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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 30, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is maintained. However, a new reference is relied upon to render obvious the claimed invention.
All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0022845 (Davis et al.) in view of US 2014/0113171 (Schaefer) and US 2010/0119927 (Bauer).
As to claim 1, Davis et al. teach a battery arrangement for a motor vehicle (abs), comprising:
a battery housing (pack enclosure [300]) having a housing tray (part including the side walls [332]) that provides a receiving area for receiving area configured to receive at least one battery module (battery stack [302]), wherein a housing cover (lid [312]) is arranged on the housing tray (fig. 3; para 0013);
at least one battery component (battery cell stack [302]) arranged in the battery housing (part including side walls [332]) and at a distance (seen via pad [330]) from the housing cover (lid [312]) (fig. 3); wherein at least one element (pad [330], materials such as polyurethane, foam pads, and non-woven materials set forth (para 0014)) configured to damp mechanical vibrations of the housing cover is arranged between the housing cover (lid [312]) and the battery component (battery cell stack [312]) in an interior of the battery housing, so that the at least one element (pad [330]) abuts the housing cover (lid [312]) and the at least one battery component (battery cell stack [312]) (fig. 3; abs; para 0004, 0014). Davis teaches the presence of a cooling structure cold plate [320], cooling circuit [304]) (fig. 3).
Davis et al. do not teach (a) that the at least one element is a felt element, and (b) a cooling device that faces toward the housing cover, (c) wherein the at least one felt element is arranged between recessed points of the cooling device.
With respect to (a): Schaefer, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the use of damping elements [2.4], which absorb vibrations (para 0091). Materials for the damping element [2.4] includes PU foam as well as felt (para 0098-0099). The substitution of felt (taught in Shaefer) for foam (taught in both Schaefer and Davis et al.) would yield the predictable art of providing vibration absorption, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute felt for foam, as the substitution would yield the predictable art of providing vibration absorption, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b): Bauer teaches of using a cooling system having corrugated boards [2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e] for cooling, wherein one board is placed against the foam panel [3]) (fig. 1; para 0011, 0016, 0019). The motivation for using the structure of Bauer (corrugated board (for cooling) with a foam panel, pressure fit next to the cooling is to have cost effective system (fig. 1; para 0010). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a corrugated board (for cooling) with a foam panel pressure fit next to the corrugated board to have cost effective system. (Note: The combination would yield a corrugated board placed against the pad, as located within Davis et al.)
With respect to (c): The combination above renders the limitation (wherein the at least one felt element is arranged between recessed points of the cooling device) obvious, as pressure fitting a pad next to a corrugated board would result in having some of the pad within the recessed points (via pressure fitting), wherein the pad has been rendered obvious to be felt.
As to claim 2, Davis et al. teach the at least one battery component represents the at least one battery module arranged in the receiving area (fig. 3; para 0013).
As to claim 3, Davis et al. teach the battery module further comprises:
a battery cell arrangement that comprises multiple battery cells (battery stack [302]) (fig. 3),
As to claim 5, the combination would render the claim limitation (at least one felt element is a felt strip that is elongated in a longitudinal extension direction, aligned parallel to sections of cooling channels of the cooling device), as Bauer is relied upon to render obvious the use of a corrugated board, having cooling through the board against, a pad (fig. 1; para 0010) (as applied to the structure of Davis et al., which has the pad placed against the cover); see the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Additionally, the element being felt has been rendered obvious by Shaefer; the details to the combination set forth in the rejection to claim 1 are incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Accordingly, the combination would have the strip being a felt strip.)
As to claim 8, Davis et al. teach the battery arrangement includes multiple elements are arranged between the housing cover,
multiple battery components are arranged in the receiving area, and
multiple elements arranged between a respective battery component and the housing cover (pad [330] placed between a battery component (cell stack [302]) and housing cover (lid [312] (fig. 3); also multiple pads [330] present, i.e. between the battery module and side wall [332], coolant circuit, cold plate, EDM, PCM (para 0014)).
(Note: The element being felt has been rendered obvious by Shaefer; the details to the combination set forth in the rejection to claim 1 are incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Accordingly, the combination would have the strip being a felt strip.)
As to claim 9, Davis et al. teach a method comprising:
providing a battery housing (pack enclosure [300]) having a housing tray (part including the side walls [332]) that provides a receiving area for receiving at least one battery module (battery stack [302]), wherein a housing cover (lid [312]) is arranged on the housing tray (fig. 3; para 0013);
providing at least one battery component (battery stack [302]) and arranging the at least one battery component (battery stack [302]) in the battery housing (pack enclosure [300]) so that it is at a distance to the housing cover (lid [312]) when the housing cover (lid [312]) is arranged on the housing tray (part including side walls [332]); wherein at least one element (pad [330], materials such as polyurethane, foam pads, and non-woven materials set forth (para 0014)) configured to damp mechanical vibrations of the housing cover is arranged in such a way that, after the housing cover (lid [312]) has been arranged on the housing tray (part including side walls [332]), the at least one element is located between the housing cover (lid [332]) and the battery component (battery stack [302]) in an interior of the battery housing and abuts the housing cover (lid [332]) and the at least one battery component (battery stack [302]).
Davis et al. do not teach (a) that the at least one element is a felt element, and (b) a cooling device that faces toward the housing cover, (c) wherein the at least one felt element is arranged between recessed points of the cooling device.
With respect to (a): Schaefer, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the use of damping elements [2.4], which absorb vibrations (para 0091). Materials for the damping element [2.4] includes PU foam as well as felt (para 0098-0099). The substitution of felt (taught in Shaefer) for foam (taught in both Schaefer and Davis et al.) would yield the predictable art of providing vibration absorption, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute felt for foam, as the substitution would yield the predictable art of providing vibration absorption, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b): Bauer teaches of using a cooling system having corrugated boards [2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e] for cooling, wherein one board is placed against the foam panel [3]) (fig. 1; para 0011, 0016, 0019). The motivation for using the structure of Bauer (corrugated board (for cooling) with a foam panel, pressure fit next to the cooling is to have cost effective system (fig. 1; para 0010). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a corrugated board (for cooling) with a foam panel pressure fit next to the corrugated board to have cost effective system. (Note: The combination would yield a corrugated board placed against the pad, as located within Davis et al.)
With respect to (c): The combination above renders the limitation (wherein the at least one felt element is arranged between recessed points of the cooling device) obvious, as pressure fitting a pad next to a corrugated board would result in having some of the pad within the recessed points (via pressure fitting), wherein the pad has been rendered obvious to be felt.
As to claim 10, Davis et al. teach the at least one element (pad [330]) is glued onto the battery component or the housing cover (pad [330] may be glued to one surface of enclosure, which includes the lid [312] (housing cover, as claimed) (para 0014)) the arrangement before the housing cover is arranged on the housing tray (as this would necessarily happen, or else the placement of the pad within the enclosure would not be able to be achieved).
As to claim 11, Davis et al. teach the at least one battery component represents the at least one battery module arranged in the receiving area (fig. 3; para 0013).
As to claim 14, the combination would render the claim limitation (at least one felt element is a felt strip that is elongated in a longitudinal extension direction, aligned parallel to sections of cooling channels of the cooling device), as Bauer is relied upon to render obvious the use of a corrugated board, having cooling through the board against, a pad (fig. 1; para 0010) (as applied to the structure of Davis et al., which has the pad placed against the cover); see the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Additionally, the element being felt has been rendered obvious by Shaefer; the details to the combination set forth in the rejection to claim 1 are incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Accordingly, the combination would have the strip being a felt strip.)
As to claim 15, the combination would render the claim limitation (at least one felt element is a felt strip that is elongated in a longitudinal extension direction, aligned parallel to sections of cooling channels of the cooling device), as Bauer is relied upon to render obvious the use of a corrugated board, having cooling through the board against, a pad (fig. 1; para 0010) (as applied to the structure of Davis et al., which has the pad placed against the cover); see the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Additionally, the element being felt has been rendered obvious by Shaefer; the details to the combination set forth in the rejection to claim 1 are incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Accordingly, the combination would have the strip being a felt strip.)
Claim(s) 4, 12-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view Schaefer and Bauer, as applied to claims 1-3 above, further in view of US 2025/0070313 (Ha).
As to claim 4, Davis does not teach (a) the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover, (b) the cooling device is arranged on the frame and the at least one element is arranged in an edge area of the cooling device directly above an edge area of the frame of the battery module (wherein the element is a felt element).
With respect to (a): in the same field of endeavor, Ha teaches the battery module includes a frame (via crash structures [40] around the modules [20]) that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover (upper cover [80]), (figs. 1, 4; para 0068-0069). The motivation for the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover is to improve structure and stability of the cell modules (para 0024). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover in order to improve structure and stability of the cell modules.
With respect to (b): The limitation (the cooling device is arranged on the frame and the at least one element is arranged in an edge area of the cooling device directly above an edge area of the frame of the battery module) is rendered obvious by the combination, as the combination would have the structure of the corrugated board and element (foam panel [3]) of Bauer above the frame of Ha).
(Note: The element being felt has been rendered obvious by Shaefer; the details to the combination set forth in the rejection to claim 1 are incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Accordingly, the combination would have the strip being a felt strip.)
As to claim 12, Davis does not teach (a) the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover, (b) the cooling device is arranged on the frame and the at least one element is arranged in an edge area of the cooling device directly above an edge area of the frame of the battery module (wherein the element is a felt element).
With respect to (a): in the same field of endeavor, Ha teaches the battery module includes a frame (via crash structures [40] around the modules [20]) that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover (upper cover [80]), (figs. 1, 4; para 0068-0069). The motivation for the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover is to improve structure and stability of the cell modules (para 0024). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover in order to improve structure and stability of the cell modules.
With respect to (b): The limitation (the cooling device is arranged on the frame and the at least one element is arranged in an edge area of the cooling device directly above an edge area of the frame of the battery module) is rendered obvious by the combination, as the combination would have the structure of the corrugated board and element (foam panel [3]) of Bauer above the frame of Ha).
(Note: The element being felt has been rendered obvious by Shaefer; the details to the combination set forth in the rejection to claim 1 are incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Accordingly, the combination would have the strip being a felt strip.)
As to claim 13, Davis does not teach (a) the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover, (b) the cooling device is arranged on the frame and the at least one element is arranged in an edge area of the cooling device directly above an edge area of the frame of the battery module (wherein the element is a felt element).
With respect to (a): in the same field of endeavor, Ha teaches the battery module includes a frame (via crash structures [40] around the modules [20]) that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover (upper cover [80]), (figs. 1, 4; para 0068-0069). The motivation for the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover is to improve structure and stability of the cell modules (para 0024). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the battery module includes a frame that extends around a battery cell arrangement and includes frame walls that each include end faces facing toward the housing cover in order to improve structure and stability of the cell modules.
With respect to (b): The limitation (the cooling device is arranged on the frame and the at least one element is arranged in an edge area of the cooling device directly above an edge area of the frame of the battery module) is rendered obvious by the combination, as the combination would have the structure of the corrugated board and element (foam panel [3]) of Bauer above the frame of Ha).
(Note: The element being felt has been rendered obvious by Shaefer; the details to the combination set forth in the rejection to claim 1 are incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Accordingly, the combination would have the strip being a felt strip.)
As to claim 16, the combination would render the claim limitation (at least one felt element is a felt strip that is elongated in a longitudinal extension direction, aligned parallel to sections of cooling channels of the cooling device), as Bauer is relied upon to render obvious the use of a corrugated board, having cooling through the board against, a pad (fig. 1; para 0010) (as applied to the structure of Davis et al., which has the pad placed against the cover); see the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Additionally, the element being felt has been rendered obvious by Shaefer; the details to the combination set forth in the rejection to claim 1 are incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. Accordingly, the combination would have the strip being a felt strip.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. in view of Shaefer and Bauer, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2020/0365852 (Beck et al.).
As to claim 7, Davis et al. teaches that the pads may be glued to one surface of enclosure (para 0014). The combination of Davis et al. and Schaefer et al. do not teach that the felt element is a self-adhesive felt element having only one adhesive side, and the felt element is glued to the battery component using the adhesive side.
However, Beck et al. teach of using an adhesively-bonded felt [24a] (only one side shown to be adhesive, as bound to the housing) (fig. 2; para 0015, 0045). The motivation for using adhesively-bonded felt on one side against a surface is that it allows for easy attachment (para 0015). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to use adhesively-bonded felt on one side against a surface is that it allows for easy attachment.
Regarding the adhesive being glued to the housing cover with the adhesive side. The combination above would render the limitation obvious, as Davis et al. teaches that the pads may be glued to one surface of enclosure (para 0014) (i.e. the housing cover).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 (and claim 9 similar to claim 1), Applicant argues that the amendment to the claim (regarding the cooling device, and the felt element in relation to recessed points of the cooling device) is not rendered obvious by the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendment Bauer is now relied upon to render obvious the newly cited claim limitations. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Regarding claim 4 (and claims 12 and 13 similar to claim 4), Applicant argues that the claim limitation is not within Davis in view of Ha.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendment Bauer is now also relied upon to render obvious the claim limitations. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Regarding claim 5 (and claims 14-16 similar to claim 5), Applicant argues that the amendment to the claim (regarding the cooling device, and the felt element in relation to recessed points of the cooling device) is not rendered obvious by the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendment Bauer is now relied upon to render obvious the structure. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well. (Note: Exception to the dependent claims indicated as having allowable subject matter.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of at least claims 6 and 17-20.
Claims 6 and 17-20 teaches the battery arrangement comprising the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires the “at least one felt element is glued to the at least one battery component”.
Bauer, relied upon herein, teaches the structure of fig. 1. The structure equivalent to the element [3] has intermediary cooling device (corrugated plate) between the element [2] and battery component [1]. Thus, gluing the element to the battery component is not compatible with Bauer. No motivation exists to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights