Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/203,867

BATTERY MODULE MOUNTING ASSEMBLY FOR A VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 31, 2023
Examiner
EBNER, KATY MEYER
Art Unit
3613
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
495 granted / 737 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
756
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.4%
+8.4% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 737 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 9, 2026 has been entered. 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, 5, and 7 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imashioya et al. (US 2024/0286477 A1) in view of Matecki et al. (US 2018/0337374 A1). As for claim 1, Imashioya et al. disclose a battery module mounting assembly for a vehicle, comprising: a battery module (1) disposed in a lower portion of a vehicle body; and a battery fixing frame (10/60) respectively mounted on left and right sides of the battery module in a width direction of the vehicle, and configured to fix the battery module to the lower portion of the vehicle body (paragraph [0024]), wherein at least one hydraulic passage (Sw) is formed in an interior of the battery fixing frame and includes first and second ends which are open in a front- rear direction of the vehicle (Fig. 6). Imashioya et al. disclose a battery fixing frame (10) directly mounted on left and right sides of the battery module (note that side frames 10 are also directly connected to side brackets 60). Said battery fixing frames (10) include air passages (paragraph [0027]). While Imashioya et al. do not explicitly disclose said passages being used to cool the battery, Matecki et al. teach that air passages in a battery case may be used to cool the battery (paragraph [0035]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the air passages of Imashioya et al. are capable of directing heat away from the battery module, as taught by Matecki et al. Imashioya et al. further disclose the at least one hydraulic passage configured to flow an operation fluid (refrigerant – see paragraph [0069]) through the interior of the battery fixing frame. Imashioya et al. explicitly disclose a certain operation fluid, and the passage inherently comprises a diameter capable of conveying the fluid. Therefore, Imashioya et al. implicitly disclose determining the diameter based on the type of operation fluid. As for claim 5, Imashioya et al. meet all the limitations of the claimed invention, but do not disclose a plurality of hydraulic passages. However. Imashioya et al. disclose a plurality of spaces (Sa, Sb, Sc, Sd, Se), spaced apart by a preset interval in a height direction, which may be used to convey an operation fluid, such as battery cooling air. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize said spaces to convey an operation fluid in order to efficiently use open space on the vehicle. Alternatively, merely duplicating the cylindrical passage (Sw) would have predictable results. As for claims 7 and 8, Imashioya et al. disclose a main body (61), mounting portion (64) and supporting portion (63), spaced apart at intervals (Fig. 3). As for claim 9, Imashioya et al. at least suggest a connection connector. Imashioya et al. disclose a refrigerant passage for cooling an in-vehicle device such as a motor. Therefore, the passage is inherently connected to the in-vehicle device, and would obviously include a structure (which would meet the broad claim recitation “connection connector”) for connecting the refrigerant passage to the in-vehicle device. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imashioya et al. (US 2024/0286477 A1) in view of Matecki et al. (US 2018/0337374 A1), and further in view of Kellner (US 2021/0171106 A1). Imashioya et al. meet all the limitations of the claimed invention, but do not disclose an extruded frame. It is noted that, in a product by process claim, the process must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. In this case, the structure of the battery fixing frame and integral hydraulic passage (Sw) of Imashioya et al. may be extruded. Nevertheless, extrusion is very well known in the art, as taught by Kellner (paragraph [0022]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the structure of Imashioya et al. via extrusion. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 – 9 have been considered but are persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a diameter D1 of a pair of hydraulic passages 323 disposed in an upper portion of the main body 321 for circulating coolant or refrigerant is formed larger than a diameter D2 of another pair of hydraulic passages 323 disposed in a lower portion of the main body 321 for circulating brake oil) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 requires only a single (i.e., “at least one”) hydraulic passage. Therefore, arguments directed to the relative diameters of multiple passages are moot. All patents are presumed operational. Therefore, it is presumed that the diameter of the passage of Imashioya et al. has been determined to be appropriate for the fluid carried by the passage. Even if multiple passages were recited in claim 1, the limitation that a diameter of a respective passage is determined based on a type of the operation fluid does not necessarily require passages having different diameters from one another (or passages having different operation fluids from one another). Finally, it would have been within the general skill of a worker in the art to determine the appropriate passage diameter based on the type of operation fluid. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. 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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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. /Katy M Ebner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 29, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570133
BATTERY PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12539188
STABILIZER FOR MEDICAL CARTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12533936
Resilient Coupling Element for a Motor Vehicle Having At Least One Coupling Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12516649
INTERCHANGEABLE INTAKE MANIFOLD ASSEMBLIES WITH INTERCHANGEABLE FLARE HOUSINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12515508
VEHICLE BODY BASE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+19.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 737 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month