DETAILED ACTION
Claim Analysis
The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and nine active dependent claims (claims 2 -10).
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Regarding the limitation(s) “pultruded composite” in claim 5, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, this is (broadly speaking, not limiting) type of fiberglass material; i.e. a reinforced composite material.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(g)(1) During the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toda (U.S. Patent App. No. 2023/0307767 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Toda discloses a battery pack frame (Title; Abstract; Figure 1) comprising: a front wall; a rear wall; a pair of sidewalls extending between the front wall and the rear wall; a bottom plate extending beneath the front wall, the rear wall, and the pair of sidewalls (Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
1560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and a plurality of cross members extending between the pair of sidewalls (elements 13 and 15), each of the plurality of cross members further comprising: an upper member (element 13 “cross member”; and a base member (element 15 “bonding assistance member) having a channel that defines a cavity for receiving the upper member (Figure 4:
PNG
media_image2.png
674
1064
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 3, Toda teaches using welds through the holes to generate “rivets” to fasten the base member 15 to the upper channel bodies 13 (at least Paragraphs 0060 – 0063).
Regarding claim 4, Toda teaches forming the base members 15 from aluminum (at least Paragraph 0087). The limitation “extruded” is a product-by-process limitation and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [emphasis added] In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. Once a product appearing substantially identical is found, the burden shifts to applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 7, Toda discloses that the cross members are secured to the base and to the base members 15 by welded joints functioning as “rivets” through the plurality of holes in the base member and the cross members (
PNG
media_image2.png
674
1064
media_image2.png
Greyscale
). This necessarily results in all of the base member, cross member and bottom being securely connected to each other.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toda as applied above and further in view of Collins (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0266701 A1), the above evidenced by Cullinan et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0211272 A1) and Le Gall et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2004/0256888 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Toda is relied upon as described above.
While the Examiner maintains that the base members 15 and cross members 13 form a ‘channel’ meeting the claimed limitations as set forth above, the Examiner notes that Applicants’ “channel” is inverted from that shown in Toda. I.e. instead of an upside down “U”, the channel represented in Applicants’ drawings is a right-side-up “U”.
However, the Examiner notes that ‘snap-type’ connections (also termed “ball and socket”-type) connections are well established in the arts as a means for connecting two adjoining bodies to each other, including in the battery arts. This is taught by Collins (Figures and Paragraphs 0023 – 0029) for securing a lid, but a similar concept could readily be envisioned for securing the cross members to the bottom panel. The Examiner notes that Collins clearly teaches that these ball-and-socket type connections can be formed on said cross members and, as such, the Examiner deems that a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that one could use such a connection to secure the cross-members to the base instead of the ‘bonding assistance members’ 15 (or, even, perhaps in combination with such).
Using a ball-and-socket connection would necessarily result in the cross members being formed of an upper part (the cross member extending between the side members) with the protruding ball projections, and a bottom part that is securely fastened to the bottom which the ball would then ‘snap’ into (the socket member). This is all clearly taught in Collins vis a vis securing a lid (i.e. top member) to the cross members and could easily be applied to secure the bottom member to the cross members and vis versa. The Examiner notes that the ‘socket’ portion clearly possesses a channel meeting both the claimed limitations, as well as the disclosed right-side-up “U” shape inorder to secure the channels into the socket attached to the bottom portion.
The Examiner notes that using a ball-and-socket type connection provides easier ‘snap in’ connections, reduces the need for expensive welding operations, and allows for different size battery spaces to be easily created in the battery pack by simply omitting or ‘snapping in’ different cross members as needed (assuming multiple socket connections are provided, but even if only the standard ones are provided, this would still allow for 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. size battery modules to be placed in the battery pack by removing 0, 1 or 2+ ‘snapped in’ cross members).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Toda to utilize a ball-and-socket type connection meeting the claimed limitations and the ‘right-side up’ channel aspect as taught by Collins, as such a type of securing means is clearly recognized by the battery arts and such a connection would avoid extra welding steps and allow for flexibility in the types of modules that could be accommodated in the battery pack by simply ‘snapping out’ unneeded cross members.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Collins teaches that one can use any known adhesive agents (which the Examiner takes Official Notice on as reading on ‘expandable adhesive foams’, which is a known adhesive material)1 to securely fasten components to each other in a battery pack (at least Paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to additionally use an adhesive, such as a foam, to securely and permanently fasten the cross-members once snapped in.
Regarding claim 3, Toda teaches using welds through the holes to generate “rivets” to fasten the base member 15 to the upper channel bodies 13 (at least Paragraphs 0060 – 0063). In addition, Collins teaches that one can also use bolts as a fastening agent in addition to the ball-and-socket connections for a more secure (and more permanent) connection (at least Paragraphs 0023 – 0033). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to either weld (if using both the binding assistance members and the ball-and-socket joints) or securely fasten with additional bolts (if only using the ball-and-socket joints), as either means would allow for a more permanent fixture once the desired cross-members are snapped in.
Regarding claim 4, Toda teaches forming the base members 15 from aluminum (at least Paragraph 0087). The limitation “extruded” is a product-by-process limitation and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [emphasis added] In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. Once a product appearing substantially identical is found, the burden shifts to applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 5, forming components from steel, aluminum, and/or pultruded composites is functionally equivalent in terms of ways to form structurally sound barriers, as evidenced by at least Cullinan et al. (at least Paragraph 0017). Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, metallic materials and pultruded composites are functional equivalents in the field of known construction materials for hard barrier layers. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Toda discloses that the cross members are secured to the base and to the base members 15 by welded joints functioning as “rivets” through the plurality of holes in the base member and the cross members (
PNG
media_image2.png
674
1064
media_image2.png
Greyscale
). This necessarily results in all of the base member, cross member and bottom being securely connected to each other. In addition, the Examiner notes that when securing the cross-members to the bottom plate, the ‘socket’ member (claimed ‘base member’) would necessarily need to be secured to the bottom plate, which would then allow the cross members to be secured by ‘snapping in’ per the ball-and-socket connection.
Regarding claims 8 – 10, Collins disclose known ‘ball-and-socket’ type joint connections which meet the claimed narrowed and widened section limitations recited in claims 8 – 10 as this is the typical way a ball-and-socket type connection functions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Most of the additional prior art teaches battery modules with cross-members secured by various means. Soleski et al. (‘018 B2) and Polevoy et al. (‘759) are not directed to battery module cross-members, but disclose various known ‘friction fit’ type connections, as would have been recognized by a skilled artisan that there are many ways to secure connections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
February 11, 2026
1 For support of this position of Official Notice, see Le Gall et al., which disclose the known use of expandable adhesive foams for reinforcing members (at least Paragraph 0017).