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 .
BATTERY PACK FRAME ASSEMBLIES
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/225,857 Art Unit: 1727 February 28, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on July 25, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekar et al. (US 2020/0148066 A1; as found in IDS dated 07/25/2023).
As to Claim 1, Sekar discloses a battery pack frame, comprising: a front wall 130; a rear wall 130; a pair of sidewalls 100 extending between the front and rear walls; a bottom plate 40 extending beneath the front, rear and sidewalls; and a plurality of crossmembers 110 extending between the sidewalls (Abstract, Fig. 1-2 and paragraph [0024]). Said crossmembers comprising an extruded frame including at least one channel that defines at least on cavity; and reinforcement members positioned within the at least one cavity (Abstract and as shown in reproduced Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3, Sekar discloses wherein the extruded frame comprises bolt/screw holes 130 for securing the components of the battery pack frame (reads on securing the reinforcement member within the cavity) (Fig. 1-2 and paragraphs [0024]).
As to Claim 4, Sekar discloses wherein the extruded frame comprises an upper channel/cavity and a lower channel/cavity defined by an intermediate wall (as shown in reproduced Fig. 2 above).
As to Claim 5, Sekar discloses wherein the crossmembers are extruded aluminum (reads on composite pultrusion) (Abstract).
As to Claim 7, Sekar discloses a pair of locating ribs (detailed in reproduced Fig. 2 below) positioned on an internal surface of the cavity to align the reinforcement member within the cavity.
PNG
media_image2.png
320
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 8, Sekar discloses wherein the crossmembers are each interfaced/fixed (reads on secured) to the bottom plate to couple the crossmembers to the frame (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0018 and 0024]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekar et al. (US 2020/0148066 A1; as found in IDS dated 07/25/2023) in view of Smith et al. (US 2022/0017031 A1).
As to Claims 2 and 6, Sekar does not specifically disclose the claimed foam.
However, Smith teaches of using an expandable polymer foam (reads on an adhesive foam) used within a battery frame to secure all of the components in the battery pack frame (reads on securing the reinforcement member) (paragraph [0098]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the foam of modified Sekar to comprise an expandable polymer (adhesive) foam because Smith teaches that the expanding foam fills all the gaps to substantially cover the battery assembly with a rigid, durable, and tough foam enclosure (paragraph [0098]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekar et al. (US 2020/0148066 A1; as found in IDS dated 07/25/2023).
As to Claim 9, Sekar does not specifically disclose the claimed tapered central portion. However, the courts have held that the claimed shape of the crossmembers is a matter of design choice that would not have modified the operation of the device and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence the claimed shape is significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed tapered central portion because Sekar teaches that such frames are significantly stronger and lighter than other frames (paragraph [0014]).
As to Claim 10, Sekar discloses wherein the reinforcement members of the extruded frame are positioned within the cavity of the crossmembers by bolts/screws (Fig. 1-2 and paragraph [0024]). Therefore, the tapered central portion of modified Sekar would intrinsically aid in positioning of the reinforcement member within the cavity since it would be part of the overall structure of the crossmembers that positions the reinforcement members.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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 (571)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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727