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Claims 12-15 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B and C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-11, 16-17, and 20 (Species A) in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged.
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)(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.
(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) 1, 2, 5, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greber (FR-3118313-A1 with citations from the provided translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Greber discloses:
A traction battery pack, comprising (“the invention relates to a vehicle electricity storage battery,” see [0006])
an enclosure assembly (at least the battery casing 5, supporting structure 25, and solid piece 65 with skin 67, see Figs. 1-2 and 5);
a cell stack housed within the enclosure assembly (the electricity storage cells are housed in the battery casing 5, see [0008]);
and an end cap (frame 65C) arranged to establish an interface between a side wall (side wall of the lid 27) of the enclosure assembly and the cell stack (cells 3, see Fig. 1 and 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Greber discloses:
wherein the cell stack includes a grouping of battery cells supported between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam (compartment 37 receives battery cells and the compartment 37 is delimited by internal partitions 65I, see [0061], [0077], Fig. 1, and Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Greber discloses:
wherein the end cap includes a first side section that interfaces with the cell stack and a second side section that interfaces with the side wall (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
1417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Greber discloses:
wherein the end cap includes an upper section that interfaces with an upper enclosure structure and a lower section that interfaces with a lower enclosure structure (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Greber discloses:
comprising an adhesive disposed between the first side section and the cell stack and further between the second side section and the side wall (The fins 115 are suitably glued to the heat exchange plate 71 which is shown in Fig. 1 to traverses the indicated first side section, the compartment 37 where the cells are received (see [0061]), the indicated side section, and the side wall of the lid 27, see [0185] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Greber discloses:
wherein the end cap includes a first side section, a second side section, an upper section, and a lower section arranged to substantially circumscribe a hollow opening of the end cap (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
660
1408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Greber discloses:
wherein a gap extends between the lower section and the second side section (at least a hollow section (i.e., a gap) between the fins 115 of the heat dissipation circuit 75 is shown to extend between the indicated lower section and side section, see annotated Fig. 1 below Claim 10).
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.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber (FR-3118313-A1 with citations from the provided translation) as applied to Claim 1 and 2 above and in further view of Stephens et al. (US-20200398652-A1) and Roehm et al (US-20230369697-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Greber teaches that both the internal partitions 65I and 65C are both connected to heat dissipation circuit 75 which part of the load bearing structure, see [0107] and Fig. 1 and Fig. 3. Additionally, Greber teaches the heat dissipation circuit 75 can suitably be made of aluminum or aluminum alloy, or carbon steel or stainless steel, see [0183]. Note, the recitation of connect does not exclude intervening structure(s) and can mean thermally or electrically connected. However, Greber does not teach:
wherein the end cap is attached to a pultrusion insert of the first cross-member beam or the second cross-member beam.
To solve the same problem of providing a battery tray floor structure with coolant channels (see [0038] and [0046]), Stephens teaches forming the tray floor structure with coolant channels by pultruding various types of fibers through a resin to provide a composite-based structure.
To solve the same problem of providing a battery tray (see Abstract), Roehm teaches that pultruded fiber based composite trays are lighter than metallic trays which increases vehicle energy efficiency, see [0003] and [0010].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have made the metal heat dissipation circuit of Greber out of a pultruded composite to have a lighter material in order to increase vehicle energy efficiency.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber (FR-3118313-A1 with citations from the provided translation) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Akazawa et al. (US 20130068548 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Greber teaches the lid 27 is concave toward the supporting structure, see [0055]. However, Greber is silent to:
wherein the side wall includes a draft angle, and the end cap squares the draft angle.
To solve the same problem of designing a vehicle battery pack housing, Akazawa et al. teaches providing a draft angle tilt to the side walls of the battery housing to reduce the occurrence of breaking, see [0029].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provide the side wall of the lid of Greber with a draft angle in order to reduce the occurrence of breaking as taught by Akazawa.
The frame 65C is shown as being conformally provided with that sidewall of the lid in Fig 1 of Greber . Additionally, Greber teaches the lateral surface 45 of the internal surface 43 of the frame 65C is substantially parallel to a principal direction, shown in the figures by arrows P, see [0069] and Fig. 1.
It is the Examiner’s position that the modification of Greber in view of teaches:
wherein the side wall includes a draft angle, and the end cap squares the draft angle.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber (FR-3118313-A1 with citations from the provided translation) as applied to Claim 1 and 5 above and in further view of Yi et al. (US-20240123811-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Greber teaches a support structure 25 which comprises a heat exchange plate 71 and lower plate 109 that traverses between the indicated second side section and the indicated side wall, see annotated Fig. 1 below Claim 5, Fig. 3 and [0165]. Greber does not teach:
comprising a foam structure arranged between the second side section and the side wall.
To solve the same problem of providing a vehicle battery frame with a cooling plate with heat exchange channels (see Abstract and [0057]), Yi teaches using a foamed heat preservation plate 280 on the lower side of the cooling plate 240, see [0060] and Fig. 4. Yi further teaches the foamed heat preservation plate 280 acts to increase cooling efficiency of the cooling plate, see [0060].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a foamed heat preservation plate below the heat exchange plate 71 of Greber in order to increase the cooling efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber (FR-3118313-A1 with citations from the provided translation) as applied to Claim 1 and 5 above and in further view of Akazawa et al. (US-20130068548-A1)
Regarding Claim 7, Greber teaches the lid 27 is concave toward the supporting structure, see [0055]. However, Greber is silent to:
wherein the first side section is flat and the second side section is sloped or angled to match a draft angle of the side wall
To solve the same problem of designing a vehicle battery pack housing, Akazawa et al. teaches providing a draft angle tilt to the side walls of the battery housing to reduce the occurrence of breaking, see [0029].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provide the side wall of the lid of Greber with a draft angle in order to reduce the occurrence of breaking as taught by Akazawa.
The frame 65C is shown as being conformally provided with that sidewall of the lid in Fig 1 of Greber . Additionally, Greber teaches the lateral surface 45 of the internal surface 43 of the frame 65C is substantially parallel to a principal direction, shown in the figures by arrows P, see [0069] and Fig. 1.
It is the Examiner’s position that the modification of Greber in view of teaches:
wherein the first side section is flat and the second side section is sloped or angled to match a draft angle of the side wall
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber (FR-3118313-A1 with citations from the provided translation) in view of Kim et al. (US-20220063391-A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Greber with the following modification in view of Kim teaches:
A traction battery pack, comprising (“the invention relates to a vehicle electricity storage battery,” see [0006]):
an enclosure assembly including an enclosure cover and an enclosure tray (at least the battery casing 5, supporting structure 25, and solid piece 65 with skin 67, see Figs. 1-2 and 5);
a cell stack (cell 3) received within the enclosure tray and including a grouping of battery cells arranged between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam (internal partitions 65I, see Fig. 5);
Greber teaches the frame 65C is arranged between the cell stack and lid 27 (see Fig. 1 and 5), therefore, Greber does not teach:
and an end cap arranged between the cell stack and a side wall of the enclosure tray
It is noted, that there is no significant difference between as having a lower case that extends upward to provide an internal space that has an axial cross section that transects the battery cells verses a lid that extends downward to provide an internal space that has an axial cross section that transects the battery cells. Further, lower cases that extend upward were well known in the art at the time the invention was made (as evidenced by Kim, see Fig. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the battery casing of Greber to have lower case that extends upward, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Greber further teaches:
and configured to exert a compressive load against at least one of the cell stack or the side wall (The frame 65C is pressed against the cover/lid 27, see [0079]. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the frame is structurally capable of exerting a compressive load against either the cell stack or the side wall).
Regarding Claim 17, Greber teaches the lid 27 is concave toward the supporting structure, see [0055]. However, Greber is silent to:
wherein the end cap includes a side section configured to square a draft angle of the side wall.
To solve the same problem of designing a vehicle battery pack housing, Akazawa et al. teaches providing a draft angle tilt to the side walls of the battery housing to reduce the occurrence of breaking, see [0029].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provide the side wall of the lid of Greber with a draft angle in order to reduce the occurrence of breaking as taught by Akazawa.
The frame 65C is shown as being conformally provided with that sidewall of the lid in Fig 1 of Greber . Additionally, Greber teaches the lateral surface 45 of the internal surface 43 of the frame 65C is substantially parallel to a principal direction, shown in the figures by arrows P, see [0069] and Fig. 1.
It is the Examiner’s position that the modification of Greber in view of teaches:
wherein the end cap includes a side section configured to square a draft angle of the side wall.
Regarding Claim 20, Greber discloses:
comprising a foam structure (the plastic material 41 embedded in the frame 65C is foamed, see [0080])
arranged between the end cap and the side wall (optional limitation)
or arranged within a hollow opening of the end cap (the plastic material 41 embedded in the frame 65C is foamed, see [0080]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721