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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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, 3-4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 211980691 U with references made to the machine translation) in view of Ito (US 2020/0106065).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a sandwich type support structure contacting one surface of a battery module to offset surface pressure, the sandwich type support structure comprising:
a plate-shaped inner skin part of which one surface is in contact with one surface of the battery module (see annotated Fig. 1 below which illustrates an inner skin that is in contact with the battery module); and
a plate-shaped outer skin part of which one surface is in contact with a surface of the inner skin part that is not in contact with the battery module (see annotated Fig. 1 below which illustrates an outer skin that is not in contact with the battery module),
wherein the outer skin part includes a reinforcing portion bent to protrude in an opposite direction of the battery module (see Fig. 1 where plate shaped outer skin is bent outward away from the module to create a cavity between the inner and outer skins).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Guo further discloses a reinforcing frame inserted between the inner skin part and the outer skin part, wherein the reinforcing portion includes an accommodating portion bent to protrude to a height equal to a thickness of the reinforcing frame and fills only a portion of the space between the inner and outer skins (see annotated Fig. 1 above which illustrates that the accommodating portion comprises a bent structure that is equal in thickness to the thickness of the frame).
Guo, however, does not teach that the reinforcing frame is a structure independent of the outer skin and the inner skin parts. In other words, Guo does not teach that the reinforcing frame is separate from the inner and out skin.
However, making the reinforcing frame separate from the inner and out skins would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Such a modification is nothing more than simply making a known structure separable. See MPEP §2144.04(V)(C) which states that the courts have held that if it is considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a feature of the prior art which is formed in an integral structure, it would be obvious to make the prior art separable/separate in order to gain access to those structural features. In this case, if damage was done to the reinforcing frame, it would have been desirable and recognized beneficial to be able to replace the reinforcing frame without having to replace the inner and outer skins. Furthermore, making these structures (inner/outer skin/plate and internal support structures) is known in the art (see Ito which discloses a separate reinforcing member 42 in between inner and outer skins 41 and 42). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Guo, such that the reinforcing frame is separable/independent of the inner/outer skins, as taught by Ito, in order to allow for maintenance of the reinforcing member without having to replace the inner/outer skins.
Regarding claim 3, Guo further discloses the reinforcing frame is disposed parallel to one edge of the battery module (see annotated Fig. 1 above which illustrates that the reinforcing frame is parallel to the battery module).
Regarding claim 4, Guo further discloses the reinforcing frame is disposed to form an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees with one edge of the battery module (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
172
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Guo further discloses the reinforcing frame has a rectangular-shaped cross section in a thickness direction thereof with a hollow inside (see Fig. 1 which illustrates a rectangular cross section when the cross-section plane is vertical relative to the end plate and extends parallel to the battery module stack).
Regarding claim 7, Guo further discloses the reinforcing frame further includes additional reinforcing portions at both ends (such as fixing part 16) in a thickness direction thereof (as illustrated in Fig. 2), and the additional reinforcing portions extend in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction (see Fig. 2 where fixing part 16 extends perpendicular to the thickness direction, which means it extends parallel to the battery cells).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2020/0106065) in view of Guo (CN 211980691 U with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a sandwich type support structure contacting one surface of a battery module to offset surface pressure, the sandwich type support structure comprising:
a plate-shaped inner skin part (41) of which one surface is in contact with one surface of the battery module (as depicted in Fig. 3); and
a plate-shaped outer skin part (43) of which one surface is in contact with a surface of the inner skin part that is not in contact with the battery module (as depicted in Fig. 3 where the outer skin 43 does not touch the battery module),
wherein the outer skin part includes a reinforcing portion bent to protrude in an opposite direction of the battery module (see Fig. 4 which illustrates a plate 43 that is bent outwardly to extend away from the battery module).
Ito further discloses a reinforcing frame (42) inserted between the inner skin part and the outer skin part (as depicted in Fig. 4), wherein the reinforcing portion (43) includes an accommodating portion bent to protrude to a height equal to a thickness of the reinforcing frame (see Fig. 4 where reinforcing portion accommodates the frame 43).
Ito teaches a structure where the reinforcing frame is independent from the inner and outer skins, but does not explicitly teach that the reinforcing frame fills only a portion of the space between the inner and out skins.
Guo also discloses a battery module with end frames (see abstract).
Guo, like Ito, teaches a structure in which the end frames are made high strength/rigid (see lines 27-31 of Guo which disclose increasing the strength of the end plate and see paragraph 49 of Ito which discloses the goal of the end plate structure is to increase the strength and rigidity of the end plates). Guo goes on to teach different approach to strengthening the end plate. Guo teaches a frame structure that does not entirely fill the space between an inner skin and outer skin (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Guo above) and teaches the frame structure to provide strength to the end plate (lines 27-31).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the reinforcing frame of Ito to the reinforcing frame of Guo. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known end plate strengthening configuration for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Ito, as modified above, further discloses the reinforcing frame is disposed parallel to one edge of the battery module (as depicted in Fig. 3 where the reinforcing frame 42 is parallel to the battery module or see the reinforcing frame of Guo which is parallel to the battery module).
Regarding claim 5, Ito, as modified by Guo further discloses the reinforcing frame has a “u”-shaped cross section in a thickness direction thereof (see the U-shape of frame 42 in Fig. 4, also see the “u” or maybe “v” shaped structure of the frame in Guo).
Regarding claim 8, Ito further discloses the reinforcing portion further includes an outer support portion (44) bent from at least one of upper and lower ends of the outer skin part in the opposite direction of the battery module (see Fig. 14 which illustrates bent portions 44 that extend away from the battery module and are located at an upper portion as well as a lower portion of outer skin 43) .
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2020/0106065) in view of Guo (CN 211980691 U with references made to the machine translation) and further in view of Pethick (US 2022/0294046).
Regarding claim 9, Guo does not explicitly teach the claimed seating portion which accommodates the reinforcing frame and includes a bend that protrudes in the opposite direction of the battery module.
Pethick also discloses a battery module with end plates (see abstract).
Pethick, like Guo, teaches an inner skin and an outer skin to form an end plate (this is visible in Fig. 2) and discloses that this multi-layer configuration produces better results (paragraph 29). Pethick teaches a configuration of the two end plates such that the inner layer is bent in the direction opposite the battery modules (as depicted in Fig. 2) and teaches that this configuration allows for attachment to the outer casing via bolt 23 which creates a rigid structure that is sealed (paragraph 30).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the configuration of Pethick, which teaches the above-described bent inner skin, to the configuration of modified Guo as such a configuration would allow for rigidity and sealing while also producing a cavity to utilize the reinforcing frame of modified Guo.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2020/0106065) and Guo (CN 211980691 U with references made to the machine translation) in view of Lu (CN 208111582 U with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Ito teaches encasing the battery module with the outer skin (41) and does not teach the inner skin having a portion that bends to contact two or more edges of the battery module.
Lu also discloses a battery casing structure (see abstract).
Lu, like Ito, teaches an inner skin (4) and an outer skin (1) that make up an end plate of a battery module. Lu goes on to teach that the inner skin contains bent portions/flanges (41) that project inward toward the battery module and provide a surface to encase the battery module on more than one side (see Fig. 2 which illustrates the inward facing peripheral edges of inner skin 4) and teaches such a configuration in order to cover the electric core and provide safety and insulation of the core (see lines 88-97).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the inward facing flanges/bent portions of Lu to the inner skin of modified Ito in order to cover the electric core and provide safety and insulation of the core.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/26/2026 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.
Relevant Prior Art
CN 209312858 U – Discloses an end plate that has an inner and outer plate along with a structure in between the inner and outer plate, but this structure does not extend the height of the gap between the plates.
US 2018/0212212 – Discloses an end plate with interior bracing structure but is silent regarding the outer skin/plate being bent.
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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights