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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 4, 7, and 18 have been cancelled and claims 1, 6, 8, 11-12 and 16-17 have been amended. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-17, and 19-20 are currently pending.
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(s) 1-2, 6, 8-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (U.S. 20230102065).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Han discloses a battery pack (1000) for a vehicle (Fig. 1; [0003]), comprising:
a base member (1130 – partition wall) forming a skeleton (Fig. 8);
at least one bus bar (1402 and 1403 – second and third connecting member) mounted on the base member (1130) (Fig. 8);
a connection groove (1131 – void) formed by being depressed in the base member (1130) (Fig. 8);
a wire (1401 – first connecting member) inserted into the connection groove (1131) (Fig. 8) and ;
a reinforcing member assembly (1130 and 1140 – partition walls) configured to include the base member (1130), the at least one bus bar (1402 and 1403), and the connection groove (1131), the wire (1401) (Fig. 8),
wherein the at least one bus bar (1402 and 1403) is mounted on at least one of both sides of the cross-section in the base member (1130) (Fig. 8),
wherein a bus bar mounting groove (1133 – recess), into which the at least one bus bar (1402 and 1403) is inserted, is formed along the length direction of the base member (1130) (Fig. 2 and 8), and
wherein a depth of the bus bar mounting groove (1133) is shallower than a depth of the connection groove (1131) (Fig. 8 – above using dashed arrows to show depth).
The above cited embodiment of Han (Fig. 8) does not include a member cover coupled to the base member and blocking the at least one bus bar and the connection groove from an outside. However, an alternative embodiment of Han teaches the connection groove (1131) is formed such that an opening thereof is located at an upper side of a cross-section of the base member (1130L) perpendicular to a length direction of the base member (1130) (Fig. 4) and the inclusion of a member cover (1130U – upper frame) coupled to the base member (1130L – lower frame) while surrounding the upper side of the base member (1130L) (Fig. 4), seals the opening of the connection groove (1131) to constrain the wire (1401) inserted through the opening toward a lower side of the connection groove (1131) (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use the assembly method detailed in Fig. 4 of Han to the base member disclosed in Fig. 8 of Han in order to form the base member.
In either embodiment, it is not shown that (I) the member cover also surrounds the sides of the base member or is in planar contact with surfaces of the busbars, as there is no single embodiment that shows a cover with the busbars, or that (II) the connection groove is formed in an upper portion of the base member, instead disclosing the connection groove is formed in a lower portion of the base member, thus the bus bar mounting groove of the base member is disposed lower than the connection groove so as to be vertically spaced away from the connection groove.
Regarding limitation (I), the combination of the embodiments shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 8 as presented in the above rejection of claim 1 would arrive at this limitation. This is made obvious by the exposed sides of the busbars (1402 and 1403) shown in Fig. 8 which align with the lateral sides of the base member (1130). Therefore, when the cover member (1130U) is introduced in Fig. 8, it would be in surface contact with the base member (1130L) as depicted in Fig. 4, and the exposed sides of the bus bars (1402 and 1403) as depicted in Fig. 8.
Regarding limitation (II), applicant is reminded that shifting the position of a part is unpatentable as long as the shift does not modify the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this instance, the connection groove housing the wire being at a lower portion or upper portion of the base member (i.e. disposed lower than or higher than the bus bar mounting groove) does not modify the grooves ability to house the wire and provide an extension space within the battery pack, therefore its relative location is unpatentable. The difference caused between the relative positions of the connection groove is a change in the installation process of the wire. However, in the embodiment referenced in Fig. 4 above, the same installation method of the wire is required when compared to that of the instant application, where the wire is lowered into a base of the base member and subsequently covered, rather than fed through the groove longitudinally as depicted by Fig. 8. Therefore, the method of installing a wire into the base member wherein the wire is lowered to sit on a top of a base member rather than fed through a base member is sufficiently taught. Hence repositioning the connection groove to be above the busbars results in no structural difference that has not been taught tin the prior art.
Finally, the limitation which states “…such that the base member provides rigidity to a battery case 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 relative depths of each groove is disclosed by the prior art (see above annotated Fig. 8), therefore, the prior art teaches the structural limitation of the claim, therefore the functional limitation of the provided rigidity is inherent and does not differentiate the prior art from the instant application.
With respect to claim 2, Han discloses the connection groove (1131) extends along the length direction of the base member (1130) (Figs. 2 and 8).
With respect to claim 6, Han discloses the at least one bus bar (1402 and 1403) includes a plurality of the bus bars (1402 and 1403) symmetrically mounted on sides of the base member (1130) (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 8, Han discloses the cross-section perpendicular to the length direction of the base member (1130) is formed by a square cross-section (Fig. 2 and 8).
With respect to claim 9, Han discloses the member cover (1130U) has a cross-sectional structure surrounding an upper side the square cross-section of the base member (1130L) (Fig. 4).
While Han does not disclose that the member cover (1130U) covers the sides of the base member (1130L), however applicant is reminded that the claimed configuration of a part is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed part was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this instance, extending the sides of the member cover (1130U) to contact the sides of the base member (1130L) offers no significance, as the cover member (1130U) can still be connected to the base member (1130L) via welding or mechanical fastening means as disclosed by Han ([0053]).
With respect to claim 10, Han discloses the wire (1401) inserted into the connection groove (1131) is a wire for communication (connects electrical component 1301 to another electrical component (1303) (Fig. 2. [0041]).
With respect to claim 11, Han discloses a cross-section of the base member (1130) perpendicular to a length direction of the base member (1130) is formed by a square cross-section (Fig. 2 and 8),
wherein the member cover (1130U) is formed in a shape surrounding both sides and an upper side of the square cross-section of the base member (1130L) (see above rejection of claim 9), wherein the at least one bus bar (1402 and 1403) is inserted and mounted in at least one bus bar mounting groove (1133) formed on surfaces of the square cross-section of the base member (1130) (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 12, Han discloses the at least one bus bar mounting groove (1133) includes a plurality of bus bar mounting grooves (1133 right and 1133 left) vertically disposed on surfaces of the square cross- section of the base member (1130) (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 13, Han discloses the connection groove (1131) is formed in a central portion of an upper side of the square cross-section of the base member (1130) (Fig. 8; see above rejection of claim 2 to read on “upper” location of connection groove 1131), and
bank portions (labeled) of sides of the connection groove (1131) are in surface-to-surface contact with an inside of corners of the member cover (1130U) (Fig. 4 and 8 - below).
Although no one embodiment shows the bank portions of the connection groove being in close contact with the inside corners of the member cover, once the embodiments of Fig. 4 and Fig. 8 are combined, as referenced in the above rejection of claim 1, and the connection groove is disposed above the bus bar mounting grooves in an upper portion of the base member, as referenced in the above rejection of claims 2 and 7, the bank portions (labeled) would necessarily be in close contact with the inside corners of the member cover.
PNG
media_image2.png
497
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Han discloses the reinforcing member assembly (1130 and 1140) is elongated in a longitudinal/transverse direction of a vehicle in which the battery pack (1000) is mounted (Fig. 1; [0044]). Han discloses that the connecting member (1400) can be housed in either the portion of the reinforcement assembly (1130 and 1140) (Fig. 1). Therefore, regardless of the mounting orientation of the battery pack (1000) in a vehicle, the reinforcing assembly (1130 and 1140) would extend in both (longitudinal and transverse) directions.
With respect to claim 16, a reinforcing member assembly (1130 and 1140) for a battery case (1100 – pack housing) of a vehicle (Fig. 1; [0003]), comprising:
a base member (1130 – partition wall) forming a skeleton (Fig. 8);
a bus bar mounting groove (1133) formed by being depressed on a surface of the base member (130) to mount a bus bar (1402 and 1403) (Fig. 8)
a connection groove (1131 – void) formed by being depressed in the base member (1130) (Fig. 8); and
wherein a depth of the bus bar mounting groove (1133) is shallower than a depth of the connection groove (1131) (Fig. 8 – above using dashed arrows to show depth).
The above cited embodiment of Han (Fig. 8) does not include a member cover coupled to the base member and blocking the bus bar mounting groove and the connection groove from an outside. However, an alternative embodiment of Han teaches the inclusion of a member cover (1130U – upper frame) coupled to the base member (1130L – lower frame) and blocking the connection groove (131) from an outside (Fig. 4). In this embodiment, it is not shown that the member cover (1130) also covers the busbars (1402 and 1403) depicted in the embodiment of Fig. 8. However, Han details that the Fig. 4 embodiment illustrates an assembly method of the base member (1130) ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use the assembly method detailed in Fig. 4 of Han to the base member disclosed in Fig. 8 of Han in order to form the base member.
In either embodiment, it is not shown that (I) the member cover also surrounds the sides of the base member or is in planar contact with surfaces of the busbars, as there is no single embodiment that shows a cover with the busbars, or that (II) the connection groove is formed in an upper portion of the base member, instead disclosing the connection groove is formed in a lower portion of the base member, thus the bus bar mounting groove of the base member is disposed lower than the connection groove so as to be vertically spaced away from the connection groove.
Regarding limitation (I), the combination of the embodiments shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 8 as presented in the above rejection of claim 1 would arrive at this limitation. This is made obvious by the exposed sides of the busbars (1402 and 1403) shown in Fig. 8 which align with the lateral sides of the base member (1130). Therefore, when the cover member (1130U) is introduced in Fig. 8, it would be in surface contact with the base member (1130L) as depicted in Fig. 4, and the exposed sides of the bus bars (1402 and 1403) as depicted in Fig. 8.
Regarding limitation (II), applicant is reminded that shifting the position of a part is unpatentable as long as the shift does not modify the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this instance, the connection groove housing the wire being at a lower portion or upper portion of the base member (i.e. disposed lower than or higher than the bus bar mounting groove) does not modify the grooves ability to house the wire and provide an extension space within the battery pack, therefore its relative location is unpatentable. The difference caused between the relative positions of the connection groove is a change in the installation process of the wire. However, in the embodiment referenced in Fig. 4 above, the same installation method of the wire is required when compared to that of the instant application, where the wire is lowered into a base of the base member and subsequently covered, rather than fed through the groove longitudinally as depicted by Fig. 8. Therefore, the method of installing a wire into the base member wherein the wire is lowered to sit on a top of a base member rather than fed through a base member is sufficiently taught. Hence repositioning the connection groove to be above the busbars results in no structural difference that has not been taught tin the prior art.
Finally, the limitation which states “…such that the base member provides rigidity to a battery case 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 relative depths of each groove is disclosed by the prior art (see above annotated Fig. 8), therefore, the prior art teaches the structural limitation of the claim, therefore the functional limitation of the provided rigidity is inherent and does not differentiate the prior art from the instant application.
With respect to claim 17, Han discloses the base member (1130) has a square cross-section perpendicular to a length direction of the base member (1130) (Fig. 2 and 8),
wherein the member cover (1130U) is formed in a shape surrounding sides and an upper side of the square cross-section of the base member (1130L) (see above rejection of claim 9),
wherein the bus bar mounting groove (1133) is formed on surfaces of the square cross-section of the base member (1130) (Fig. 8),
wherein the connection groove (1131) is formed on an upper surface of the square cross-section of the base member (1130) (see above rejection of claim 2).
With respect to claim 19, Han discloses the connection groove (1131) is formed in a central portion of an upper side of the square cross-section of the base member (1130) (Fig. 8), and bank portions (labeled) of both sides of the connection groove (1131) are in surface-to-surface contact with an inside of both corners of the member cover (1130U) (Fig. 4 and 8; see above rejection of claim 13).
With respect to claim 20, Han discloses with the bus bar mounting groove (1133) inserted into the bus bar (1402 and 1403), when a surface of the base member (1130) and a surface of the bus bar (1402 and 1403) are aligned and the member cover (1130U) is coupled to the base member (1130L) (Fig. 4 and 8), an inner surface of the member cover (1130U) is formed to have a depth so as to be in planar contact with surfaces of the base member (1130L) and the bus bar (1402 and 1403) (Fig. 4 and 8; see rejection of claim 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are premised on the assertion that (I) the combination of the connection groove being positioned lower than the bus bar mounting groove and the depth of the bus bar mounting groove being more shallow than a depth of the mounting groove result in an increase in rigidity of the battery case, thus the rearrangement of parts would affect the operation or function of the device and In re Japikse does not apply and (II) the inner surface of the member cover in planar contact with the base member so that the cover surrounds the side of the base member causes increase protection against heat or impact from the outside, thus the configuration is functionally significant and In re Dailey does not apply.
In response to argument (I), the cited paragraph that applicant cited increase in rigidity is caused by the “relatively shallow depth” of the bus bar mounting groove ([0060]) and that the bus bar mounting groove “does not have a depth too deep, ([0065]). Therefore, according to applicant’s specification, it is the depth of the grooves which impacts rigidity, not the arrangement of which groove is disposed above the other. Since the relative depths of the grooves are disclosed by the prior art (see above rejection of claims 1 and 16), this result of increased rigidity is present, and the application of In re Japikse still applies.
In response to argument (II), similarly the applicant cites paragraph [0067] to support the significance of the inner surface of the member cover in planar contact with the base member so that the cover surrounds the side of the base member. However, this paragraph attributes the corners of the cover member to be “supported by the bank portion of the base member.” Fig. 4 of the application clearly shows the bank members (23) to be the upper corners of the base member (11), thus it is the contact/support of the corners of the base member with the cover that supplies the protection against heat or impact from the outside as cited by paragraph [0067], not the inner surface of the member cover in planar contact with the base member so that the cover surrounds the side of the base member as argued. Since the contact between the corners of the base member and cover has been disclosed by the prior art, In re Dailey still applies.
Conclusion
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
