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 August 18, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on June 04, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekar on claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekar and Smith on claims 9-10 are maintained.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7-10 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 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
Sekar does not specifically disclose wherein the reinforcement members are separate from the extruded frame. However, the courts have held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the cavity of the prior art holder to which the reinforcement members are applied, it would be obvious to make the reinforcement members removable for that purpose, see MPEP 2144.04, V, C. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcement members of Sekar to be separate from the extruded frame in order to obtain access to the cavity and because Sekar teaches that such frames are significantly stronger and lighter than other frames (paragraph [0014]).
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]).
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.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekar and Smith on claims 2 and 6 are maintained.
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Sekar does not disclose wherein the reinforcement members are separate from the extruded frame (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) the courts have held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the cavity of the prior art holder to which the reinforcement members are applied, it would be obvious to make the reinforcement members removable for that purpose, see MPEP 2144.04, V, C. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcement members of Sekar to be separate from the extruded frame in order to obtain access to the cavity and because Sekar teaches that such frames are significantly stronger and lighter than other frames (paragraph [0014]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights