 23 of cells 22 from extending through web portion 41 i.e. the main wall of the beam. Terminal shrouds 52 are outwardly extending flanges on the front side 42 of web portion 41 around the circumference of terminal holes 50 and generally serve to protect terminals 24, 25 of cells 22 and reduce the chance of short-circuiting and accidental shock.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the first and second reinforcement sections to incorporate the terminal holes 50 and terminal shroud 52, as taught by Wood et al., to the molded beam body of Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al., in order to protect the battery cell terminals and reduce short-circuiting and accidental shock as noted in Par. 56 of Wood et al..
Regarding claim 22, Matecki et al. teaches a traction battery pack (see e.g. the vehicle battery support structure for hybrid or electric vehicle in column 1: lines 43-46), comprising:
a first cross-member beam (see e.g. one of the cross members 44 and brackets 50 as shown in Fig. 3, 5, 8, and 13-16 and in annotated Fig. B and annotated Fig. C);
a second cross-member beam (see e.g. one of the other cross members 44 and brackets 50 as shown in Fig. 3, 5, 8, and 13-16 and in annotated Fig. B and annotated Fig. C.;
a plurality of battery cells arranged between the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam (see e.g. the battery modules 16 in column 1: line 66 to column 2: line 25 which inherently comprise multiple battery cells that reside between the cross members 44 and brackets 50 as shown in the comparison of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. See annotated Fig. C as well)
each of the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam includes a molded beam body see e.g. the cross members 44 and brackets 50 as shown in Fig. 3, 5, 8, and 13-16 and in annotated Fig. B and annotated Fig. C. See the beam body in annotated Fig. B for each cross member 44. The term molded may be interpreted broadly as “to give shape to” or “shape something into a particular form” as noted in Merriam Webster Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary respectively. Molded may be interpreted as linking to forming a particular shape i.e. the beam body shape and not just the process of producing or material used).
Matecki et al. fails to explicitly teach such that cell tabs of the plurality of battery cells are received through openings of the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam.
However, Wood et al. teaches in Para. 56 and Fig. 3A and 4 terminal holes 50 that are openings of both of the beams 40 that are configured to receive terminals 24 and 25 of multiple rows of cells 22 and allow terminals 24, 25 to extend through web portion 41 but prevent casings 23 of cells 22 from extending through web portion 41 i.e. the main wall of the beam. Terminal shrouds 52 are outwardly extending flanges on the front side 42 of web portion 41 around the circumference of terminal holes 50 and generally serve to protect terminals 24, 25 of cells 22 and reduce the chance of short-circuiting and accidental shock.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the first and second reinforcement sections to incorporate the terminal holes 50 and terminal shroud 52, as taught by Wood et al., to the molded beam bodies of Matecki et al., in order to protect the battery cell terminals and reduce short-circuiting and accidental shock as noted in Par. 56 of Wood et al..
Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. fail to explicitly teach a first pultruded reinforcement section disposed inside an upper portion of the molded beam body, and a second pultruded reinforcement section disposed inside a lower portion of the molded beam body, wherein the first and second pultruded reinforcement sections structurally reinforce the molded beam body.
However, Stephens et al. teaches for a vehicle battery tray that the first and second tray components may each be pultruded as a single integral piece with different materials disposed at different sections of the respective tray component, where the different materials are selected to accommodate the desired performance characteristics of the corresponding section of the tray component and absorb and dissipate side-impact forces at the vehicle in Para. 6 and 60-63. tray components that may be pultruded include the longitudinally extending reinforcement members 224a of the outer tray component 220 and the cross members 230 of the upper or inner tray component 226 in Para. 60.
Additionally, when the method of pultruding is completed, different materials may be disposed at different sections of the respective tray component, such as carbon fiber disposed at the elongated reinforcement members or cross members and aramid or glass disposed at the upper or lower panel portions in Para. 10.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to pultrude the battery tray components of Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as taught by Stephens et al. with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally the process of pultrusion would lead to consistent sized components in which one may vary the materials to accommodate desired performance characteristics and to absorb and dissipate side-impact forces at the vehicle as noted in Para. 6 and 10 of Stephens et al.
The combination of references would result in each of the first and second reinforcement members identified cross-member beams to include at least one protrusion because the components would be pultruded of which forms pultrusions. The instant specification even notes that pultrusions are components formed via the pultrusion process in Para. 59-60. The first and second reinforcement members, as shown in Annotated Fig. B, are located at an upper and lower portion respectively of the battery support structure
Considering the same structure of a pultrusion and the purpose of dissipating and absorbs side-impact forces within the beam structure, the pultrusion structure would reasonably be capable of the function of “to structurally reinforce the molded beam body” because it’s reinforcing the body with the addition of pultrusions to the body structure to protect from side-impact forces.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matecki et al. (US 11,660,950 B2) in view of Wood et al. (US 20090017366 A1) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Merino et al. (US 2022/0336900 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 14.
Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the first reinforcement section and the second reinforcement section are overmolded by the beam body.
However, Merino et al. teaches a battery tub and housing structure in the abstract. Merino et al. teaches overmolding beams at various points of the beam and in various configurations to secure it to various structures along the base and walls of the tub in Para. 47-50 and Fig. 10A-11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the first and second reinforcement sections to the beam body of Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. by the method of attachment of overmolding structures because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art of the first and second reinforcement sections and beam body in Matecki et al. in view of Wood et al. and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods of overmolding, as taught by Merino et al., with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. This would help to secure the features together as supported by Para. 47-50 of Merino et al..
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in paragraph 1 page 8 to paragraph 1 page 9: Matecki et al. fails to explicitly teach all claim recitations of claim 14 of “a plurality of openings sized to receive cell tabs of the first plurality of battery cells” and thus cannot be rejection under a 102 rejection.
Examiner respectfully agrees that Matecki et al. fails to explicitly teach a plurality of openings on the beam body. The rest of the claim limitation is functional language that the structure only needs to be reasonably capable of performing. However, this limitation may be rejected under a 103 rejection.
For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in paragraph 4 of page 9 to paragraph 2 of page 9 that Matecki et al. fails to teach a “molded beam body.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the term molded is not defined in the instant specification with a special definition, therefore it may be interpreted broadly under BRI. The term molded may be interpreted beyond just a polymer or plastic composition and/or the process of being formed in a mold. The term molded may be interpreted broadly as “to give shape to” or “shape something into a particular form” as noted in Merriam Webster Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary respectively. Molded may be interpreted as linking to forming a particular shape i.e. the beam body shape and not just the process of producing or material used).
For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in paragraph 3 of page 10 to paragraph 1 of page 11 that Matecki et al. in view of Stephens et al. are not compatible because Stephens et al. does not teach molded thermoplastic body and/or the combination would not lead to the claim limitations of a molded thermoplastic body.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments as best understood. The term molded is not defined in the instant specification with a special definition, therefore it may be interpreted broadly under BRI. The term molded may be interpreted beyond just a polymer or thermoplastic composition and/or the process of being formed in a mold. The term molded may be interpreted broadly as “to give shape to” or “shape something into a particular form” as noted in Merriam Webster Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary respectively. Molded may be interpreted as linking to forming a particular shape i.e. the beam body shape and not just the process of producing or material used). Additionally, the term “thermoplastic” is not in the claim limitations as currently recited. Therefore, Matecki et al. and Stephens et al. do not need to teach “molded thermoplastic” and may still be considered compatible and the result would lead to meeting the claim limitations.
For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in paragraph 3 of page 11 to paragraph 1 of page 12 that Palmer’s dynamic, pressure-response canopy is not a fixed venting passageway formed between two cross-member beams and thus is not compatible with Matecki et al. in meeting the claim limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Palmer et al. teaches in Para. 5 first and second support walls respectively on opposite sides of the first battery cell group and a canopy that extends between distal ends of the first and second support walls, above the first battery cell group. Proximal ends of the first and second support walls are supported on the base of the housing and the distal ends of the first and second support walls extend away from the base, above the plurality of battery cells forming an inner chamber within the housing. The enclosure partially surrounds the first battery cell group on three sides and establishes a physical and thermal barrier between the first battery cell group and the second battery cell group. Palmer et al. teaches in Para. 58 each canopy 176 of the first and second dynamic enclosures 124, 126 is hingedly coupled to the distal end 182 of the first support wall 172 and has a free end 198 that is configured to pivot about the distal end 182 of the first support wall 172 to transition the canopy 176 from a closed position (dashed lines) to an open position when an increase in pressure occurs as noted in Para. 59 hot gas and emissions may exit via the opening 204 and potentially through the vent 40 in Para. 42, Para. 60, and Fig. 1. In Para. 62 pressure exerted on the top 34 of the housing 16 may be transferred to protect and prevent physical damage to the battery cells. Palmer et al. explains this helps prevent thermal runaway and controls the flow of emissions in Para. 3 and 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the canopy and vent system as taught by Palmer et al. to the battery tray of Matecki et al. to prevent thermal runaway and control the flow of emissions as noted in Para. 3 and 4 of Palmer et al. The result forms a venting passageway above and between the beams or walls defining the cell group enclosure.
In order to function, the canopy of Palmer et al. would have to be applied above the battery modules and therefore cells of Matecki et al., thus residing between the beams that sit on both sides of the battery module and therefore cells. A venting passageway is not required to be open at all times as what is best understood to be argued by the applicant. Art in the field routinely interprets a vent as a structure that opens upon a pressure build up to release gasses. A passageway may also be interpreted broadly as an opening which is already inherent to the function of a vent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0337378 A1 teaches pultrusion and battery stack spacers. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
US 2020/0398652 A1 teaches battery stack spacers with interior ribs or structures. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
US 2018/0040933 A1 teaches battery stack compartments with air passageways. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
US 2022/0059894 A1 teaches battery stack spacing. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
US 2018/0337377 A1 teaches battery stack spacing. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
US 2014/0335398 A1 teaches thermal barrier between two battery spacers. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
US 2022/0115733 A1 teaches battery stack spacers that appear to allow for air between. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
US 9937818 B2 teaches interior ribs in battery spacers. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
JP 3324172 B2 teaches spacer between battery spacers. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
DE 102017209342 A1 teaches open interior of battery spacer. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 1027/2025.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
05/01/2026
Prosecution Insights