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 .
Claim Status
Claim 30 has been cancelled, new claim 41 has been added, and claims 21, 24, 27-29, 31, 38, and 40 have been amended. Claims 21-29 and 31-41 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 27 is 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. Claim 27 includes a new limitation stating the aluminum structure encompassed a respective end of a respective cross member between a respective pair of angled tabs. While it is understood to the examiner that the bracket (120) is used here to mean the aluminum structure, there are no figures which depict ends of cross members being encompassed between pairs of angled tabs, nor are there any instances of the term “tab” within the specification. Therefore, this limitation is not supported. For purpose of examination, so long as a bracket is known to be present between the cross members and side members, regardless of bracket type or specific structure, it will read on the new limitation.
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 24-25 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 24 recites the limitation "the other cross members" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the opposite ends" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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) 21, 23-24, 28-29, 31, 33-35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stephens et al. (U.S. 20180186227, presented in IDS submitted 03/20/2023).
With respect to claim 21, Stephens discloses a battery pack ([0002) comprising:
first and second side members (26 side reinforcement members) comprised of angled front end portions (20a - nodes) (Fig. 2);
a plurality of cross members (28 – front reinforcement member, 54 – cross members, 30 – rear reinforcement member) each coupled between the first and second side members (26) (Figs. 2 and 3), wherein one cross member (28) of the plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) is shorter than the other cross members and is fixedly attached to the angled front end portions (20a) (Fig. 2); and
a bottom member (18 – base plate) that extends between the first side member (26) and the second side member (26) (Figs. 2 and 3), wherein the first side member (26), the second side member (26), and each of the plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) comprises a respective bottom surface that interfaces with the bottom member (18) (Fig. 3).
With respect to claims 23, Stephens discloses the first and second side members (26) define a space between continuous inner surfaces thereof (Figs. 2 and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 24, Stephens discloses respective pairs of the plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) define respective spaces between continuous inner surfaces thereof (Figs. 2 and 3); and the other cross members (28, 54, 30) each comprise a pair of flanges (labeled) that interface with the bottom member (18) (Fig. 3 – above).
With respect to claim 26, Stephens discloses cross members (28, 54, 30) affixed to side members and cross members (26) via the use of adhesion (epoxy or silicon sealant) ([0049]).
With respect to claim 28, Stephens discloses the first and the second side members (26) includes one or more fastener holes formed on an upper surface ([0048] describes screws being used to attach a top cover to peripheral walls of the support structure, thus holes would necessarily have to be present in peripheral walls to interact with the screws).
With respect to claim 29, Stephens discloses the cross members (28, 54, 30) has a rectangular cross-sectional shape (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 31, Stephens discloses a battery pack members (26, 28, 54, 30) (Figs. 2 and 3) comprising:
first and second side members (26) comprised of angled front end portions (20a) (Fig. 2);
a plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) each coupled between the first and second side members (26) (Figs. 2 and 3;
wherein one cross member (20a) of the plurality of cross members is shorter than the other cross members and is fixedly attached to the angled front end portions (20a) (Fig. 2); and
a bottom member (labeled) wherein the first side member (26), second side member (26), and each of the plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) comprises a respective bottom surface that interfaces with the bottom member (18). (Fig. 3).
With respect to claims 33-34, Stephens discloses the first and second side members (26) and plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) define respective spaces between continuous inner surfaces thereof (Figs. 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 35, Stephens discloses the opposite ends of respective cross members (28, 54, 30) of the plurality of cross members are affixed to inner surfaces of the first and second side members (26) by oat least one fastener or adhesion (brackets or silicone/epoxy sealants) ([0049]).
With respect to claim 37, Stephens discloses the first and the second side members (26) includes one or more fastener holes formed on an upper surface ([0048] describes screws being used to attach a top cover to peripheral walls of the support structure, thus holes would necessarily have to be present in peripheral walls to interact with the screws).
With respect to claim 38, Stephens discloses the cross members (28, 54, 30) has a rectangular cross-sectional shape (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 39, Stephens discloses the first side member (26), the second side member (26), and the plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) each comprise internal structures (Fig. 3).
The limitation “…configured to provide structural support to continuous inner surfaces of each member against physical impacts to one or more outer surfaces of the members,” is an example of intended use. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (MPEP [7.37.09]). In this instance, as no actual internal limiting structure has been claimed, and the invention claims both a support and reinforcement structure ([0010]), it is clear to the examiner that the members of the prior art are structurally capable of performing structural support against physical impact as claimed.
With respect to claim 40, Stephens discloses a battery pack ([0002) comprising a frame (10 – battery support structure) configured to accommodate one or more battery modules (16 – batteries) (Fig. 2), the frame (10) comprising:
first and second side members (26 side reinforcement members) comprised of angled front end portions (20a - nodes) (Fig. 2);
a plurality of cross members (28 – front reinforcement member, 54 – cross members, 30 – rear reinforcement member) each coupled between the first and second side members (26) (Figs. 2 and 3), wherein one cross member (28) of the plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) is shorter than the other cross members and is fixedly attached to the angled front end portions (20a) (Fig. 2); and
a bottom member (18 – base plate) that extends between the first side member (26) and the second side member (26) (Figs. 2 and 3), wherein the first side member (26), the second side member (26), and each of the plurality of cross members (28, 54, 30) comprises a respective bottom surface that interfaces with the bottom member (18) (Fig. 3),
and the bottom member (18) is configured to at least partially define respective storage spaces for the one or more battery modules (16) (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. as applied to claim 21 above.
With respect to claim 41, in a separate embodiment (Fig. 17), Stephens discloses middle ones (454 – cross members) of the plurality of cross members (428, 454, 430 comprise respective central cutouts (labeled), proximate to respective bottom surfaces of respective middle ones of the plurality of cross members (454) (Fig. 17), but does not disclose they cutouts are proximate to respective bottom surface of the cross members.
However, applicant is reminded that the particular placement of a part is held to be an obvious matter of design choice (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). In this instance, shifting the placement of the cutout to be slightly higher within the cross member than claimed does not change the operation of the cross members.
The limitation “…configured to accommodate one or more structures of the battery pack,” is an example of intended use. Applicant is reminded that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this instance, the openings shown in Fig. 17 have the distinct ability to accommodate structures of the battery pack, such as busbar connections or coolant pipes, as the cutouts in each of the cross members are aligned directionally, thus the inherent function is structural connection throughout the pack can be performed.
Claim(s) 22, 27, 32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Stojanovic et al. (U.S. 20180026243, presented in IDS submitted 03/20/2023).
With respect to claim 22, Stephens discloses a first and second side member and cross members (see above rejection of claim 21), but does not disclose the first and second side members and each cross member of the plurality of cross members comprise extruded aluminum.
Stojanovic discloses a frame (housing) for a vehicle battery (Fig. 7, [0053]) with a first and second side members (42a, 42b – frame beams) and cross members (30 – crossbeams) and teaches the first and second side members and cross members comprise extruded aluminum ([0052-0053]). Stojanovic further teaches extruded aluminum is a suitable material for forming battery housings ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to construct the first and second side members and cross members disclosed by Stephens from extruded aluminum as taught by Stojanovic as extruded aluminum is a suitable material for forming battery housings.
With respect to claim 27, Stephens discloses each of the opposite ends of respective cross members (28, 54, 30) of the plurality of cross members is affixed to an inner surface the first and second side members (26) by a structure partially encompasses a respective end of a respective cross member (based on the definition and common practice of the use of a bracket) (Figs. 2 and 3, [0049]), but does not disclose the structure is aluminum or partially encompasses a respective end of a respective cross member between a respective part of angled tabs.
It has already been demonstrated in the above rejection of claim 22 that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to construct the casing out of extruded aluminum as it is suitable material for forming battery housings, thus it can also be applied to the claimed aluminum structure as it is part of the housing.
Regarding the use of angled tabs, refer to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section of this action for the examiner’s interpretation of the limitation.
With respect to claim 32, Stephens discloses a first and second side member and cross members (see above rejection of claim 31), but does not disclose the first and second side members and each cross member of the plurality of cross members comprise extruded aluminum.
Stojanovic discloses a frame (housing) for a vehicle battery (Fig. 7, [0053]) with a first and second side members (42a, 42b – frame beams) and cross members (30 – crossbeams) and teaches the first and second side members and cross members comprise extruded aluminum ([0052-0053]). Stojanovic further teaches extruded aluminum is a suitable material for forming battery housings ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to construct the first and second side members and cross members disclosed by Stephens from extruded aluminum as taught by Stojanovic as extruded aluminum is a suitable material for forming battery housings.
With respect to claim 36, Stephens discloses each of the opposite ends of respective cross members (28, 54, 30) of the plurality of cross members is affixed to an inner surface the first and second side members (26) by a structure partially encompasses a respective end of a respective cross member (based on the definition and common practice of the use of a bracket) (Figs. 2 and 3, [0049]), but does not disclose the structure is aluminum.
It has already been demonstrated in the above rejection of claim 32 that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to construct the casing out of extruded aluminum as it is suitable material for forming battery housings, thus it can also be applied to the claimed aluminum structure as it is part of the housing.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Nishino et al. (U.S. 20090186266).
With respect to claim 25, Stephens discloses the opposite ends of respective cross members (28, 54, 30) of the plurality of cross members are affixed to inner surfaces of the first and second side members (26) by brackets or sealants ([0049]), but does not specifically disclosed the use of screws.
Nishino discloses a battery frame (50 – battery case) comprising a first and second side member (31 and 32) connected to cross members (101, 203, 103, 104 – beam members) (Fig. 4) and teaches the cross members (101, 102, 103, and 104) are connected to the side members (31 and 32) via screws (147, 157, 177, 197 – bolts that are screwed) (Fig. 3, [0055], [0057], [0059], [0062]). Nishino further teaches the screws attach the cross members (101, 102, 103, 104) to the side members (31 and 32) in order to help bear the load of the battery ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the cross members and side members disclosed by Stephens could be attached to each other via screws as taught by Nishino in order to help bear the load of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of response, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to claims 21, 29, 31, 38, and 40 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 29 and 38 and the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 21, 31, and 40 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 31, and 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The independent claims now rely on the new prior art of Stephens et al.
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 JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights