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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the appeal brief filed on 09 July 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Response to Arguments
The finality of the last Office action (13 February 2026) is withdrawn.
The rejection(s) of the claim(s) from the Final Office action (13 February 2026) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by newly found art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2016/0190526), in view of Kumar et al. (US 2012/0028105, of record), hereinafter Yamada and Kumar. Fig. 1 of Yamada has been annotated to address the claimed features.
Regarding Claims 1, and 15-16, Yamada suggests an energy storage device and a vehicle (see title and abstract) comprising a battery pack, the battery pack comprising: a cell array (e.g., 20A, 20B) including a plurality of cells (e.g., 22, Figs. 1-2, [0024]), each of the plurality of cells having a cell body; and a support member (e.g., 30, 56, 58, 14) having a first side beam and a second side beam (labelled in annotated Fig. 1), the first side beam and the second side beam including first and second inner surfaces (labelled as “inner surfaces” in annotated Fig. 1) extending upward to define a cavity therebetween and terminating at an upper end at corresponding first and second upward facing connecting surfaces (see annotated Fig. 1, labelled as “first connecting surface” and “second connecting surface”), with the cell array being disposed in the cavity (see Fig. 1); wherein each cell body is substantially cuboid (i.e., rectangular) with a length L (e.g., direction B), a thickness D (e.g., direction A), and a height H (e.g., direction C), the length L (in the direction B) is greater than the height H (in direction C) and the height H (in direction C) is greater than or equal to the thickness D (in direction A) of the cell body (see Figs. 1-2), wherein each of the plurality of cells is supported on the first and second connecting surfaces (i.e., through 30a/30b, 58a/58b, 56a/56b and bolts 54d, see e.g., [0022-0026, 0032-0033, 0034-0043, 0047-0050, 0052, 0067]).
Annotated Fig. 1 of Yamada
PNG
media_image1.png
823
1059
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 13-14, Yamada suggests the support member (i.e., 30, 56, 58, 14, see annotated Fig. 1) includes a tray shape (apparent in Fig. 1) and is used in an electric vehicle ([0022]), hence the support member is a vehicle tray that accommodates the cell array (i.e., 20A, 20B); further, Yamada suggests the support member (i.e., 30, 56, 58, 14, see annotated Fig. 1) that accommodates the cell array (e.g., 20A, 20B) is part of the vehicle body frame ([0011, 0022-0023]), hence the support member is a vehicle chassis (i.e., frame) that accommodates the cell array (i.e., 20A, 20B).
Regarding Claim 21, Yamada suggests a battery pack comprising: a cell array (e.g., 20A, 20B) including a plurality of cells (e.g., 22), each of the plurality of cells having a cell body (see Figs.); and a support member (see rejection of claim 1 and annotated Fig. 1) having a first side beam and a second side beam, the first side beam defining a first connecting surface facing upwardly and the second side beam defining a second connecting surface facing upwardly (see annotated Fig. 1); wherein each cell body is substantially cuboid with a length L, a thickness D, and a height H, the length L is greater than the height H and the height H is greater than or equal to the thickness D of the cell body (see rejection of claim 1), wherein an entire length of each of the plurality of cells is disposed between the first and second connecting surfaces (see Fig. 1); and wherein each of the plurality of cells is supported by the first and second connecting surfaces (i.e., through 30a/30b, 58a/58b, 56a/56b, 14a/14b, e.g., bottoms 22d of cells 22 placed on portion 44c of 30a/30b (Fig. 4), and 30a/30 is bolted to 56/58 via bolts 54a in holes 50a, and 56 is further connected to connecting surfaces (14a/14b) of beams via bolt 54d through holes 57, 59, see e.g., Figs. 1-3, 5, [0040-0042]).
Further regarding Claims 1, 3-8, and 21, relevant to claims 1 and 21, Yamada does not suggest the cell body meets 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 21. Further relevant to claims 3-8, Yamada does not explicitly suggest each cell body satisfies 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 21 (or 9 ≤ L/H ≤ 13), 600 mm ≤ L ≤ 2500 mm (or 600 mm ≤ L≤ 1500 mm), 10 < L/D <208 (or 23 ≤ L/D ≤ 208, or 50 ≤ L/D ≤ 70). However, Kumar suggests battery cell dimensions that enable high capacity within a practical format for convenient handling at practical costs, [0035, 0057-0058]. Specifically, the length L (e.g., h) and height H (e.g., w) are each selected between about 50-750 mm such that the area (w * h) is between 25,000 mm2 to 50,000 mm2, while the thickness D (t) is between 7-18 mm such that the volume (w*h*t) is 250,000-550,000 mm3. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The selection of a length L between 600 mm <L< 2500 mm, or 600 mm <L< 1500 mm (e.g. h = 650 mm, which is between 50 mm and 750 mm suggested in Kumar), a height H (i.e., w = 65 mm, which is between 50 mm and 750 mm suggested in Kumar), and a thickness D (i.e., t = 10 mm, which between 7-18 mm), as suggested by Kumar, results in a desirable facial area of 42,250 mm2 and desirable volume of 422,500 mm3 (i.e., 650 mm x 65 mm, which is between 25,000 m2 and 50,000 mm2; 650 mm x 65 mm x 10 mm = 422,500 mm3, [0058]), where there is an expectation of high capacity, and practical dimensions with convenient handling at practical costs, [0058]. The aforementioned ranges suggest L, H and D values such that 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 21 and 9 ≤ L/H ≤ 13 (i.e., 650 mm/65 mm = 10), and 10 ≤ L/D ≤ 208, 23 ≤ L/D ≤ 208, and 50 ≤ L/D ≤ 70 (i.e., 650mm/10mm = 65). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the aforementioned length, height, and thickness with the expectation of high capacity, and convenient handling at practical costs, as suggested by Kumar. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP 2144.05, I. and II.
Regarding Claim 9, as detailed above (i.e., rejection of claims 1, 3-8 and 21), Yamada, as modified by Kumar, suggests a length L and a height H (i.e., h and w) between 50-750 mm, such that facial area (i.e., h*w) is between 25,000 mm2 – 50,000 mm2 (e.g., h*w = 500 mm x 90 mm = 45,000 mm2, where L(h)/H(w) = 500/90 = 5.5, thereby satisfying claim 1) and volume is between 250,000 mm3 to 550,000mm3 (i.e., h* w*t, e.g., 500 mm x 90 mm x 12 mm = 540,000 mm3), thereby suggesting 0.0005 mm-2 ≤ L/V ≤ 0.002 mm-2 (i.e., 500 mm/540,000 mm3 = 0.00093 mm-2), thereby satisfying the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, as set forth under the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 21, Yamada, as modified by Kumar, suggests a length L and height H (i.e., h and w, each between 50-750 mm) such that facial area (i.e., h*w) is 25,000 mm2 – 50,000 mm2 (e.g., 650 mm x 65 mm) and volume between 250,000 mm3 to 550,000mm3 (i.e., h*w*t, e.g., 650 mm x 65 mm x 13 mm = 549,250 mm3), which suggests H/V between 0.0001 mm-2 to 0.00015 mm-2 (i.e., 65 mm/549,250 mm3).
Regarding Claim 11, as set forth under the rejection of claims 1, 3-8 and 21, Yamada, as modified by Kumar, suggests a length L and height H (i.e., h and w, each between 50-750 mm), such that facial area (i.e., h*w) is 25,000 mm2 – 50,000 mm2 (e.g., 650 mm x 65 mm) and volume between 250,000 mm3 to 550,000mm3 (i.e., h*w*t, e.g., 650 mm x 65 mm x 10 mm = 422,500 mm3), which suggests surface area S/V between 0.1 mm-1 to 0.25 mm-1 (i.e., (650mmx65 mm)/422,500 mm3 = 0.1 mm-1).
Regarding Claims 2, and 17-18, Yamada suggests each cell body comprises a case (e.g., side walls and lower end surface 22d) and a cover plate (22u); while Yamada does not explicitly suggest the cover plate seals the case, such a feature would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art provided stacked electrodes are typically sealed with electrolyte through a suitable housing/container (i.e., metal can, pouch, case 162/cover 166, see e.g., Figs. 4-6, and [0040, 0048-0049, 0053-0054] in Kumar) before use to maintain the electrolyte within the battery while keeping the water vapor out (see e.g., [0040, 0048-0049, 0053-0054] in Kumar); thus, it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that each cell body comprises a housing comprising a case and a cover plate for sealing the case to enable storage of the electrodes and electrolyte therein while maintaining water vapor out. Further, the inclusion of metal in each cell body housing would be obvious because the art (Kumar) has recognized the suitability of metal (i.e., metal can [0049], aluminum [0053]) as a housing material (intended purpose, MPEP 2144.07) and because it can provide appropriate form and mechanical strength to the housing, as suggested by Kumar ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yamada suggests an end plate (56/58) having an end plate body (e.g., 58a, 56a, Fig. 5) and a connecting plate (56b) protruding outwardly from the end plate body (Fig. 5); and wherein the connecting plate (56b) is connected to the first connecting surface (via bolt through holes 57, 59) to support the plurality of cells on the first connecting surface.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada and Kumar further in view of Chi et al. (US 20190326569), hereinafter Chi.
Regarding Claim 20, Yamada suggests a lower panel defining a lower end of the cavity (see annotated Fig. 1), with the first and second inner surfaces (labelled “inner surface” in annotated Fig. 1) of the first and second side beams extending upward from the lower panel. Yamada does not suggest an upper panel connected to an upper surface of each of the plurality of cells, the first connecting surface, and the second connecting surface to support the plurality of cells on the first and second connecting surfaces. However, Chi suggests an upper panel (130, [0043]) provides a mechanical supporting force to protect the cells (110) from external impacts or the like ([0045]) connected to the first connecting surface (e.g., 121b, through H2, via bolt B, Figs. 2-5), and the second connecting surface (e.g., 122a(222a), through H1, Figs. 2-5), see e.g., [0043, 0054]. The upper panel is not explicitly shown to connect to the plurality of cells 110. However, Chi suggests unnecessary gaps lead to deteriorated space utilization, and states additional spacing reduces the space available to mount the cells, thereby lowering energy density, see [0007-0008]. Chi suggests minimizing dead space is expected to increase energy density and improve space utilization, [0008-0009]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to connect the upper panel to an upper surface of each of the plurality cells, the first connection surface, and the second connection surface with the expectation of minimizing unnecessary dead space, leading to improved space utilization and energy density, and to provide protection to the cells from external impacts, as suggested by Chi.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,537,254 in view of Yamada, Kumar and Chi (cited above in the 103 rejections of claims).
Both sets of claims are directed to a battery pack comprising a cell array formed of a plurality of cells having specific dimensions; the dimensions with respect to L, D, H and S, as well as various ratios (L/D, L/H, L/V, H/V, S/V) overlap. Further, both claim sets are directed to a tray/support member comprising first and second beams comprising inner surfaces with the cells therebetween, and a bottom plate (lower panel). Moreover, the first end plate, connected to the first connecting surface of the side beam/support member, which is located between the first end of each cell and the first side beam (claim 1 of patent) is equivalent to the end plate recited in claim 19 of the instant invention, which recites that a connecting plate of the end plate connects the connecting surface of the beam.
Any additional features currently claimed in the instant application that are not addressed by the claims of the patent are obvious over Yamada, Chi, and/or Kumar. For example, the inner surfaces extending to define a cavity and terminating at an upper end at corresponding first and second upward facing connecting surface, with the cells disposed in the cavity and supported by connecting surfaces, is suggested by Yamada with the expectation of protecting and supporting the cells on an electric vehicle frame. Other instantly claimed features (e.g., vehicle chassis, cell body case and cover plate, energy storage device, vehicle, cell body comprises metal, upper panel) are obvious for the same reasons as set forth in the 103 rejections above, hence not repeated here for brevity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 201766132 (see attached paragraphs) suggests the selection of the cell dimensions (200-700mm by 200-1000mm by <20mm ) of a batteries is based on desired capacity (large formats are expected to yield high capacities, e.g., 2000Ah) to meet demand and that cell dimensions are a result effective variable for capacity, e.g., examples 1 and 2 show that reducing the thickness of the battery (from 13 mm to 6.8mm) while keeping the length and with the same (i.e., 770mm by 430mm), reduces the capacity (e.g., from 500Ah to 250 Ah); one of ordinary skill in the art has reason to pursue batteries of varying lengths, widths, and thicknesses with the expectation of controlling capacity, and an expectation of larger form factors (e.g., increasing width beyond1000 mm while keeping length and thickness unchanged) yielding higher capacity cells.
PNG
media_image2.png
492
892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Para. [0024-0028]
PNG
media_image3.png
227
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
510
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
521
871
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
93
850
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
268
888
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
