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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 8, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. [US20210320368A1], hereinafter Huang.
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses a traction battery pack [Huang throughout], comprising:
a first cell stack [Huang 0068-0073 and throughout, battery cores 23 in Fig. 1 as shown below on left side of cross-member assembly] ;
a second cell stack [Huang 0068-0073 and throughout, battery cores 23 in Fig. 1 as shown below on left side of cross-member assembly];
a cross-member assembly arranged between the first cell stack and the second cell stack [Huang 0068-0074 and throughout, Figs. 1- 6 side plates 22 as the cross-member assembly];
and the cross-member assembly including a first cross-member beam that nests together with a second cross-member beam to establish the cross-member assembly [Huang 0068-0074 and throughout, Figs. 1- 6 side plates 22 (221-223) as the cross-member assembly, specifically 0074-0075, connecting plates 223 are at different heights on either side of the battery (see Figs. 5, 6) and are nested to form a cross-beam assembly (see annotated Figs. 5 and 6 below)] .
PNG
media_image1.png
637
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
612
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
716
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 5, annotated
Regarding Claim 5, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the first cell stack includes a plurality of battery cells stacked between the first cross-member beam and a third cross-member beam (Huang 0068-0074 and throughout, Figs. 1- 6 side plates 22 (221-223) as the cross-member assembly, specifically 0074-0075, Huang see modified Fig. 1 above for position of first and third cross-member beams 22).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 5, wherein the third cross-member beam includes an identical design as the second cross-member beam [Huang Figs. 1-6, compare Figs. 1, 5, and 6 showing 22 the left side of the stack (first and third cross-member) has lower height 223 as compared to the right side of the stack with upper height 223] .
Regarding Claim 7, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 5, wherein the third cross-member is configured to interface with an enclosure assembly of the traction battery pack [Huang 0079-0080 and throughout, Figs. 1-6, The third cross-member interfaces with the enclosure 11 through reinforcing beam 12 connected to the third cross member through connecting plate 3. Also, see annotated Fig. 1 above.].
Regarding Claim 11, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the first cross-member beam includes a side surface having a first stepped profile, and the second cross- member beam includes a side surface having a second stepped profile, wherein the first stepped profile nests with the second stepped profile to establish a nesting interface between the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam [Huang Figs. 1-6, 0073-0076 and throughout, See annotated Fig. 5 below and Fig. 6, which more clearly shows the stepped profiles.].
PNG
media_image4.png
716
607
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the first cross-member beam includes a first flange section and the second cross-member beam includes a second flange section, wherein the first flange section overlaps the second flange section to establish a nesting interface between the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam [Huang Figs. 1-6, 0073-0076 and throughout, See annotated Fig. 5 below showing overlapping flanges.].
PNG
media_image3.png
716
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the first cross-member beam includes a first flange section and the second cross-member beam includes a second flange section, wherein the first flange section abuts the second flange section to establish a nesting interface between the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam [Huang Figs. 1-6, 0073-0076 and throughout, See annotated Fig. 5 below showing abutting flanges.].
PNG
media_image3.png
716
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the first cross-member beam includes a surface configured to interface with a component of the first cell stack [Huang Figs. 1-6, 0073-0076 and throughout, surface of side plate 221 interfaces with the side covers of the batteries of the cell stack].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Wang et al. CN111668410A, machine translation relied upon provided], hereinafter Wang.
Regarding Claim 2, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1 but is silent to a venting passageway. Wang discloses a cross-member assembly 30 [Wang 0085-end, throughout, Figs. 1 and throughout] wherein the cross-member assembly includes a venting passageway disposed between the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam [Wang 0083 and throughout, gas passages within first (left side of 30, for example) and second (right side of 30, for example) cross-member assemblies shown in Fig. 3 and throughout]. Though Wang’s cross-member assemblies are joined centrally, making them separable is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, C and would be possible without affecting the function of the cross-member assemblies. Further, it would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Wang’s teachings for Huang’s battery pack by providing Wang’s inlets 31 with sealing members 300 [Wang Figs. 3-4] in Huang’s first and second cross-members 223 where they are corresponding to a side vent valve, such as Wang’s battery cell vent valve 201 in each cell 200 [Wang 0081 and throughout] in each side of each battery cell in Huang and abutting Huang’s first and second cross-member beams [See modified Fig. 5 below. Note: Wang’s cross-member assembly 30, which includes airflow passages, is merely rotated 90 ° as compared with Huang’s cross-member assembly and can be accommodated in Huang’s battery pack as shown below.] and by further including exhaust vent valves 40 at the end of the cross-member assembly to exhaust the gas to the outside of the battery pack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Wang with Huang as describe for the predictable result of a battery pack able to discharge flames, smoke, gas or gases from battery cells into a passageway and out of the battery pack to prevent thermal runaway [Wang 0006-0007, 0027 and throughout]. Such modification would be considered an improvement to Huang’s battery pack. See MPEP 2143.
PNG
media_image5.png
471
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
766
607
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, modified Huang discloses traction battery pack as recited in claim 2, comprising a valve assembly fluidly connected to the venting passageway [As combined in claim 2 above, Wang discloses each battery includes a valve 201, which is fluidly connected to the venting passageway [Wang 0066, 0083, Fig. 2 and throughout], and an exhaust valve 40, which is fluidly connected to the venting passageway [Wang 0083, Fig. 1 and throughout]. Both valves read on the claimed configuration and would be obvious for the reasons provided in claim 2.].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 2, wherein at least one of the first cross-member beam or the second cross-member beam includes a vent opening that is fluidly connected to the venting passageway [As combined in claim 2 above, Wang’s inlet 31 reads on the claimed vent opening as applied to Huang’s first and second cross-member beams as described above and would be obvious for the same reasons as provided in claim 2.].
Regarding Claim 8, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1 but is silent to a venting passageway. Wang discloses a cross-member assembly 30 [Wang 0085-end, throughout, Figs. 1 and throughout] wherein the cross-member assembly includes a first venting passageway disposed in the first cross-member beam and a second venting passageway disposed in second cross-member beam [Wang 0083 and throughout, gas passages within first (left side of 30, for example) and second (right side of 30, for example) cross-member assemblies shown in Fig. 3 and throughout]. Though Wang’s cross-member assemblies are joined centrally, making them separable is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, C and would be possible without affecting the function of the cross-member assemblies. Further, it would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Wang’s teachings for Huang’s battery pack by providing Wang’s inlets 31 with sealing members 300 [Wang Figs. 3-4] in Huang’s first and second cross-members 223 where they are corresponding to a side vent valve, such as Wang’s battery cell vent valve 201 in each cell 200 [Wang 0081 and throughout] in each side of each battery cell in Huang and abutting Huang’s first and second cross-member beams [See modified Fig. 5 below. Note: Wang’s cross-member assembly 30, which includes airflow passages, is merely rotated 90 ° as compared with Huang’s cross-member assembly, which can be accommodated in Huang’s battery pack as shown below.] and by further including exhaust vent valves 40 at the end of the cross-member assembly to exhaust the gas to the outside of the battery pack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Wang with Huang as describe for the predictable result of a battery pack capable of discharging flames, smoke, gas or gases from battery cells into two separate passageways to the two outlet valves 40 and out of the battery pack to prevent thermal runaway [Wang 0006-0007, 0027 and throughout]. Such modification would be considered an improvement to Huang’s battery pack. See MPEP 2143.
PNG
media_image5.png
471
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
766
607
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, modified Huang traction battery pack as recited in claim 8, wherein the second venting passageway is fluidly isolated from the first venting passageway by a dividing wall established by nesting side surfaces of the first cross-member beam and the second cross-member beam [As combined in claim 8 above, the lower portion upper 223 (first flange) and the upper portion of lower 223 (second flange) are a dividing wall established by nesting side surfaces of the first and second cross-member beams. This first and second venting passage way fluidly isolated by a dividing wall is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of Wang’s divided passages shown cross-member assembly 30 in Figs. 3-4. Therefore, claim 9 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 8.].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 9, comprising a first valve assembly fluidly connected to the first venting passageway and a second valve assembly fluidly connected to the second venting passageway [As combined in claim 8 and 9 above, Wang discloses each battery includes a valve 201, which is fluidly connected to the venting passageway [Wang 0066, 0083, Fig. 2 and throughout]. Therefore, a battery and valve in the first stack assembly would have a first valve assembly fluidly connected to the first venting passageway and a battery and valve in the second stack assembly would have a second valve assembly fluidly connected to the second venting passageway. Therefore, claim 10 is obvious for the reasons provided in claim 8.].
.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as provided above for claims 1 and 14 and in further view of Kumagai US20210362579A1.
Regarding Claim 15, Huang discloses the traction battery pack as recited in claim 14 [Huang Figs. 1-6, 0073-0076 and throughout, surface of side plate 221 interfaces with the side covers of the battery cells of the cell stack] but is silent wherein the component is a standoff located between a battery cell of the first cell stack and the first cross-member beam. Kumagai discloses a standoff 80 between a rail 11 and a battery stack 70 [Kumagai 0022-0033 and throughout, Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kumagai’s teaching about using a standoff between the battery stack and the rail in Huang’s battery pack by modifying Huang to include a standoff between the first battery cell stack and the first cross-member beam between side plate 221 and the battery cells for the predictable result of a reduction of the transfer of stress during operation of the vehicle creating torsion and deflection between the first cross-beam member and the first cell stack [Kumagai 0031 and throughout]. Such modification would be considered an improvement to the Huang’s traction battery pack. See MPEP 2143.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5 EST.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724