DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted June 25th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 7-8 and 15-16 are canceled, claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 12, and 18 are amended, resulting in claims 1-6, 9-14 and 17-18 pending for examination.
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 10 and 18 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 10 and 18, claims 9 and 17 recite the holding pad of the battery pack assembly is formed of “expanded polypropylene,” while claims 10 and 18 recite that the holding pad is formed of “EPP90.” The specification discloses that the holding pad can be formed of vibration resistant material “such as, but not limited to, expanded polypropylene such as EPP90.” However, the specification does not define “EPP,” “EPP90,” or otherwise explain how “EPP90” differs from expanded polypropylene.
Further, because claim 10 introduces “EPP90” as a specific material, but the specification presents it only as a non-limiting example without providing any indication of what properties, characteristics, or limitations are associated with this material, it is unclear what is meant by “EPP90” and how it limits the scope of the claim relative to the broader term “expanded polypropylene” in claims 9 and 17. Accordingly, the meaning and scope of claims 10 and 18 would not be reasonably clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Appropriate correction may include amending the claim(s) to more clearly specify the identity and physical properties of “EPP90” such as amending the claim(s) to recite "...wherein the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene that has a density of 90 kg/m3 (EPP90),” as an example, if that is what is intended for the scope of the claim(s).
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo (WO2021070018A1) and further in view of Jo (US20220173453A1).
Regarding claim 1, Perlo teaches:
A battery pack assembly for an electrified vehicle (Perlo, abstract; claims), the battery pack assembly (Perlo, Fig. 1; battery pack 5), comprising:
a main body assembly comprising a structural frame support assembly (Perlo, platform 4; Fig. 1), the structural frame support assembly comprising:
a first floor module support frame (Perlo, lower tray 4A including longitudinal edges 400 and end edges 401; specification, pg. 9, lines 4-16; Fig. 1 and 11) that supports a lower battery housing (Perlo, lower tray 4A and upper cover 4B; Fig. 1, 15-16; specification, pg. 4 lines 33-35);
a first floor cooling plate (Perlo, Fig. 13; specification, pg. 15, lines 7-11) supported by the first floor module support frame;
a second floor module support frame comprising a structural plate (Perlo, aluminum sheet AL arranged under a second layer of battery cells 7; Fig. 28B; the aluminum sheet AL functions as a structural plate under the second layer of battery cells) that supports an upper battery housing (Perlo, Fig. 15-16; upper battery housing includes lower tray 4A which also contains the second layer of battery modules 6 along with upper cover 4B to form the housing),
the second floor module support frame being arranged parallel to and offset above the first floor module support frame (Perlo, Figs. 15-16);
a second floor cooling plate supported by the second floor module support frame (Perlo, Fig. 15; specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35); and
a holding pad (Perlo, elastic leaves L and pad sheets 5A are interchangeable; specification, pg. 5 lines 28-35) formed of a vibration resistant material (Perlo, pad sheets 5A consist of an elastically deformable spongy material that supports vibration stresses during exercise; specification, pg. 9 lines 17-23) and disposed between the second floor module support frame and the second floor cooling plate (Perlo, Fig. 14, pad sheets 5A; Fig. 28A, elastic leaf L located in between aluminum sheet AL, which is part of the second floor module support frame, and cooling plate F under a second layer of battery cells 7),
the holding pad having (i) first structural glue disposed thereon between the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate (Perlo, specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35 and pg. 15, lines 7-11);
and (ii) second structural glue disposed thereon between the holding pad and the second floor module support frame, the first and second structural glue inhibiting relative movement between the second floor cooling plate, holding pad and second floor module support frame (Perlo, specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35, pg. 15, lines 7-11) during operation of the electrified vehicle (Perlo, the battery pack is for an electric vehicle; specification, pg. 1 lines 6-7).
However, Perlo does not expressly teach:
a holding pad disposed between and contacting both the second floor module support frame and the second floor cooling plate,
a structural glue forming a bond between the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate, nor
a structural glue forming a bond between the holding pad and the second floor module support frame.
Jo discloses a battery module comprising a battery cell stack, heating/cooling composite fins interposed between the battery cells, and a compressive pad (claim 1). Jo further discloses that a double-sided tape may be used to stably combine components and may be provided between the heating/cooling composite fins and the battery cells, thereby preventing movements of the components and more stably maintaining the configuration of the battery module even though external vibration occurs. In addition, the double-sided tape may also be provided between the compressive pad and the heating film or at any other portions in order to solve vulnerability to vibration ([0057]). In light of the specification, it is interpreted that the “structural glue” limitation of claim 1 can be a double-sided tape (Applicant, [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack assembly of Perlo by:
providing a holding pad disposed between and contacting both the second floor module support frame and the second floor cooling plate,
providing a structural glue forming a bond between the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate, and
providing a structural glue forming a bond between the holding pad and the second floor module support frame,
as taught by Jo, in order to reduce vulnerability to vibration between elements in the battery pack assembly.
Regarding claim 2, modified Perlo teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the first structural glue comprises double-sided glue (Perlo, specification, pg. 15 lines 33-35 through pg. 16 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Perlo teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the second structural glue comprises double-sided glue (Perlo, specification, pg. 15 lines 33-35 through pg. 16 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, modified Perlo teaches all features of claim 3, and further teaches the battery pack assembly further comprising: a thermal glue disposed between the second floor cooling plate and the structural support frame assembly (Perlo, specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35, pg. 15, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 5, modified Perlo teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the structural frame support assembly further comprises a front beam, a rear beam, a first side beam and a second side beam (Perlo, lower tray 4A includes longitudinal edges 400 and end edges 401; Fig. 11; specification, pg. 9, lines 4-16).
Regarding claim 6, modified Perlo teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the battery pack assembly further comprising a plurality of first floor cooling plates that occupy a first layer in the main body assembly (Perlo, Fig. 13-15; specification, pg. 9, lines 23-35).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo and Jo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bae (WO2023096176A1, US20240304921A1 used for purposes of translation).
Regarding claim 9, Perlo teaches a battery pack assembly with all features of claim 1 as described above, including that the holding pad is formed of a vibration resistant material (Perlo, specification, pg. 9 lines 17-23). However, Perlo does not expressly disclose that the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene.
Bae teaches a holding pad (Bae, Fig. 3; buffer member 400, compression pads 215 and 235) to buffer impacts (i.e. suppress vibrations) from external shock affecting the vehicle components, such as the battery module, during operation; Bae further teaches that the material of the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene (Bae, specification, [0091]-[0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vibration resistant holding pad layer (elastic leaves L/pad sheets 5A) of Perlo from expanded polypropylene as taught by Bae (hereby referenced as “modified Perlo”). Since Perlo requires a material for the holding pad capable of suppressing vibrations, and Bae teaches that expanded polypropylene is suitable for buffering impacts caused by external shock (Bae, specification, [0091]-[0093]), the modification would have involved substituting one known material for another to perform the same function of mitigating mechanical forces (e.g. shock and vibration) to protect the battery components in a predictable manner.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo, Jo, and Bae as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Del Rosso (Del Rosso, Stefano. et al. On the Compressive Response of Polymeric Cellular Materials. Materials (2020), 13, 457).
Regarding claim 10, modified Perlo teaches a battery pack assembly with all features of claim 9 as described above, including that the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene. However, modified Perlo does not expressly disclose that the expanded polypropylene is specifically EPP90.
Del Rosso teaches that polymeric foams, including expanded polypropylene, are conventionally used in energy absorption applications, and further teaches that the mechanical properties of such materials depend on factors, including density (Del Rosso, abstract; introduction, paragraph 1). Del Rosso additionally discloses and compares multiple densities of expanded polypropylene (EPP), including EPP30, EPP60, and EPP90 (Del Rosso, Table 1), and characterizes their mechanical response under compression, thereby demonstrating that different densities provide different levels of energy absorption and mechanical performance (Del Rosso, Fig. 4a; Fig. 7a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the holding pad of Perlo by forming the vibration resistant holding pad layer from EPP90, as taught by Del Rosso. Since Del Rosso teaches that expanded polypropylene materials of varying densities exhibit known differences in mechanical properties relevant to energy absorption, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected an appropriate density, such as EPP90, based on the desired mechanical performance. The modification would have involved selecting a known density of a known material to achieve a desired level of energy absorption and mitigation of mechanical forces (e.g. shock and vibration) to protect the battery components in a predictable manner.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo (WO2021070018A1) in view of Jo (US20220173453A1).
Regarding claim 11, Perlo teaches:
A battery pack assembly for an electrified vehicle (Perlo, abstract; claims), the battery pack assembly (Perlo, Fig. 1; battery pack 5), comprising:
a main body assembly comprising a structural frame support assembly (Perlo, platform 4; Fig. 1), the structural frame support assembly comprising:
a first floor module support frame (Perlo, lower tray 4A including longitudinal edges 400 and end edges 401; specification, pg. 9, lines 4-16; Fig. 1 and 11) that supports a lower battery housing (Perlo, lower tray 4A and upper cover 4B; Fig. 1, 15-16; specification, pg. 4 lines 33-35);
a first floor cooling plate (Perlo, Fig. 13; specification, pg. 15, lines 7-11) supported by the first floor module support frame;
a second floor module support frame comprising a structural plate (Perlo, aluminum sheet AL arranged under a second layer of battery cells 7; Fig. 28B; the aluminum sheet AL functions as a structural plate under the second layer of battery cells) that supports an upper battery housing (Perlo, Fig. 15-16; upper battery housing includes the lower tray 4A which also contains the second layer of battery modules 6 along with upper cover 4B to form the housing),
the second floor module support frame being arranged parallel to and offset above the first floor module support frame (Perlo, Figs. 15-16);
a second floor cooling plate supported by the second floor module support frame (Perlo, Fig. 15; specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35);
and a holding pad (Perlo, elastic leaves L and pad sheets 5A are interchangeable; specification, pg. 5 lines 28-35) formed of a vibration resistant material (Perlo, pad sheets 5A consist of an elastically deformable spongy material that supports vibration stresses during exercise; specification, pg. 9 lines 17-23) and disposed between the second floor module support frame and the second floor cooling plate (Perlo, Fig. 14, pad sheets 5A; Fig. 28A, elastic leaf L located in between aluminum sheet AL and cooling plate F under a second layer of battery cells 7),
a first double-sided tape forminq disposed between the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate (Perlo, specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35; pg. 15, lines 7-11; pg.15 lines 33-35 to pg.16 lines 1-4).
and a second double-sided tape disposed between the holding pad and the second floor module support frame (Perlo, as an alternative to glue, thin spongy pads that are preferably adhesive on one or both sides are positioned between the cells 7 and the aluminum plates AL; specification, pg.15 lines 33-35 to pg.16 lines 1-4), the second double-sided tape inhibiting relative movement between the holding pad and the second floor module support frame (Perlo, pg. 15, lines 7-11; pg.15 lines 33-35 to pg.16 lines 1-4) during operation of the electrified vehicle (Perlo, the battery pack is for an electric vehicle; specification, pg. 1 lines 6-7).
However, Perlo does not expressly teach:
a first double-sided tape forming a bond disposed between and contacting both the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate, nor
a second double-sided tape forming a bond disposed between and contacting both the holding pad and the second floor module support frame
Jo discloses a battery module comprising a battery cell stack, heating/cooling composite fins interposed between the battery cells, and a compressive pad (claim 1). Jo further discloses that a double-sided tape may be used to stably combine components and may be provided between the heating/cooling composite fins and the battery cells, thereby preventing movements of the components and more stably maintaining the configuration of the battery module even though external vibration occurs. In addition, the double-sided tape may also be provided between the compressive pad and the heating film or at any other portions in order to solve vulnerability to vibration ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack assembly of Perlo by (1) providing the double sided tape between and contacting both the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate, and by (2) providing the double sided tape between and contacting both the holding pad and the second floor module support frame, as taught by Jo, in order to reduce vulnerability to vibration between elements in the battery pack assembly.
Regarding claim 12, modified Perlo teaches all features of claim 11, and further teaches the battery pack assembly further comprising: a thermal glue disposed between the second floor cooling plate and the structural support frame assembly (Perlo, specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35, pg. 15, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 13, modified Perlo teaches all features of claim 11, and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the structural frame support assembly further comprises a front beam, a rear beam, a first side beam and a second side beam (Perlo, lower tray 4A includes longitudinal edges 400 and end edges 401; Fig. 11; specification, pg. 9, lines 4-16).
Regarding claim 14, modified Perlo teaches all features of claim 11, and further teaches the battery pack assembly further comprising a plurality of first floor cooling plates that occupy a first layer in the main body assembly (Perlo, Fig. 13-15; specification, pg. 9, lines 23-35).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo and Jo as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bae (WO2023096176A1, US20240304921A1 used for purposes of translation).
Regarding claim 17, modified Perlo teaches a battery pack assembly with all features of claim 11 as described above, including that the holding pad is formed of a vibration resistant material (Perlo, specification, pg. 9 lines 17-23). However, Perlo does not expressly disclose that the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene.
Bae teaches a holding pad (Bae, Fig. 3; buffer member 400, compression pads 215 and 235) to buffer impacts (i.e. suppress vibrations) from external shock affecting the vehicle components, such as the battery module, during operation; Bae further teaches that the material of the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene (Bae, specification, [0091]-[0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vibration resistant holding pad layer (elastic leaves L/pad sheets 5A) of Perlo from expanded polypropylene as taught by Bae (hereby referenced as “modified Perlo”). Since Perlo requires a material for the holding pad capable of suppressing vibrations, and Bae teaches that expanded polypropylene is suitable for buffering impacts caused by external shock (Bae, specification, [0091]-[0093]), the modification would have involved substituting one known material for another to perform the same function of mitigating mechanical forces (e.g. shock and vibration) to protect the battery components in a predictable manner.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo, Jo, and Bae as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Del Rosso (Del Rosso, Stefano. et al. On the Compressive Response of Polymeric Cellular Materials. Materials (2020), 13, 457).
Regarding claim 18, modified Perlo teaches a battery pack assembly with all features of claim 17 as described above, including that the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene. However, modified Perlo does not expressly disclose that the expanded polypropylene is specifically EPP90.
Del Rosso teaches that polymeric foams, including expanded polypropylene, are conventionally used in energy absorption applications, and further teaches that the mechanical properties of such materials depend on factors including density (Del Rosso, abstract; introduction, paragraph 1). Del Rosso additionally discloses and compares multiple densities of expanded polypropylene (EPP), including EPP30, EPP60, and EPP90 (Del Rosso, Table 1), and characterizes their mechanical response under compression, thereby demonstrating that different densities provide different levels of energy absorption and mechanical performance (Del Rosso, Fig. 4a; Fig. 7a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Perlo (as previously modified in view of Bae above) to form the vibration resistant holding pad layer from EPP90 as taught by Del Rosso. Since Del Rosso teaches that expanded polypropylene materials of varying densities exhibit known differences in mechanical properties relevant to energy absorption, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected an appropriate density, such as EPP90, based on the desired mechanical performance. The modification would have involved selecting a known density of a known material to achieve a desired level of energy absorption and mitigation of mechanical forces (e.g. shock and vibration) to protect the battery components in a predictable manner.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the specification due to informalities is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the specification in the response received on June 25th, 2026. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 4 and 11-12 due to informalities are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 4 and 11-12 in the response received on June 25th, 2026. The objections to claims 4 and 11-12 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
In view of the cancellation of claims 7 and 15 in the reply filed on June 25th, 2026, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is moot.
The rejections of claims 9 and 17 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, are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9 and 11, 17 in the response received June 25th, 2026. The rejections of claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Applicant's arguments filed on June 25th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On page 9 of the response, Applicant states that the claim term "EPP90" is definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is a term well understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art of polymeric foam materials to refer to expanded polypropylene having a nominal density of 90 kg/m³, and additionally states that the Examiner’s citation of prior art mapping "EPP90" to expanded polypropylene at a density of 90 kg/m³ expressly demonstrates that the term is known. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under MPEP §2173.02, the test for definiteness is whether the claim language, when read in light of the specification and the prior art, apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. While the Examiner applied a reference reflecting an interpretation of expanded polypropylene at a specific density, this was done in order to give claim terms their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification (MPEP §2111). The Examiner's attempt to assign a reasonable meaning to an ambiguous term to advance prosecution does not prove that the term possesses an ordinary, unambiguous meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, "EPP90" is not a standard, recognized industry term in the battery or material science arts. General and patent database searches reveal that "EPP90" does not immediately or uniformly correlate to a singular material composition or physical property. Instead, the term typically appears only in patent literature authored by the Applicant, or can correspond to:
density: 90 g/L (a common density for molded EPP foam blocks),
geometry: a 90-degree molded EPP structural component or elbow bend, or
composition: a blend containing 90% EPP material.
Under MPEP §2173.05(a), while the Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer, any new or unusual terminology must be clearly defined in the specification. Here, the specification fails to provide any physical parameters, density values, chemical definitions, or illustrative examples to clarify what "EPP90" represents and merely states that "the first and second floor holding pads 186 and 188 can be formed of vibration resistant material such as, but not limited to, expanded polypropylene such as EPP90" without further elaboration ([0026]).
Consequently, a POSITA is left to guess at the exact boundaries of the material, including its underlying composition, material properties, and structural properties necessary to achieve the claimed vibration suppression. Because the specification provides no objective standard for measuring or identifying "EPP90," the boundaries of the claim remain unclear. The rejections of claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are maintained.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, Applicant's arguments filed on June 25th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the response, Applicant states that the aluminum sheets (AL) of Perlo are merely thin thermal barriers (0.7 mm to 2.5 mm thick) and flame propagation-prevention sheets, rather than a "structural support frame that supports an upper battery housing" in a load-bearing sense.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that during patent examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. Applicant’s claim 1 recites a "second floor module support frame comprising a structural plate that supports an upper battery housing"; the claim does not recite any specific thickness thresholds, minimum weight capacities, or explicit structural load metrics for the frame or plate. Further, a "structural support frame" or “floor module support frame” is reasonably interpreted as an assembly of components that holds, stabilizes, positions, or bears the weight of other components.
In addition, Perlo expressly discloses that spacer blocks (15A, 15C) are positioned above the aluminum plate (AL) wherein the spacer blocks feature holes for engaging screws intended to attach all the layers of cells above the platform (4A) (Perlo, Fig. 38; specification, pg. 15 lines 25-32). Perlo further teaches that nuts are inserted into these blocks for clamp members to secure the cell contacts, and that these blocks are rigidly fixed (screwed or glued) directly to the aluminum plate. Thus, the physical integration of Perlo’s aluminum plates, screwed/glued spacer blocks, and clamping members forms a rigid, unified assembly that mechanically aligns and supports the upper layers of cells (the upper battery housing/battery modules). This combination performs the same functional and structural role of the claimed "second floor module support frame comprising a structural plate." Further, the aluminum plates do not just sit loosely; Perlo's aluminum plates are anchored via the blocks to manage the structural load and integrity of the upper tiers of the vertical stack.
Furthermore, while the aluminum plates do provide thermal and flame-retardant benefits, it is well-established that a prior art element may perform multiple functions. The capability of Perlo's aluminum plates and interconnected block/clamp framework to hold, attach, and vertically position the upper cell layers satisfies the broad functional requirement of a "support frame comprising a structural plate that supports an upper battery housing," while simultaneously providing thermal and flame-retardant benefits.
On page 11 of the response, Applicant states that Perlo does not disclose a holding pad disposed between the second floor module support frame and the second floor cooling plate, wherein "a holding pad disposed between and contacting both the second floor module support frame and the second floor cooling plate."
In response, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s arguments regarding this limitation in claim 1 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.
On pages 11-12 of the response, Applicant states that the claim requires first and second structural glues that "inhibit relative movement" between the specified components, whereas the adhesive disclosed in Perlo is used strictly for thermal management (eliminating air bubbles, maximizing thermal contact, and conducting heat) rather than structural reinforcement. Applicant states that Perlo's adhesive does not serve the structural purpose required by the claim, and that the instant application addresses a different technical problem compared to the prior art (pg. 12 of the response).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Perlo emphasizes the thermal benefits of the adhesive, an element can simultaneously serve multiple functional purposes. For example, it is a well-known physical property of glues and adhesives to bond components together, which inherently resists, prevents, or "inhibits relative movement" between those bonded components; therefore, a glue, tape, or any form of an adhesive inherently possesses the physical property of securing components together and restricting relative movement between them when applied to any adjacent surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Perlo's adhesive to the interfaces of the cooling plate, holding pad, support frame(s), or to any adjacent elements, would inherently and structurally secure these components together while simultaneously optimizing thermal contact.
In addition, a structural component in a battery pack inherently responds to all environmental forces acting upon it, and both Perlo and the instant application explicitly disclose battery packs optimized for electric vehicles (see rejection of claim 1 above). Further, it is well known that electric vehicle battery packs are simultaneously subjected to both internal cell swelling due to charging/discharging and external road vibrations during vehicle operation; as such, allowing localized cell expansion does not preclude a component from absorbing, dampening, suppressing, or transmitting structural vibration loads during vehicle operation.
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 ALEXIS R OSTWALT whose telephone number is (571)272-8650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 5712707692. 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.
/A.R.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights