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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are pending.
Claim 5 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-15 remain pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 5 has been cancelled. 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been altered in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirschbeck et al (US 20190296294 A1)
Regarding Claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
528
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hirschbeck teaches a carrier unit for a battery module (battery component carrier 30; Paragraph [0040]) comprising a bottom portion (bottom plate 32; Paragraph [0046]), and two side portions (side walls 31; Paragraph [0046]). Hirschbeck further teaches the bottom plate 32 and side walls 31 may be formed from a single sheet (single piece) and deformed by bending (rolling) to form the structure (Paragraph [0046]). As seen in FIG. 2, the bottom plate 32 and side walls 31 are configured to accommodate at least one row of battery cells 1. The battery component carrier 30 may be formed of partially flexible material to include aluminum, plastic, or steel (Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 2,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 1. The material comprising the bottom plate 32 and the side walls 31 is made from at least partially flexible material as described above. Further, Hirschbeck teaches end plates 33 with a stated purpose to counteract swelling and provide mechanical stability (Paragraphs [0051-0052]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 1. As taught by Hirschbeck, the side portions 31 must be flexible with respect to the bottom portion 32 as they may be formed by rolling a single piece of material (Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 6,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 1 and teaches the bottom portion 32 and two side portions 31 may be made from a metal sheet (Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, wherein the side portions 31 are located at opposite ends (longitudinal edges) of the bottom portion (Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 8,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 1. Hirschbeck further teaches the bottom portion 32 comprising at least one channel for transporting a cooling fluid (cooling channel 321; Paragraph [0047]) as seen in FIG. 3.
Regarding Claim 9,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 8. In the same manner as the instant application, the battery component carrier 30 of Hirschbeck is not limited to comprise only a single bottom plate 32. FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment wherein the flow channel is completely enclosed by the bottom plate 32, requiring the bottom plate 32 to be comprised of at least two sheets.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 1 and further teaches the carrier unit 30 holding a battery module (battery submodule 40) comprising at least one row of battery cells 1 (Paragraph [0052]). FIG. 2 shows a battery component carrier 30 holding two battery submodules 40 which are each comprised of a row of battery cells 1.
Regarding Claim 12,
Hirschbeck teaches the battery module of claim 11, in which two battery submodules 40, each comprising a row of battery cells 1 are adjacent to one another and located in the space between the side portions 31 of the carrier (Paragraph [0052]; FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 13,
Hirschbeck teaches the battery module of claim 11 and further describes a battery system 100 comprising a carrier frame 10 and at least two battery modules (a plurality of removable battery component carriers 30; Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 15,
Hirschbeck teaches the battery module of claim 11 and further describes a vehicle comprising a battery system 100 contained within (Paragraph [0058]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschbeck in view of Zhu et al (US 20230110488).
Regarding Claim 4,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, including rolling a single piece of metal to construct a design comprising a bottom portion 32 and two side portions 31, but is silent on the thickness of the bottom portion and two side portions. However, Zhu et al teaches a wall thickness of the metal housing 11 between the ranges of 0.05 mm to 1 mm (Paragraph [0116]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.5 mm to 6 mm. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Zhu teaches a decrease in weight of the battery 100 and a subsequent increase in capacity of the battery 100 when using material with a reduced thickness (Paragraph [0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wall thickness of the battery component carrier 30 taught by Hirschbeck to be within the range of wall thickness taught by Zhu for the purpose of altering the weight of the carrier unit to improve the capacity of the battery.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschbeck in view of Zhang et al (US20230395926).
Regarding Claim 10,
Hirschbeck teaches the carrier unit of claim 1 and teaches the battery component carrier 30 which may be mounted to the carrier frame 10 of the battery system 100 (Paragraph [0058]). However, Hirschbeck is silent on how the battery component carriers 30 are attached to the carrier frame 10.
Watanabe teaches a battery module 11A fixed to a lower case 4 of the battery pack 1A by bolts 33 in a manner which leaves a lower space 6 between the battery module 11A and the lower case 4 (Paragraphs 0024-0030; Figure 1). The battery module 11A is thereby suspended within the battery pack 1A, wherein the bottom portion of the carrier unit is elevated above the bottom surface. Suspending the carrier unit to create a lower space beneath the carrier unit allows the bottom portion to flex outward in response to swelling and Watanabe also discloses an increased stability of the connection between the battery module and the battery pack. 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 carrier unit of Hirschbeck to utilize the suspension attachment taught by Watanabe to secure the carrier unit to the battery pack.
PNG
media_image3.png
387
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14,
Hirschbeck teaches the battery pack of claim 13 and teaches the battery component carrier 30 which may be mounted to the carrier frame 10 of the battery system 100 (Paragraph [0058]). However, Hirschbeck is silent on how the battery component carriers 30 are attached to the carrier frame 10 within the battery system 100.
Watanabe teaches a battery module 11A fixed to a lower case 4 of the battery pack 1A by bolts 33 in a manner which leaves a lower space 6 between the battery module 11A and the lower case 4 (Paragraphs 0024-0030; Figure 1). The battery module 11A is thereby suspended within the battery pack 1A, wherein the bottom portion of the carrier unit is elevated above the bottom surface. Suspending the carrier unit to create a lower space beneath the carrier unit allows the bottom portion to flex outward in response to swelling and Watanabe also discloses an increased stability of the connection between the battery module and the battery pack. 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 carrier unit of Hirschbeck to utilize the suspension attachment taught by Watanabe to secure the battery module(s) to the battery pack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 24, 2026 with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered as follows.
Regarding Hwang et al (US 20230198047)
Applicant argues that Hwang does not meet the amended language of Claim 1. Applicant describes that the bottom portion and two side portions being made from a single sheet are significant toward allowing the flexibility necessary for the bottom portion and two side portions to respond to deformation caused by swelling of the battery. However, the claims and specification of the instant application fail to describe a range of acceptable or unacceptable measures of flexibility, so although the flexibility is considered important to the invention, there is no limitation as long as a material is “at least partially flexible” as stated in Claim 1.
Applicant further argues the method of forming the carrier unit by extrusion described by Hwang teach away from the bottom portion and two side portions being formed by bending a single sheet of material. Examiner points to the end of paragraph [0046] in which Hwang writes “may be formed as a unibody through an extrusion process, etc.” The inclusion of “etc.” implies extrusion process is one embodiment of forming the unibody, but is not the only method available. As bending a single sheet of material to form a shaped unibody is a well-known method, Examiner does not find this argument convincing.
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments that the different material properties taught by Hwang in paragraphs [0044] (thermally conductive, bottom plate 21) and [0048] (thermally insulative, side plates 25/26) teach away from using a single sheet to form the carrier unit. Although, the amended language of Claim 1 does not restrict a composite material, Hwang defines the bottom plate 21 as being made from a highly conductive material, such as aluminum, to easily dissipate heat and alternatively describes the bottom plate 21 as a “cooling plate” (Paragraphs [0043-0044]) and the side plates 25/26 as thermally insulative to minimize temperature deviation between battery cells 11 (Paragraph [0048]). These opposing functions make it unlikely the bottom plate 21 and side plates 25/26 are a unibody made from the same material. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s request to withdraw the 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejection of Claim 1 as being anticipated by Hwang. Further, Examiner agrees with Applicant’s request to withdraw 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejections of Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 11 as being dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Tang et al (US 20230032539); Zhang et al (US 20230395926); Park et al (US 20230261329); Zhu et al (US 20230110488); and Watanabe et al (US 20080318119)
For each reference above, Applicant argues that only Hwang is used to reject the original Claim 5, which is now incorporated into the independent Claim 1 and so the rejections of the dependent claims should be withdrawn. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s request to withdraw the 103 rejection of Claim 4 over Hwang in view of Zhu as the rejection to Hwang has been overcome by the amended Claim 1. Examiner reviewed the other previous art and did not find explicit disclosure of the bottom portion and two side portions being formed by a single sheet. Based on this, Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument to withdraw the original rejections from Tang et al (Claims 1, 8-9, and 12), Zhang et al (Claims 1 and 10), Park et al (Claims 13 and 15), and Watanabe et al (Claim 14).
However, Examiner points to the new grounds of rejection for the current set of Claims 1-4 and 6-15, over the prior art of Hirschbeck, which teaches a bottom portion and two side portions formed by a single sheet. Rejections have been amended based on this prior art.
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 KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights