Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment received 7/17/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 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 Interpretation
Examiner notes, claim 1 has been amended. Part of the newly added claimed language, “a cover plate sealingly joined to the side wall and sealingly closing the at least one side wall opening” has been given the following interpretation- The claimed opening is interpreted as an opening on the side wall, which is then closed off by a plate/wall to keep the battery cells secured in place.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20020179552A1 (Marraffa).
Regarding claim 1, Marraffa teaches a battery rack and system [abs]; a battery pack comprising: a housing [#10- battery rack assembly; 0042] including a side wall [#12/14 end frames], the side wall comprising a plurality of through holes [#48,50 bolt holes; 0045] and at least one side wall opening distinct from the plurality of through holes; a plurality of battery modules accommodated inside the housing [fig. 4A]; a plurality of fastener devices [#54; bolts 0045] securing the battery modules to the side wall, each fastener device passing through a respective through hole [0045] and sealingly closing the through hole; and a cover plate [#94; i.e shield 0051] sealingly joined to the side wall and sealingly closing the at least one side wall opening; wherein the fastener devices and the through holes are positioned outside the cover plate [please refer to the annotated fig below].
PNG
media_image1.png
639
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
630
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Marraffa teaches the battery pack as required by claim 1 and teaches all the structural elements required by claim 1, i.e. cover plate and side wall. In regards to “ wherein the cover plate is joined to the side wall by welding, brazing or soldering, this is considered “product-by-process claim”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Thus, it is the Examiner’s position, the claimed limitations of welding, brazing and soldering is not given patentable weight as these are considered a process of how to form the product.
Regarding claim 3, Marraffa teaches wherein each battery module has a module side parallel with the side wall [fig. 10]. With regards to the claimed, “wherein a cover plate area of the cover plate is larger than a module side area of the module side” this is interpreted to be an arbitrary limitation, as the dimensions are not taught in the specification. However, it is the Examiner’s position, Marraffa teaches the cover plate area is larger than the side of the module as it can be seen the area of the cover plate appears to be larger than the side of the module [fig 4A and fig. 8a, fig. 11a]
Regarding claim 4, Marraffa taches wherein the cover plate is parallel with the side wall [fig. 11a]. In view of fig. 11a, the cover plate is parallel with the side plate, as the cover plate covers the side plate.
Regarding claim 5, Marraffa teaches wherein the housing comprises a housing opening through which the battery modules can be inserted into the housing in an insertion direction [fig. 2A, fig. 4A], and wherein the side wall is parallel with the insertion direction [fig.8a; 0050].
Regarding claim 7, Marraffa teaches wherein the side wall comprises a metal sheet spanning across the battery modules [fig. 4a; the side wall covers across the battery modules; 0042].
Regarding claim 8, Hamada teaches wherein the metal sheet comprises a plurality of wings [fig. 3a/b; ], each wing being arranged to slidingly support a respective battery module [0047-50].
Regarding claim 12, Marraffa teaches battery pack system comprising a plurality of battery packs according to claim 1 [0008].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20020179552A1 (Marraffa) in view of US20120040237A1 (Hamada).
Regarding claim 6, Marraffa teaches wherein each fastener device comprises a bolt [0045 fig. 2A; #54, however does not teach a seal washer enclosing the bolt. In another embodiment, Hamada teaches a battery pack and teaches i.e. nut #115 [0057] which function similar to is a seal washer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used this type of bolt/nut device to connect the battery modules to the side wall as one would have a reasonable expectation of success. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine these embodiments based on the desire to predictably practice the invention of Marraffa in view of Hamada and the totality of the teachings of Marraffa and Hamada and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Marraffa does not teach wherein the side wall comprises a frame enclosing the cover plate. In a similar field of endeavor, Hamada teaches a battery pack [abs] and teaches a frame #11 [i.e. supporting plates #30], which are surround the periphery of the battery pack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marraffa in view of Hamada and incorporate the supporting plates, i.e. the frame in order to keep the battery modules in place and not move [0030-0033].
Regarding claim 10, modified Marraffa teaches wherein the through holes are provided in the frame [Hamada 0032; they are fastened by bolts, therefore have through holes].
Regarding claim 11, modified Marraffa teaches wherein the frame forms a tube that is closed except for the through holes [Hamada fig. 4 depicts the frame #11, and it illustrates there are no other opening except where the through holes are].
Regarding claim 13, modified Marraffa teache teaches and electrified heavy-duty vehicle comprising a battery pack according to claim 1 [Hamada 0002].
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 SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights