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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has indicated all claims (1-20) read on the elected species.
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 connector (claims 2, 11, 19) 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 2-3, 8-15, and 19 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 2 recites: “a mounting device mechanically coupled to the battery structure via a connector”. The connector is not understood. What component is the connector? Is the connector shown in the Figures? The confusion is compounded because a “connector” is not found in the specification/detailed description of the present application.
Claim 2 recites: “wherein the battery housing does not mechanically connected to the mounting device via a connecting device.” The metes and bounds of “a connecting device” are not understood. Does a connecting device correspond to the earlier claimed connector? The metes and bounds of “not mechanically connected” are not understood. The claim appears to contradict the disclosure, as the figures reveal a connecting device which connects the battery housing to the mounting device. See the annotated figure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
564
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is further unclear how the battery housing could be sealed, unless the mounting device is physically/mechanically mounted to the battery housing.
Claims 11 and 19 are indefinite for similar reasons as claim 2.
In claims 3, 9, 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the mounting device”.
In claim 8, there is improper antecedent basis for “a plurality of battery cells”.
Claim 10 recites: “a battery comprising a plurality of battery cells disposed on the battery structure” and “wherein the battery includes a plurality of battery cells, wherein the plurality of battery cells are supported by the battery structure.”
Are two pluralities of battery cells intended to be claimed? Clarification is needed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites: “The battery assembly of claim 1, wherein the battery housing is sealed.” All limitations from claim 5 are found in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. As such, claim 5 fails to further limit claim 1.
Claim 14 recites: “The battery assembly of claim 10, wherein the battery housing is sealed.” All limitations from claim 14 are found in claim 10, from which claim 14 depends. As such, claim 14 fails to further limit claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by You (US 12,074,337).
Regarding claim 16, You teaches: a battery assembly, comprising:
a battery housing (11) having a general top surface (A) and a first side structure (B) protruded from the general top surface;
a battery structure (4, 31, 32) disposed in the battery housing;
a battery (2) disposed in the battery housing and supported by the battery structure; and
a mounting device (5) mechanically coupled to the battery structure.
See Fig. 1 and the annotated version of Fig. 2, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
456
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, You further teaches: wherein the battery includes a plurality of battery cells (20), wherein the plurality of battery cells are supported by the battery structure. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 18, You further teaches: wherein the battery housing includes a second side structure (C) protruded from the general top surface, wherein the mounting device includes a first mounting component (5) proximate to the first side structure and coupled to the battery structure, wherein the mounting device includes a second mounting component (5) proximate to the first side structure and coupled to the battery structure. See the annotated version of Fig. 2, above, and Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 19, You further teaches: wherein the first mounting component includes a connector (5) mechanically coupled to the battery structure. See Fig. 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (US 12,074,337) in view of Chuang (US 9,040,185).
Regarding claim 1, You teaches: a battery assembly, comprising:
a battery housing (11, 13) is made from a first material;
a battery structure (including elements 4, 31, 32) disposed in the battery housing and is made from a second material; and
a battery (2) comprising a plurality of battery cells (20) disposed on the battery structure; and
wherein the battery housing is sealed (see column 6, lines 3-9).
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1-3.
You describes materials which form part of the battery structure in column 6, lines 55-58. However, You is silent regarding other materials used for the battery housing and other components of the battery structure. As such, You fails to teach: the second material being different from the first material, as claimed.
Chuang teaches a battery housing (17) is made from a first material (metal; see at least column 6, lines 7-10); a battery structure (12, 13) disposed in the battery housing and is made from a second material (plastic; see column 5, lines 6-9); the second material being different from the first material. Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 1.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery housing and battery structure from You such that the second material is different from the first material, as suggested by Chuang; the motivation being: the use of metal material is well known in the art for strength, durability and safety. Further, the use of plastic material is well known in the art for low-cost manufacture, and durability.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the second material being different from the first material as an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches: a mounting device (see the flange through which holds 323 extend) mechanically coupled to the battery structure via a connector (5); and wherein the battery housing does not mechanically connected to the mounting device via a connecting device. See Fig. 1 from You.
Regarding claim 3, the combination further teaches: wherein the mounting device includes a portion disposed within the battery housing when the battery assembly is assembled. See Fig. 5 from You.
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches: the battery housing is configured to be removable from the battery structure. See at least Fig. 2 from You.
Regarding claim 5, the combination further teaches: the battery housing is sealed. See column 6, lines 3-9 from You.
Regarding claim 6, the combination further teaches: wherein the first material includes a thermal insulated material, a flame retardant material, or an electrical insulated material. Chuang teaches the first material is metal; see at least column 6, lines 7-10). Metal is known in the art as flame retardant.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the first material includes a thermal insulated material, a flame retardant material, or an electrical insulated material as an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Regarding claim 7, the combination further teaches: wherein the battery housing has a general top surface (A), a first side structure (B) protruded from the general top surface, a second side structure (C) protruded from the general top surface. See the annotated version of Fig. 2 from You, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
456
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the combination further teaches: wherein the battery includes a of battery cells (20), wherein the plurality of battery cells are supported by the battery structure. See Fig. 1 from You.
Regarding claim 9, the combination further teaches: wherein the mounting device is configured to couple to a rail (12) in a vehicle. See Fig. 1 from You.
Regarding claim 10, You teaches: a battery assembly, comprising:
a battery housing (11, 13) is made from a first material;
a battery structure (including elements 4, 31, 32) disposed in the battery housing and is made from a second material; and
a battery (2) comprising a plurality of battery cells (20) disposed on the battery structure; and
wherein the battery housing is sealed (see column 6, lines 3-9);
wherein the battery includes a plurality of battery cells (20), wherein the plurality of battery cells are supported by the battery structure.
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1-3.
You describes materials which form part of the battery structure in column 6, lines 55-58. However, You is silent regarding other materials used for the battery housing and other components of the battery structure. As such, You fails to teach: the second material being different from the first material, as claimed.
Chuang teaches a battery housing (17) is made from a first material (metal; see at least column 6, lines 7-10); a battery structure (12, 13) disposed in the battery housing and is made from a second material (plastic; see column 5, lines 6-9); the second material being different from the first material. Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 1.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery housing and battery structure from You such that the second material is different from the first material, as suggested by Chuang; the motivation being: the use of metal material is well known in the art for strength, durability and safety. Further, the use of plastic material is well known in the art for low-cost manufacture, and durability.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the second material being different from the first material as an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches: a mounting device (see the flange through which holds 323 extend) mechanically coupled to the battery structure via a connector (5); and wherein the battery housing does not mechanically connected to the mounting device. See Fig. 1 from You.
Regarding claim 12, the combination further teaches: wherein the mounting device includes a portion disposed within the battery housing when the battery assembly is assembled. See Fig. 5 from You.
Regarding claim 13, the combination further teaches: the battery housing is configured to be removed from the battery structure. See at least Fig. 2 from You.
Regarding claim 14, the combination further teaches: the battery housing is sealed. See column 6, lines 3-9 from You.
Regarding claim 15, the combination further teaches: wherein the first material includes a thermal insulated material, a flame retardant material, or an electrical insulated material. Chuang teaches the first material is metal; see at least column 6, lines 7-10). Metal is known in the art as flame retardant.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the first material includes a thermal insulated material, a flame retardant material, or an electrical insulated material as an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Regarding claim 20, You teaches: wherein the battery housing is made from a first material, wherein the battery structure is made from a second material.
You describes materials which form part of the battery structure in column 6, lines 55-58. However, You is silent regarding other materials used for the battery housing and other components of the battery structure. As such, You fails to teach: the second material being different from the first material, as claimed.
Chuang teaches a battery housing (17) is made from a first material (metal; see at least column 6, lines 7-10); a battery structure (12, 13) disposed in the battery housing and is made from a second material (plastic; see column 5, lines 6-9); the second material being different from the first material. Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 1.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery housing and battery structure from You such that the second material is different from the first material, as suggested by Chuang; the motivation being: the use of metal material is well known in the art for strength, durability and safety. Further, the use of plastic material is well known in the art for low-cost manufacture, and durability.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the second material being different from the first material as an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional art made of record relates to battery enclosures relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613