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 and Claim Status
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Applicants’ amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objections set forth in the Office Action mailed 01/13/2026.
Further, applicant’s disagreement with examiner’s assertion that the claims are unsupported in provisional application 63/403,445 is acknowledged. As applicant has not provided any specific arguments or evidence showing that the claims are, in fact, supported by the provisional application, applicant’s argument is non-persuasive and examiner’s assertion set forth in previous Office action is maintained.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 15 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh (KR 20220101475 A; see machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Oh teaches a traction battery pack (secondary battery for powering EV [0002]), comprising: a first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, [0028] & annotated Figure 6); and a first cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, [0032] & annotated Figure 6) supported by the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, see annotated Figure 6), wherein the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300) includes a first internal coolant circuit (cooling water channel 315, [0054] & Figure 4) configured to thermally manage a plurality of battery cells (battery cells 100, [0028]) of the first cell stack (plurality of battery cells, see [0054] which discloses that cooling water channel is for cooling the plurality of battery cells 100) wherein the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300) comprises a structural beam (beam body 310, annotated Figure 6 & [0048]) that both structurally reinforces the traction battery pack and thermally manages the first cell stack (annotated Figure 6 and see [0041] which describes that cross beam unit reinforces rigidity of battery pack 10 and [0054] which describes that cooling water channel 315 is for cooling battery cells 100).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, annotated Figure 6) separates the first cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, annotated Figure 6 and Fig. 4) from a second cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, see annotated Figure 6 and Fig. 4) of the traction battery pack (battery pack 10, annotated Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, annotated Figure 6) includes an upper structural beam member (second flange 350, [0048] & annotated Figure 6 and Fig. 4), a lower structural beam member (first flange 330, [0048] & annotated Figure 6 and Fig. 4), and a heat exchanger portion (beam body 310, [0049] & annotated Figure 6 and Fig. 4) extending between the upper structural beam member (second flange 350, [0048] & annotated Figure 6) and the lower structural beam member (first flange 330, [0048] & annotated Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches a thermal interface material (heat transfer material, [0053]) disposed between the first cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, annotated Figure 6) and the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, annotated Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Oh teaches a traction battery pack (secondary battery for powering EV [0002]), comprising: an enclosure assembly (cell frame, [0005]) including opposing side walls (side plate, front plate & rear plate, see [0005], [0028]-[0029] and Fig. 1) and defining an interior area (see Fig. 1 and [0005] which describes cell frame that accommodates plurality of battery cells); a first cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, see annotated Figure 6) housed within the interior area (see Figure 1); a second cell stack (see annotated Figure 6) housed within the interior area (see Figure 1); and a first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, annotated Figure 6) arranged between the first cell stack and the second cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, see annotated Figure 6 and Fig. 4), the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, annotated Figure 6) extending between the opposing side walls of the enclosure assembly (see Figure 1-2) such that the first cross-member assembly (300) functions as a load-bearing structural member for increasing a structural stiffness of the traction battery pack (see [0041] which describes that the cross beam unit reinforces the rigidity of the battery pack) wherein the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300) includes a first internal coolant circuit (cooling water channel 315, [0054] & Figure 4) configured to thermally manage a plurality of battery cells of the first cell stack and the second cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, see annotated Figure 6 and see [0054] which describes that cooling water channel 315 is for cooling battery cells 100).
Regarding Claim 15, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the first cross-member assembly (cross beam member unit 300, annotated Figure 6) includes an upper structural beam member (second flange 350, [0048] & annotated Figure 6), a lower structural beam member (first flange 330, [0048] & annotated Figure 6), and a heat exchanger portion (beam body 310, [0049] & annotated Figure 6, Figure 4) extending between the upper structural beam member (second flange 350) and the lower structural beam member (first flange 330).
Regarding Claim 21, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the structural beam (beam body 310) extends along an entire length of the first cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100) (see Figures 2, 3 & 5).
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.
Claims 3, 8, 12, 14 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20220101475 A; see machine translation) in view of Zagrodnik (US 2023/0054839 A1) as applied to Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 15 & 21 above.
Regarding Claim 3 & 14, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above but is silent on wherein the first internal coolant circuit includes a plurality of cooling channels arranged to establish a serpentine path.
Zagrodnik teaches a traction battery pack (battery pack core 206; [0042]) comprising of first and second cell stacks (one or more districts 230; [0042]). Zagrodnik further teaches wherein the internal coolant circuit (cold plates 236 – figure 2E, 336 – figure 3B, 436 – figure 4; configured to regulate the temperature of battery cells contained in a battery pack core 206 (see [0050]) includes a plurality of cooling channels (flexible, polymer-based pouch defining a cooling channel [0051]) arranged to establish a serpentine path (cooling channel may include a serpentine path (figure 3b, figure 4, and [0051]). Zagrodnik further teaches that the serpentine configuration of the cooling channel of the cold plate would provide a selected heat transfer from the battery cells to the cooling liquid (see [0059]).
KSR Rationale B (MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution
of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. In the instant case, both heat exchangers, cooling water channel of Oh and plates comprising serpentine channels of Zagrodnik are known to effectively remove heat from battery stacks (see Oh [0054] and Zagrodnik [0059]). Oh and Zagrodnik are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the same field of battery stack for use in vehicles. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cooling water channel of Oh with the heat exchanger plates comprising serpentine channels of Zagrodnik, and obtain the predictable result of effectively cooling the traction battery pack of Oh.
Regarding Claims 8 & 19, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the heat exchanger portion (beam body 310, [0049] & annotated Figure 6) includes the first internal coolant circuit (cooling water channel 315, see Figure 4).
Oh is silent on wherein the heat exchanger portion is configured as a mixed material laminate.
Zagrodnik further teaches cold plates 436 which includes a cooling channel 437 (see Zagrodnik figure 4) wherein the cold plate 436 has a thin wall polymer and wherein the cold plates may be formed by adhering or thermally welding two polymer sheets to define a cooling channel which reads on a laminate (see [0060]). Zagrodnik further discloses that cold plates may be formed from different polymers to achieve a desired flexibility and/or the conductivity to allow for expansion of one or more adjacent cell batteries and/or to insulate adjacent battery cells (see [0051]).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use mixed material composition of various
polymers as the laminate of the heat exchange portion of Oh to obtain a heat exchange portion with desired flexibility and/or conductivity.
Regarding Claim 12, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches a second cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, see annotated Figure 6) positioned on an opposite side of the second cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, annotated Figure 6) from the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300),
Oh is silent on a coolant hose fluidly connecting the first internal coolant circuit of the first cross-member assembly to a second internal coolant circuit of the second cross-member assembly.
Zagrodnik further teaches a coolant hose (fluid delivery and return channels; [0062]; Figure 6A-6B) for fluidly coupling a fluid delivery channel and a fluid return channel of an internal coolant circuit (cold plate 536) to another internal coolant circuit which are defined by a cross-member assembly (retaining seat, see [0062]). Zagrodnik further teaches that the fluid delivery channel may be coupled to cooling circuits defined by a retaining seat such that fluid delivery channel does not extend into respective district or cell stack and thus simplify the manufacture design of the battery pack (see [0071]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling water channel by adding the fluid delivery and return channel design of Zagrodnik to fluidly connect the internal coolant circuit of the first cross-member assembly to a second internal coolant circuit of the second cross-member assembly to simplify the fluid delivery process by ensuring that the cooling fluid is passed through multiple cell stacks at a time and to eliminate the need for cooling elements to extend into respective districts or cell stacks and thus simplify the manufacture/design of the traction battery pack.
Claims 6-7, 17-18, 22 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20220101475 A; see machine translation) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 15 & 21 above and further in view of Stephens (US 2020/0398652 A1)
Regarding Claims 6, 17 & 22, modified Oh discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Oh additionally discloses the upper structural beam member (second flange 350, [0048] & annotated Figure 6) and the lower structural beam member (first flange 330, [0048] & annotated Figure 6) of the first cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, annotated Figure 6; as required in claims 6 and 17) and further discloses the structural beam (beam body 310, annotated Figure 6 & [0048]; as required in claim 22).
Oh is silent to said upper structural beam member being a first pultrusion of the first cross-member assembly, and the lower structural beam member being a second pultrusion of the first cross-member assembly (as required in claims 6 and 17) and wherein said structural beam is a pultruded structural beam formed from a fiber reinforced composite material (as required for claim 22).
Stephens teaches a traction battery pack (battery tray 10, Figure 2), first cross member assembly (cross member portions 48, which extends from the base portion of the tray and may support the battery weight and may serve as a contamination barrier between sections of the battery containment area [0043]), cell stacks (battery modules 14, [0037]), internal coolant circuit (integrated coolant channel 23 [0043]); configured to draw heat away from the battery modules disposed in the battery containment area [0007]), heat exchanger portion (integrated cross member 48” which has integrated coolant channel 23; [0043]), lower structural beam member (base portion 40; [0042]). Stephen further teaches the battery pack tray floor structure may be formed by pultruding various types of fibers through a resin to achieve a composite structure. The resulting pultruded tray floor structure can be configured to have channels for pipes and liners [0039]. Stephens also teaches that the pultruded battery tray may have similar cross-sectional profile for consistency [0041] which would result in minimal damage upon impact or during operation of the vehicle in extreme climate due to the strength of the pultruded composite (see [0003]).
Oh and Stephens are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the same field of battery stacks for use in vehicles Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper and lower structural beam members (as required for claims 6 and 17) and the structural beam (as required for clam 22) of Oh to be manufactured via pultrusion method, as taught by Stephens (thus reading on “wherein the upper structural beam member is a first pultrusion of the first cross-member assembly, and the lower structural beam member is a second pultrusion of the first cross-member assembly” and “wherein the structural beam is a pultruded structural beam formed from a fiber reinforced composite material) to achieve a the pultruded cross member assembly well suited to having channels for pipes and liners for the coolant (as desired by Oh) and to provide the pultruded cross member assembly which would minimize damage to the battery tray upon collision or operation of the vehicle in extreme climate conditions.
Regarding Claim 7 & 18, modified Oh discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the upper structural beam member (second flange 350, [0058] & annotated Figure 6) includes an upper plateau that interfaces with an upper enclosure structure (cover plate 400, [0058] & annotated Figure 6 and Fig. 1), and the lower structural beam member (first flange 330, [0055]) includes a lower base that interfaces with a lower enclosure structure (base plate 200, [0055] & annotated Figure 6 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Oh teaches a traction battery pack (secondary battery for powering EV [0002]), comprising: an enclosure assembly (cell frame [0005]) defining an interior area (see Fig. 1 and [0005] which describes cell frame that accommodates plurality of battery cells); a cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, [0032] & annotated Figure 6) disposed within the interior area (see [0005] & Figure 1); and a cross-member assembly (cross beam unit 300, see annotated Figure 6 & [0038]) positioned adjacent the cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, see annotated Figure 6 and Figure 4). Oh further discloses a structural beam member (beam body 310, see annotated Figure 6 & [0048]), that extends longitudinally along an entire length of the cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100) (see Figures 2, 3 & 5) and provides structural reinforcement to the traction battery pack (see [0041] which describes that cross beam unit which is provided with the beam body reinforces rigidity of battery pack 300) and wherein structural beam member (beam body 310, see annotated Figure 6) includes an internal coolant circuit (cooling water channel 315, [0054] & Figure 4) extending therethrough and configured to thermally manage a plurality of battery cells of the cell stack (plurality of battery cells 100, see [0049] which discloses the cooling water channel 315 extends a predetermined length along the width direction of a base plate 200 & [0054] which describes that cooling water channel 315 is for cooling battery cells 100).
Oh is silent on wherein the cross-member assembly comprises a pultruded structural beam member formed from a fiber-reinforced composite material.
Stephens teaches a traction battery pack (battery tray 10, Figure 2), first cross member assembly (cross member portions 48, which extends from the base portion of the tray and may support the battery weight and may serve as a contamination barrier between sections of the battery containment area [0043]), cell stacks (battery modules 14, [0037]), internal coolant circuit (integrated coolant channel 23 [0043]); configured to draw heat away from the battery modules disposed in the battery containment area [0007]), heat exchanger portion (integrated cross member 48” which has integrated coolant channel 23; [0043]), lower structural beam member (base portion 40; [0042]). Stephen further teaches the battery pack tray floor structure may be formed by pultruding various types of fibers through a resin to achieve a composite structure. The resulting pultruded tray floor structure can be configured to have channels for pipes and liners [0039]. Stephens also teaches that the pultruded battery tray may have similar cross-sectional profile for consistency [0041] which would result in minimal damage upon impact or during operation of the vehicle in extreme climate due to the strength of the pultruded composite (see [0003]).
Oh and Stephens are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the same field of battery stacks for use in vehicles Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural beam member of Oh to be manufactured via pultrusion method, as taught by Stephens (thus reading on a pultruded structural beam member formed from a fiber-reinforced composite material, wherein the pultruded structural beam member extends longitudinally along an entire length of the cell stack and provides structural reinforcement to the traction battery pack, and wherein the pultruded structural beam member includes an internal coolant circuit extending therethrough and configured to thermally manage a plurality of battery cells of the cell stack) to achieve the pultruded structural beam member well suited to having channels for pipes and liners for the coolant (as desired by Oh) and to provide the pultruded structural member assembly which would minimize damage to the battery tray upon collision or operation of the vehicle in extreme climate conditions
Claims 5 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20220101475 A; see machine translation) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 15 & 21 above.
Regarding Claims 5 & 16, Oh teaches all of the limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the upper structural beam member (and the lower structural beam member includes a T-shaped cross-section but it is well known in the art to use T-shaped flanges to connect to various conduits as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of a known product for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding Kalmbach& Zagrodnik failing to discloses the new limitations added to claims 1 and 11 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.
Regarding claims 6 & 17, applicant argues that Stephens does not disclose that its cross members 48 are pultrusions. Applicant argues that, while Stephens broadly states that the tray floor structure 20 may be formed by extrusion or pultrusion, this disclosure relates to the tray floor panels as a whole and not to the cross members 48 specifically. Further, applicant argues that Stephens describes the cross members 48 as extending upward from the tray floor structure 20 ("integrally extend upward from the base portion of the panel section", [0043]), but the reference does not describe these cross members as pultruded components nor does it state that they possess the structural characteristics associated with pultruded members.
This argument was fully considered but is found not persuasive because Stephens was used to teach the pultrusion method which creates a pultruded element that is well suited to having channels for pipes and liners for the coolant [0039] and to further create pultruded element with similar cross-sectional profile for consistency [0041] which would result in minimal damage upon impact or during operation of the vehicle in extreme climate due to the strength of the pultruded composite (see [0003]), the same benefits would result when pultrusion method was applied to create other structural elements, not just tray floor. As the structural beam member of Oh is disclosed to provide structural reinforcement to the traction battery pack (see [0041] which describes that cross beam unit which is provided with the beam body reinforces rigidity of battery pack 300) and wherein said structural beam member includes an internal coolant circuit (cooling water channel 315, [0054] & Figure 4) extending therethrough, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use pultrusion method of Stephens to manufacture the structural beam member of Oh to improve its suitability to include the internal coolant circuit increase its strength and minimize damage upon impact or during operation of the vehicle in extreme climate. The pultrusion method of Stephen when applied to making structural beam members would satisfy the need for structural beam members that serve as both a channel for coolant and as a means for minimizing damage during impact.
Further, applicants’ arguments that the disclosure of the cross members is fully consistent with stamped, welded, cast, or extruded structures are found not persuasive as applicant admits that the reference is silent as to any manufacturing process used for the cross members 48 and has not provided any evidence that said cross members are manufactured by any of the argued processes.
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 FIKI V OWHOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-3418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712725453. 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.
/F.V.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights