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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 204577482 U, of which a complete copy of the Chinese reference with an English abstract was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 5, 2023, and with a machine translation provided with the Office Action mailed July 7, 2025.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 20, CN ‘482 discloses a battery pack for a vehicle (abstract; pages 3-5 of translation under the heading “Description”; claim 1; and Figures 1 and 2), in which the battery pack comprises the following structural features (refer to annotated Figure 2 of CN ‘482 below):
a tray;
a pressing plate (6);
a plurality of battery cores (not shown) that are arranged in an array for use in the vehicle (see the last full paragraph on page 3 of translation that recites “a vehicle frame, two batteries and a battery fixing device”); and
an accommodating space formed in the tray (see annotated Figure 2 of CN ‘482 below),
wherein the pressing plate (6) is pressed against the plurality of battery cores, and two opposite ends of the pressing plate (6) are both fixed to the tray (see annotated Figure 2 of CN ‘482 below).
In addition, CN ‘482 discloses that a pull plate is fixed to the tray, wherein two opposite ends of the pressing plate (6) comprise a first end that is connected with the pull plate, and the first end of the pressing plate (6) is fixed to the tray through the pull plate (see annotated Figure 2 of CN ‘482 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the applicants’ amendment wherein the first end of the pressing plate is “directly contacted and connected with the pull plate”, the examiner is broadly interpreting the pull plate to comprise both the flat plate and the rod, as shown in annotated Figure 2 of CN ‘482 above. In other words, the rod and the plate are considered as one unitary piece as the “pull plate”. Based on this interpretation, the amendment to independent claim 1 does not overcome the broadest reasonable interpretation of the new limitation.
Regarding claim 3, CN ‘482 discloses that a pull rod (5) is fixed to the tray, wherein the two opposite ends of the pressing plate (6) further comprise a second end arranged opposite to the first end in a length direction, wherein one end is connected to the pressing plate (6) and the other end is fixed to the tray (see annotated Figure 2 of CN ‘482 above).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 204577482 U.
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘482 discloses the features of claims 1 and 3 above, and further including that the pull plate is fixed to the bottom plate having a side beam with an opening that would define the accommodating space, and having the pull rod (5) fixed to the bottom plate and connected with the side beam (see annotated Figure 2 of CN ‘482 above), but fails to explicitly teach a protrusion that extends from the side beam in the opening and being fixedly connected to the pull plate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the side beam with a protrusion or any other type of connection means with the pull plate, since such an assembly would have been merely a design choice, for the purpose of further enhancing strength and compactness of the battery pack to improve service life by preventing impact damage (CN ‘482; abstract).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, CN ‘482 discloses/suggests the features of claims 1, 3, and 4 above, and at least one second pull rod (5) with crossbars. Although CN ‘482 fails to explicitly teach a plurality of intermediate crossbars and pull plates that are operably arranged with the plurality of pull rods, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of crossbars, pull plates, and pull rods depending on the number of battery cores being assembled and attached within the battery pack, for the purpose of further enhancing strength and compactness of the battery pack to improve service life by preventing impact damage (CN ‘482; abstract). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, and in addition to CN ‘482 disclosing/suggesting the features of claims 1 and 3-5 above, Figure 2 of CN ‘482 shows that a cross-sectional area of the pull plate is greater than a cross-sectional area of the first pull rod (5). With regard to the comparative cross-sectional areas of the first pull rod and the second pull rod, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the respective cross-sectional areas would be readily modified to compensate for weight load of respective parts that the pull rods would support or secure on each of the crossbars. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of any one of the pull rods, since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 6, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 204577482 U, and further in view of CN 207800720 U, of which a complete copy of the Chinese reference with an English abstract was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 5, 2023, and with a machine translation provided with the Office Action mailed July 7, 2025.
Regarding claim 6, CN ‘482 discloses/suggests the features of claims 1 and 3-5 above, including that a limiting block as a structural feature to create a gap between adjacent battery cores in an extending direction of the battery cores, but do not explicitly disclose that the limiting blocks define a gap having a middle portion and edge portions with the limiting block is located in each of the edge portions and includes the second pull rod extending through the middle portion to connect with the pressing plate.
However, CN 207800720 U discloses a group battery installation (abstract; pages 3 and 4 of translation under the heading “Figure explanation”; claim 1; and Figures 1-7), in which the group battery installation includes a plurality of intermediate, transverse, and longitudinal arranged limiting blocks (limiting beams (21,22,23)) defining a gap having middle and edge portions and located between the battery cores, for the purpose of improving heat dissipation with reduced maintenance cost (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the battery pack disclosed by CN ‘482, by using the arrangement of limiting blocks in the group battery installation, as taught by CN ‘720, in order to improve heat dissipation and to reduce maintenance cost (CN ‘720; abstract).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 12, and in addition to CN ‘482 disclosing/suggesting the features of claims 1 and 3-5 above, as well as the combined teachings of CN ‘482 and CN ‘720 disclosing/suggesting the features of claim 6 above, Figure 2 of CN ‘482 shows that a cross-sectional area of the pull plate is greater than a cross-sectional area of the first pull rod (5). With regard to the comparative cross-sectional areas of the first pull rod and the second pull rod, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the respective cross-sectional areas would be readily modified to compensate for weight load of respective parts that the pull rods would support or secure on each of the crossbars. Although the combined teachings of CN ‘482 and CN ‘720 fail to explicitly teach a plurality of intermediate crossbars and pull plates that are operably arranged with the plurality of pull rods, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of crossbars, pull plates, and pull rods depending on the number of battery cores being assembled and attached within the battery pack, for the purpose of further enhancing strength and compactness of the battery pack to improve service life by preventing impact damage (CN ‘482; abstract). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of any one of the pull rods, since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a battery pack that includes all structural features of independent claim 1, and further includes the following features (of dependent claims 13 and 15-19 that all have the same limitations with differing dependencies):
each of the battery cores comprises a top surface;
a positive pole and a negative pole spaced apart from each other are arranged on the top surface, in which the top surfaces of the plurality of battery cores form a mounting surface; and
the battery pack further comprises a top cover plate and an insulating cover, wherein the top cover plate is mounted to the mounting surface, and the insulating cover is mounted to the top cover plate.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ after final amendment entered upon filing of the request for continued examination received by the USPTO on January 5, 2026 and January 22, 2026, respectively. In addition, it is noted that the applicants have provided a certified copy of the priority document on February 2, 2026 (also refer to attached form PTOL-326). Claims 13 and 15-19 continue to be indicated as allowable subject matter in above sections 9 and 10. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the argument pertaining to the new limitation of independent claim 1 has been addressed in the newly underlined portions applied above in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 February 9, 2026