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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 8, 10, and 12-14 are currently amended, claim 7 has been canceled, and claim 16 has been added. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are pending and examined herein.
The previous rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fukuoka is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Fukuoka in view of Seo is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Lines 1-2 of claim 8 recite that each of the left side frame and the right side frame has a coupling protrusion on an inner side facing the plurality of battery cells. However, claim 1 already recites that a coupling protrusion extend[s] from each of the left side frame and the right side frame. It is not clear whether these limitations are describing the same or different coupling protrusions. Claims 9-11 depend from claim 8 and are indefinite for the same reason. For purposes of examination, the protrusions of claim 8 are considered to be open to being the same protrusions recited in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka (US 2020/0106066) in view of Carigliano. (“Benefits of Different Steel Sections”)
Regarding Claim 1, Fukuoka teaches a battery pack 10 (see Fukuoka [Paragraph 0019]; Fukuoka Fig. 1 below) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells 110 within modules 100 (see [0019]; Fig. 1 and 6 below);
a pack case 200 configured to accommodate the plurality of battery cells 110 (see Fig. 1 and 6 below) with the pack case having a left side frame and a right side frame and a coupling protrusion extending 202 from each of the left side frame and the right side frame (See annotated Figures 2 and 3 below); and
a pair of retention bars 400 (see [0019]; Fig. 1 below),
the pair of retention bars 400 being coupled to the left side frame and right side frame of pack case 200 while overlying upper surfaces at opposite ends of the stacked battery modules 100 (see Fig. 3 below).
Fukuoka Figs. 1 and 6
PNG
media_image1.png
1057
1696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fukuoka Figs. 2 and 3
PNG
media_image2.png
697
1554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fukuoka does not teach that restriction plates 400 are beams with hollow interiors.
Carigliano is relied upon to teach the structural advantages known to be features of a hollow beam shape. Specifically, square, rectangular, or circular hollow structural sections provide a beneficial weight:capacity ratio in the axial direction, as well as high structural capacity compared to other shapes. (Page 11, table on page 13)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the plates 400 of Fukuoka to be made of a rectangular hollow section, e.g. at vertical section 420, because as taught by Carigliano, this would have been expected to improve the weight-capacity ratio in the axial direction and improve the structural capacity, resulting in improved strength of the overall structure. In an automotive application such as this, this reasonably would have been expected to provide safety benefits.
Per Claim 2, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Fukuoka further teaches that,
the plurality of battery cells 110 are arranged in a plurality of battery modules 100 and the plurality of battery cells of each battery module 100 are arranged as a battery cell assembly 120 (see Fig. 7 below) in which a plurality of longitudinal unit cells 110 are stacked in a thickness direction;
each battery module 100 is composed of at least two battery cells of the plurality of battery cells 110; arranged in a line in a longitudinal direction (see Fig. 2 and 7); and
each battery module 100 has a cuboid shape elongated in the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 1, 6 above).
Fukuoka Fig. 7
PNG
media_image3.png
571
851
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 3, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Fukuoka further teaches that the longitudinal unit cells 110 are arranged in plural rows in the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 1, 3 above), wherein a terminal busbar 132 is interconnected between the battery cells arranged in the longitudinal direction [0020], and an end of the terminal busbar 132 is exposed (see [0023]; Figs. 6, 7 above). The terminal busbar 132 of upper cells is located at upper portions of the battery module 100.
Per Claim 4, Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 3. Fukuoka further teaches that the battery pack 10 comprises a high voltage busbar 133, 134 extending in a width direction of the battery modules, the high voltage busbar 133, 134 being electrically coupled to the terminal busbar 132 of each battery module 100 (see [0023]; Figs. 6, 7 above). With respect to the limitation of a “high voltage bus bar”, Fukuoka discloses all the claimed structure, and therefore, Fukuoka discloses a high voltage bus bar.
Per Claim 5, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Fukuoka further teaches that the pack case 200 includes:
an upper frame (see Annotated Fig. 3 above);
a lower frame on which the battery modules are located (see Annotated Fig. 3 above); and
a front side frame (see Annotated Fig. 2 above) and a rear side frame (see Annotated Fig. 2 above), wherein the front side frame, the rear side frame, the left side frame, and the right-side frame surround the plurality of battery cells (see Annotated Figs. 2, 3 above).
Per Claim 6, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 5. Fukuoka further teaches that the lower frame, the front side frame, the rear side frame, the left side frame, and the right-side frame are integrally provided. (See Annotated Figs. 2, 3 above)
Per Claim 8, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Fukuoka further teaches that,
coupling protrusion 202 on each of the left side frame and the right-side frame is on an inner side facing the battery modules (see [0030], Annotated Fig. 3 above),
wherein the pair of retention bars 400 are coupled to upper surfaces of the coupling protrusions 202 to press an upper surface at opposite ends of the plurality of battery modules 100. (see [0030]; Annotated Fig. 3 above)
Per Claim 9, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 8. Fukuoka further teaches that,
the left side frame and the right-side frame each include a fitting groove at an inner surface,
the fitting groove is configured to receive one side of a corresponding retention bar 430 of the pair of retention bars 400,
the fitting groove is located above the coupling protrusion 202, and
wherein one side of the corresponding retention bar 430 is fitted to the fitting groove, and the corresponding retention bar 430 is coupled to the upper surface of the coupling protrusion 202 by a fastening member. (See [0030]; Annotated Fig. 2 above, which is a top-down view of the pack case, and illustrates the corresponding retention bar 430 coupled to the upper surface of coupling protrusion 202)
Per Claim 10, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 8. Fukuoka further teaches that,
each retention bar of the pair of retention bars comprises an upper plate and a bending portion bent downward from the upper plate (see [0019]; Figure 1 and Annotated Fig. 3 above), and
the upper plate presses the upper surface at a corresponding opposite end of the battery modules (see Annotated Fig. 3 above) and
the bending portion is located in a gap between an inner surface of the left side frame and the right-side frame and the corresponding opposite end of the battery modules (see [0019]; Annotated Fig. 3 above),
the pair of retention bars are coupled to the left side frame and the right-side frame by a fastening member passing through the upper plate and the bending portion of a corresponding retention bar so as to be coupled to the coupling protrusion. (see [0030]; Annotated Fig. 3 above)
Per Claim 11, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 10. Fukuoka further teaches that,
the inner surface of the left side frame and the right-side frame each include a fitting groove above the coupling protrusion 202, (see Annotated Fig. 2 above)
wherein one side of the upper plate of the corresponding retention bar 430 is fitted to the fitting groove. (see [0030]; Annotated Fig. 2 above)
Per Claim 16, a rectangular hollow beam as taught by Carigliano includes top, bottom, left, and right walls as claimed (See e.g. the illustration on Carigliano page 3)
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka (US 2020/0106066 A1) and Carigliano, as applied to Claims 1-6, 8-11 and 16 above, further in view of Seo (US 2020/0194851 A1).
Regarding Claims 12-15, modified Fukuoka teaches the limitations of Claim 1-11, as addressed above.
However, Fukuoka does not disclose the following:
an adhesive resin layer filled between the plurality of battery cells and the lower frame
an adhesive resin layer filled between the plurality of battery cells and the upper frame
a heat sink located between the upper frame and the adhesive resin layer filled between the battery modules and the upper frame
an insulating member located between the upper frame and the heat sink
Seo discloses (see Seo [0033]) a battery module 10 comprising a plurality of battery cells 100, an insulating member 700, and heatsinks 500, 600. Seo further discloses that the insulating member 700 may be provided in a pair, with the pair of insulating members 700 being provided between the first heatsink 500 and the top plate 200 and between the second heatsink 600 and the bottom plate 250, respectively (see Seo [0061]; Seo Fig. 2 below)
Seo Fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
720
1027
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fukuoka and Seo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of battery packs. A skilled artisan would have been capable of modifying the battery module, as taught by Fukuoka, such that an insulating member was provided between a heatsink and the upper frame, as taught by Seo, for the purpose of improving cooling performance of the battery module (see Seo [0020]). The composition of the insulating member (i.e., resin) would be a matter of design choice, and the result of improved cooling performance of the battery module would have been reasonably predictable (see Seo [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery modify the battery module, as taught by Fukuoka, by providing a resin layer between the battery modules and the upper and lower frame, a heat sink between the upper frame and the resin layer, and an insulating member between the upper frame and the heat sink, as disclosed by Seo, because such a modification would improve cooling and battery performance. (See MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejections 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. Specifically, the Examiner agrees that Fukuoka lacks a teaching that each of the retention bars is a beam with a hollow interior. However, it is considered to have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the retention bars of Fukuoka to include such structure, based on the known benefits, as discussed by Carigliano.
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 Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 PM.
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.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 27 July 2026
Prosecution Insights