DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on April 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 1, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 31, 2023 and October 17, 2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that the preamble to claim 1 recites “a system for a composite battery tray structure,” stating the intended use for the system as being for a composite battery tray structure. Therefore, a system meeting the structural requirements of the claim and capable of performing the intended use is considered to satisfy the claim limitation.
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.
Claim 7-9 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.
Regarding claims 7-9, claim 8 recites “The system of claim 8,” depending from itself, making the claim indefinite. Claims 7 and 9 are also indicated as depending on claim 8, making them indefinite by dependency on claim 8. Further, as claims 7-9 depend on claim 8, the recitation of “the at least one pin” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claims 7-9 further limit the pin component, which is introduced in claim 6. Based on the ordering of the claims, and in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the pin component, it seems that claims 7-9 are intended to depend from claim 6. For the purposes of examination, claims 7-9 are interpreted as depending from claim 6.
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, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamori, et al. (US 2011/0143179 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamori teaches a battery case (1; system) including a battery tray (10) composed of resin and loaded with a plurality of batteries, a battery cover (20; lid) provided on the upper surface of the battery tray, and a frame (30; cross member) covering the outer periphery of the battery tray (¶ [0024], Ln. 1-6, ¶ [0025], Ln. 1-3; Fig. 2). Shown in Figure 2, the bottom wall (11; floor) of the battery tray extends in a longitudinal and transverse direction and is configured to receive the batteries; and the frame extends in the transverse direction and includes a top surface, bottom surface, and sidewalls extending vertically therebetween. The frame includes a bolt (52) fixed on the upper portion (¶ [0033], Ln. 9-11; Fig. 4), such that the bolt is a flange extending vertically upward from the top surface of the frame. Additionally, the frame includes a frame-side flange portion (38), which extends laterally from the bottom surface of the frame and fixes the frame to the bottom wall of the battery tray (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-4; Fig. 4). Shown in Figure 4, the frame is hollow inside with beam portions (39; support ribs) provided throughout its lateral dimension (¶ [0031], Ln. 5-8). Also shown in Figure 4, the battery cover includes a cover-side flange portion (23), with a channel extending upward to receive the bolt (52) fixed to the upper portion of the frame.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including that the frame-side flange portion (38), which extends laterally from the bottom surface of the frame, fixes the frame to the bottom wall of the battery tray (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-4; Fig. 4). Thus, the frame-side flange portion (38) engages with a portion of the battery tray.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that a sealing material may be inserted between the flange portion of the battery tray (13) and the cover-side flange portion (23), providing a gasket as the example (¶ [0054], Ln. 1-5). Thus, the gasket would contact the flange portion of the battery tray, the cover-side flange portion, and the bolt of the frame, creating a seal by being disposed between the frame and the cover.
Regarding claims 6-7, Nakamori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including that beam portions (39) are provided throughout the lateral dimension of the frame (¶ [0031], Ln. 5-8). Shown in Figure 4, at least one beam portion reads on the claimed pin, extending from a first sidewall to a second sidewall within the frame.
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 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamori, et al. (US 2011/0143179 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Nakamori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the frame-side flange portion is bolted to the bottom wall of the battery tray using a bolt (52) and nut (53), sealing the components together (¶ [0052], Ln. 1-10). Nakamori additionally teaches that a sealing material may be inserted between the flange portion of the battery tray (13) and the cover-side flange portion (23), providing a gasket as the example, as teaching that this stabilizes the sealability of the battery case (¶ [0054], Ln. 1-5). Nakamori does not expressly teach that a gasket is disposed between the frame-side flange portion and the bottom wall of the battery tray.
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 battery case of Nakamori to include an additional gasket in between the frame-side flange portion and the bottom wall of the battery tray, where the components are bolted together. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a gasket, as Nakamori teaches the use of a sealing material, specifically a gasket, in between the battery tray and cover. One would be motivated to include the additional gasket in order to ensure the battery case is in a closed state and is completely sealed.
Regarding claim 9, Nakamori teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above. Nakamori does not expressly teach that the beam portion includes a first cylindrical portion having a first diameter and a second cylindrical portion having a second diameter, the first diameter being larger than the first, with the first cylindrical portion abutting a first sidewall of the frame.
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 support beam of Nakamori such that one of the sides abutting a sidewall of the frame is a cylinder having a larger diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a support beam having a larger diameter would offer stronger reinforcement within the frame and better attachment to the sidewall. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a portion of the support beam having a larger diameter at one end, such that the cylinder having a larger diameter abuts a first sidewall of the frame.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamori, et al. (US 2011/0143179 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang, et al. (US 2022/0190402 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nakamori does not expressly teach that the hollow frame includes a core component disposed therein.
Wang teaches a traction battery pack including a frame (1), which comprises an outer frame (11) and inner frame (12) (¶ [0053], Ln. 1-4; Fig. 1). Shown in Figure 5, the outer side wall of the outer frame is hollow with a plurality of horizontal and vertical reinforcing ribs (15), creating filling spaces (16) (¶ [0055], Ln. 1-4). Wang teaches that a second thermal insulation material (4) such as silicon foam, polyurethane sponge, or polyvinyl chloride expanded plastic fills the filling spaces in order to exert sufficient thermal insulation ability (¶ [0055], Ln. 5-12). Wang teaches that the second thermal insulation material provides better heat preservation performance while the ribs provide structural strength (¶ [0055], Ln. 12-21).
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 battery case of Nakamori to include a thermal insulation material in the hollow portion of the frame based on the teachings of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include an insulation material such as silicon foam, polyurethane sponge, or polyvinyl chloride expanded plastic in the space between the beam portions, as the structure is similar to the structure taught by Wang. One would be motivated to include this insulation material in order to provide better heat preservation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamori, et al. (US 2011/0143179 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee, et al. (US 2023/0361404 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamori teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above. Nakamori does not expressly teach that at least one beam portion extends from a first side wall at a non-normal angle therefrom.
Lee teaches a battery pack (300) including a plurality of battery modules (200), a tray (320), a pair of side covers (330), and at least one partition wall (340) (¶ [0037], Ln. 1-5; Fig. 2). The side covers extend transversely as shown in Figure 2 and include a main body portion (333) (¶ [0052], Ln. 4-7). Lee teaches that reinforcing ribs (R1) extend longitudinally from an end portion to the other end portion of the main body portion (¶ [0064], Ln. 1-10). Shown in Figure 4, the reinforcing ribs may extend at non-normal angles from the end portion of the main body portion. Lee teaches that the reinforcing ribs increase the mechanical rigidity of the side cover, such that the battery pack safely protects the plurality of battery modules and other elements from external impact in the left-right and front-rear directions (¶ [0066], Ln. 1-7).
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 frame of Nakamori to include at least one beam portion extending at a non-normal angle based on the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the beam portion at a non-normal angle as Lee teaches that the reinforcing rib structure increases the mechanical rigidity. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to protect the batteries from external impact in the left-right and front-rear directions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights