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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a battery case structure, in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 – 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II – III, drawn to methods of manufacturing an outer peripheral frame, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d)
with a filing date of 05/24/2021. The certified copy of JP2021-086711 has been filed in the present
application, received on 10/18/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein the outer peripheral frame includes, at least three points including a portion forming the first closed cross section portion and a portion overlapping the box portion, lap joining portions joined in a state in which members are overlaid on each other” is awkwardly worded/unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the recitation “wherein the outer peripheral frame includes, at at least three points including a portion forming the first closed cross section portion and a portion overlapping the box portion, lap joining portions joined in a state in which members are overlaid on each other” to recite -- wherein the outer peripheral frame includes at least three points, including a portion forming the first closed cross section portion and a portion overlapping the box portion, and each point is a lap joining portion joined in a state in which members are overlaid on each other --. This interpretation is supported by [0080] of the instant specification {Examiner note: For citations of the instant specification the examiner is utilizing the US PG Pub. version: US 2024/0213606 A1 of the instant application}.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buse (CN111525054A, cited in Restriction mailed 04/201/2026).
Regarding Claim 1, Buse discloses a battery case structure (battery tray/bracket assembly 100; Fig. 4; [0146]) that supports a driving battery under a floor of an electric vehicle ([0004];[0125]), comprising: an outer peripheral frame (deformable frame 109) including a first closed cross section portion (Refer to corresponding closed cross section portion shown in annotated Fig. 4 below) and a concave portion which is adjacent to the first closed crossed section portion (Refer to corresponding concave portion that is adjacent to the closed cross section shown in annotated Fig. 4 below) having a groove-shaped cross-section (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing corresponding first closed cross section portion, concave portion, and groove shaped region of the deformable frame in Buse.
Buse further discloses a box portion opening upward (receiving tray 111; [0146];[0148]]) and configured to store the battery, that is the tray includes grid 105 which provides battery housing spaces (Fig. 4; [0130]), where the box portion closes the concave portion (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 below), thereby forming a second closed cross section portion adjacent {i.e. adjacent at least in vertical direction} to the first closed cross section portion and having a closed cross-sectional shape (Refer to circled portion shown in annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
369
1122
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing corresponding second closed cross section portion structure in Buse.
In Fig. 4 of Buse, the deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to claimed outer peripheral frame} appears to be formed from a single steel sheet that is bent to form the first closed cross section portion and further includes a concave portion as established above ([0131]). As a result of the bent configuration and the deformable frame being taught to be formed from steel, Buse’s deformable frame necessarily further includes a first steel plate portion {i.e. right portion of steel deformable frame} and a second steel plate portion {i.e. left portion of steel deformable frame}. Additionally, the right portion of the deformable frame includes the groove-shaped cross-sectional shape (Refer to first annotated Fig. 4 above) and further, as shown by annotated Fig. 4 below, the two portions appear to be joined by a bolt.
PNG
media_image3.png
391
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing the corresponding structure of the first and second steel plate portions in Buse.
Therefore, the deformable frame structure as taught/shown by Buse appears to have a structure within the scope of the structure implied by the process step “is formed from joining a second steel plate portion to a first steel plate portion having a groove-shaped cross-sectional shape in an overlaid state” {i.e. Examiner note: the limitation “is formed from joining a second steel plate portion to a first steel plate portion having a groove-shaped cross-sectional shape in an overlaid state” is a product-by-process claim limitation [See MPEP 2113]}, that is the bent deformable frame shown by Buse includes two steel plate portions that are overlaid on one another {i.e. one portion is bent over such that is overlapped on the other}, the two portions are joined in a manner that forms a closed portion, and one portion of the bent structure {i.e. the right potion} includes a groove-shaped cross-sectional shape.
Regarding Claim 10, Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Buse further discloses wherein the box potion {i.e. receiving tray 111} is formed by an upper side wall that closes the concave portion (Refer the connecting flange 413 of the tray shown in Fig. 4; [0148]) and a box shaped bottom wall connected to the upper side wall (Refer box shaped bottom wall formed by side wall 411-1 and bottom wall 409; [0148]), and the upper side wall is made of a steel plate, that is Buse teaches forming the receiving tray from a steel sheet and, as the upper side wall is an integral part of the receiving tray, it is necessarily made of a steel plate ([0017];[0148]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hilfrich (US PG Pub. 2020/0198453 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Buse the tray 111 is shown to include a bottom wall 409 and the deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to claimed outer peripheral frame} is shown to include a flange 415 that contacts and partially surrounds the bottom wall 409 of the tray (Fig. 4; [0148 – 0149]). By surrounding the bottom wall 409 of the tray {i.e. corresponds to claimed box portion}, the flange deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to claimed outer peripheral frame} 415 reads on claimed structure of a cover arranged along a lower surface of a bottom wall of the box portion and wherein the cover is connected to the outer peripheral frame (Refer to how flange 415 is a part of the deformable frame in Fig. 4; [0149]).
Buse does explicitly disclose the cover and outer peripheral frame forming a third closed cross section portion having a closed-cross sectional shape.
Hilfrich, also directed to battery pack housing structures for electric vehicles and thus analogous to Buse, teaches a battery housing including a mounting frame running externally around the side walls and a double floor structure formed by a first floor element 5 and second floor element 5’ (Figs. 1 – 9; [0038]). The double floor structure in Hilfrich forms a closed cross section and further can include reinforcing profile to increase the stiffness of the floor and thus better protect the battery housing against lateral crash loads ([0007][0057]). In Fig. 6, Hilfrich further teaches an embodiment where the mounting frame 4 and double floor structure formed one single enclosed structure that includes the reinforcing profile ([0044]).
Since Buse is concerned with battery pack structural integrity and protecting the batteries in the battery pack ([0015];[0018]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deformable frame flange such that it extends along the bottom wall to form a double floor structure with a reinforcing profile, as taught by Hilfrich, because such a modification, absent new/unexpected results, would be a change in form or shape with respect to the flange/deformable frame [See MPEP 2144.04} and would provide the predictable result, as taught by Hilfrich, of improved structural integrity for the battery pack as desired by Buse.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawabe (US PG Pub. 2018/0237075 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Buse teaches implementing the battery pack in an electric vehicle and further teaches the deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to outer peripheral frame} including fastening structure for fastening to the main body components of the vehicle (Fig. 1; [0125];[0132]), but does not explicitly disclose the particulars of the main body components of the vehicle.
Therefore, Buse does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric vehicle includes a side sill extending in a front-and-rear direction on each of sides in a left-and-right direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
599
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing relevant portions of Kawabe’s vehicle side sill and battery pack structure.
Kawabe, directed to battery pack housing structure for electric vehicles that include battery packs and thus analogous to Buse, teaches a substructure of a vehicle that includes side sills which are a hollow elongated members in the front-rear direction that are disposed at both side parts in the vehicle width direction, respectively ([0029 – 0033]). The battery pack in Kawabe is taught to include a side frame with a protruding portion that allows the battery pack to be fastened to the side sill of the vehicle (See annotated Fig. 9 above; [0097 – 0098];[0119 – 0122]).
Since Buse already suggests mounting the battery pack via a fastening structure included on a protruding potion of the deformable frame (Fig. 1; [0132]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the battery pack of Buse using vehicle side sills, as taught by Kawabe, and thus obtain the claimed side sill structure (Refer to side sill 11 position and extension direction shown in Fig. 1 of Kawabe), with a reasonable expectation of success in securing the battery pack in a vehicle as desired by Buse.
PNG
media_image5.png
369
631
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing the corresponding fourth closed cross section portion in Buse.
Modified Buse, by utilizing vehicle side sill for mounting as established above, would further provide the claimed structure of where in the outer peripheral frame includes a fourth closed cross section portion formed to project toward an outside of the electric vehicle along a lower surface of the side sill (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 above from Buse showing the corresponding fourth closed cross section and the mounting method as taught by Kawabe shown annotated Fig. 9 above) and having a closed cross-sectional shape when view from a front-and-rear direction of the vehicle (Refer to closed cross-sectional shape of the corresponding fourth closed cross section portion in annotated Fig. 4 of Buse above, Buse: [0132];[0148, and the direction the battery pack of modified Buse is mounted which is exemplified in Fig. 1 of Kawabe), the box portion includes a cross member arranged along an upper surface of the bottom wall (Refer to Buse: Side wall 411-1 in Fig. 4 and [0148]), the first closed cross section portion is formed above the fourth closed cross section portion (Refer to relative positions of the first and fourth closed cross section shown in annotated Fig. 4 below) and confronts the cross member (Refer to how the first closed cross section has a shape with protrudes toward side wall 411-1 in annotated Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image6.png
369
738
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing corresponding first and fourth closed cross section portions in Buse.
Furthermore, in Fig. 4 of Buse, as established above, the deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to claimed outer peripheral frame} appears to be formed from a single steel sheet that is bent to form the first closed cross section portion and further includes a concave portion as established above ([0131]). As a result of the bent configuration and the deformable frame being taught to be formed from steel, Buse’s deformable frame necessarily further includes a first steel plate portion {i.e. right portion of steel deformable frame} and a second steel plate portion {i.e. left portion of steel deformable frame}. Additionally, the right portion of the deformable frame includes the groove-shaped cross-sectional shape (Refer to first annotated Fig. 4 above) and further, as shown by annotated Fig. 4 below, the two portions appear to be joined by a bolt.
PNG
media_image7.png
369
746
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing the corresponding structure of the first and second steel plate portions in Buse.
Therefore, the deformable frame structure as taught/shown by Buse appears to possess the claimed lap joining portion. That is the structure of the joined portioned shown in Fig. 4 appears to be within the scope of the lap joining portion structure implied by the process step “in which the second steel plate portion is joined to the first steel plate portion in the overlaid state” and further the joined portion is provided between the fourth closed cross section portion and the first closed cross section portion (Refer to the annotated Fig. 4 above showing the position of the joined portion and the annotated Fig. 4 above showing the corresponding first and fourth closed portion sections. {Examiner note: the limitation “is joined to the first steel plate portion in the overlaid state” is a product-by-process claim limitation [See MPEP 2113]}, that is the bent deformable frame shown by Buse includes two steel plate portions that are overlaid on one another {i.e. one portion is bent over such that is overlapped on the other} and the two portions are joined in a manner that forms two different closed portions.}
Claim(s) 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A) and Kawabe (US PG Pub. 2018/0237075 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hilfrich (US PG Pub. 2020/0198453 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Buse the tray 111 is shown to include a bottom wall 409 and the deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to claimed outer peripheral frame} is shown to include a flange 415 that contacts and partially surrounds the bottom wall 409 of the tray (Fig. 4; [0148 – 0149]). By surrounding the bottom wall 409 of the tray {i.e. corresponds to claimed box portion}, the flange deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to claimed outer peripheral frame} 415 reads on claimed structure of a cover configured to cover a lower portion of the box portion.
Buse does explicitly disclose wherein a reinforcing member along an upper surface of the cover is arranged on the upper surface and the fourth closed portion confronts the reinforcing member.
Hilfrich, also directed to battery pack housing structures for electric vehicles and thus analogous to Buse, teaches a battery housing including a mounting frame running externally around the side walls and a double floor structure formed by a first floor element 5 and second floor element 5’ (Figs. 1 – 9; [0038]). The double floor structure in Hilfrich forms a closed cross section and further can include reinforcing profile to increase the stiffness of the floor and thus better protect the battery housing against lateral crash loads ([0007][0057]). In Fig. 6, Hilfrich further teaches an embodiment where the mounting frame 4 and double floor structure formed one single enclosed structure that includes the reinforcing profile ([0044]).
Since Buse is concerned with battery pack structural integrity and protecting the batteries in the battery pack ([0015];[0018]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deformable frame flange such that it extends along the bottom wall to have a double floor structure with a reinforcing profile that extends along its supper surface and into the outer peripheral frame {i.e. the deformable frame in Buse}, as taught by Hilfrich (Refer to Figs. 6 and 10 and [0044];[0052]), because such a modification, absent new/unexpected results, would be a change in form or shape with respect to the flange/deformable frame [See MPEP 2144.04} and would provide the predictable result, as taught by Hilfrich, of improved structural integrity for the battery pack as desired by Buse.
By including a reinforcing profile along its upper surface (Refer to Hilfrich: Figs. 6 and 10 and [0044];[0052]), the cover of modified Buse as established above provides the claimed structure of wherein a reinforcing member along an upper surface of the cover is arranged on the upper surface. Additionally, since the flange is part of the bottom surface of corresponding fourth closed cross section portion and the reinforcing profile extends into the outer peripheral frame (Refer to Hilfrich: Figs. 5 – 6; [0044]), modified Buse further provides the claimed structure of wherein the fourth closed cross section portions confronts the reinforcing member.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Buse further discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of the reinforcing member is a W shape (Refer to the W shape of reinforcing profile 11, 12, 113 in Figs. 1 and 10 of Hilfrich).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loo (US PG Pub. 2015/0255764 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Generally, Buse teaches the receiving tray being screwed, riveted, and or clamped to the deformable frame ([0146]).
In figure 4, Buse shows the deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to claimed outer peripheral frame} including three portions in which members/structures are overlapped (Refer to circled portions in annotated Fig. 4 below)
PNG
media_image8.png
369
746
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing overlapped portions in Buse.
Of the three points, only the middle point, which includes a portion of the deformable frame that assists in forming the first, second and fourth closed cross section portions explicitly appears to be joined by a bolt (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 above). As such Buse only appears to explicitly teach one point in which overlaid members are joined.
Buse does not particularly disclose however wherein the outer peripheral frame includes at least three points, including a portion forming the first closed cross section portion and a portion overlapping the box portion, and each point is a lap joining portion joined in a state in which members are overlaid on each other (Claim 5).
Loo, also directed to electric vehicle battery pack structures and thus analogous to Buse, teaches a battery pack comprising a tray 3 including outer frames 6 that extend along the side wall surface of the tray 3 so as to cover the side wall surface and the outer frames function to resist load from the outer side in the vehicle (Fig. 4; [0038]). Loo further teaches joining the tray and frame structure by welding, and specifically, shows welding at portions where the tray and outer frame overlap (Figs. 5 and 12; [0047];[0051]). For the innermost section of the two structures, Loo teaches welding by forming an aperture facing the inner section 63 arranged in the vehicle front-rear direction to allow a welding gun to spot weld at the desired inner area ([0047 – 0048]). Spot welding is taught by Loo to allow for the outer frame to have a large and closed cross section on the outer side in the vehicle width direction of the tray 3 without reducing the strength with respect to the load from the outer side in the vehicle width direction. As a result, it is possible to enhance the strength of the entire side face of the tray 3 ([0055]).
PNG
media_image8.png
369
746
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing overlapped portions in Buse.
Therefore, since Buse also teaches a battery pack case including in outer frame {i.e. deformable frame} with overlapping metal point portions, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deformable frame and tray such that all three overlapping metal portions (refer to annotated Fig. 4 above) are joined by spot welding, as taught by Loo and thus obtain the claimed structure of wherein the outer peripheral frame includes at least three points, including a portion forming the first closed cross section portion and a portion overlapping the box portion, and each point is a lap joining portion joined in a state in which members are overlaid on each other, with a reasonable expectation of success in securing the deformable frame and tray together, as desired by Buse, and further securing the two structures in a manner that enhances the tray side face.
Furthermore, because Loo teaches forming an aperture 6421 facing the inner section 63 arranged in the vehicle front-rear direction to allow a welding gun to spot weld at the desired inner area ([0047 – 0048]) facing the inner section 63 arranged in the vehicle front-rear direction to allow a welding gun to spot weld at the desired inner area (Fig. 5; [0047 – 0048]), in order to welded at the inner portion of the deformable frame (See middle circled portion in annotated Fig. 4 above), the deformable frame of modified Buse would further have to include the claimed opening formed in an outer surface that forms the first closed cross section of the outer peripheral frame (Claim 11).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamori (US 2013/0192914 A1, cited in IDS filed 08/27/2025).
Regarding Claim 9, Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Buse teaches forming both the tray and deformable frame from steel ([0017];[0131]).
Buse does not explicitly disclose wherein the outer peripheral frame is made of a material whole tensile strength is higher than the box portion.
Nakamori, also disclosed to battery case structures for electric vehicles, teaches a battery container comprising a container body 12 that includes a pair of outer frames 62 on the outer side of the container body (Figs. 4 and 6; [0028];[0049]). Nakamori further teaches forming the outer frame to be of a material that is of a higher strength than the material of the tray body in order to obtain a predetermined strength in the lateral direction of the battery pack and reduce the weight of the battery pack ([0061]). Have the outer frame be of a high strength material is further taught by Nakamori to enhance the strength of the batter container side walls and thus reduce damage to battery modules included in the battery container in the event of collision ([0051];[0060];[0072]).
Since Buse also teaches a battery pack case for a vehicle that includes an outer frame {i.e. deformable frame} and is also concerned with battery pack structural integrity ([0015];[0146]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the deformable frame to be of a material that has a higher tensile than the tray, as taught by Nakamori, and thus obtain the claimed configuration, in the interest of reducing the battery pack weight while also achieving, with a reasonable expectation of success, a battery pack with high strength.
Claim(s) 12 – 13 and 18 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US PG Pub. 2021/0020877 A1).
Regarding Claims 12 – 13 and 18 – 21, Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Buse further discloses wherein the box portion {i.e. receiving tray 111} that stores the battery is formed into a box shape (Refer to shape of tray 111 in Figs. 1 and 2A; [0130];[0134 – 0135]) including at least a bottom wall (bottom 409, Fig. 4; [0148]), and a side wall extending over a while region of a periphery along an outer edge (Refer to circumferential side walls 411-1 and 411-2 in Fig. 4 and the tray shape shown in Fig. 2A; [0148]), a cross member extending in one direction and having two ends confronting the side wall is provided on the bottom wall (Refer to web 401-1/401-2 in Fig. 4 and the extension direction of the webs explicitly shown in Figs. 1 and 2A; [0147]).
Buse teaches the webs having end portions 407-1/407-2 that are integrally formed bent metal plates and the ends are shown in Fig. 4 to be connected to the sidewall of the receiving tray ([0147]). Generally, Buse teaches each web of the grid having connecting surface which can be connected to the tray and further that the webs can be secured to the by means of connecting elements ([0135]).
Buse does not explicitly disclose the cross member {i.e. web} fixed to the side wall via a bracket, the bracket having a substantially triangular shape in planar view, and the cross member fitted in a distal end portion of the bracket that is a vertex (Claim 12).
Chen, also directed to battery pack structures for electric vehicles and thus analogous to Buse, teaches a battery case including a plurality of fixing beams 11, a cross beam 12, a supporting bracket 13 and a bottom plate 14 (Fig. 2; [0050];[0078]). Chen further teaches the support bracket including a base plate 131 and limiting portions 132, where the limiting portions are connected to the base plate, disposed opposite to one another, and form a recess to embedding an end of the cross beam so that the cross beam is fixed to fixing beams 11 which make up the side walls of the battery case (Fig. 1; [0053];[0056]). The bracket configuration taught Chen absorbs lateral impact force without being split, allows for the scattering and attenuation of lateral impact force through the fixing beams and cross beams, and improves impact resistance of the battery casing by preventing the cross beam from penetrating the fixing beam during impact ([0055]). Chen further teaches an embodiment of the bracket that appears to have a substantially triangular shape in a planar view (Fig. 6 and 9). The triangular-shaped bracket in Fig. 5 allows for further improved structural rigidity and strength of bracket due to the configuration of reinforcing portions 134 ([0065 – 0066]). The bracket is also taught by Chen to compensate for the mounting gap that exists between the fixing beam and the cross beam (Fig. 9; [0073 – 0074]).
Since Buse already generally suggests using separate connecting means to fix the ends of the webs {i.e. corresponds to claimed cross beam} together and further desires such connecting means to be adapted to compensate for tolerance ranges, especially the gap between the grid 105 and the receiving tray 111 ([0135]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery case of Bus by using the triangular bracket as taught by Chen (See Fig. 6) as the connecting means for the webs in the receiving tray of the battery case, with a reasonable expect of securing the webs to the tray side wall in a manner as desired by Buse (Buse: [0135]; Chen: [0073]) and further with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery pack with improved impact resistance.
By modifying Buse to include the bracket shown in Fig. 6 of Chen, modified Buse further includes the claimed structure of wherein the cross member is fixed to the side wall via a bracket (Chen: [0053];[0056]), the bracket has a substantially triangular shape in a planar view (Refer to Chen: Figs. 6 and 9), and the cross member is fitted in a distal end portion of the bracket that is a vertex, that is as shown in Fig. 2 and 9 of Chen, the cross beam of modified Buse would be fitted in a central recess of the triangular shaped bracket (Claim 12).
Modified Buse includes a triangular-shaped bracket as taught by Chen for fixing the ends of the webs {i.e. the cross beams} to the side wall of the tray (Chen: Figs. 2, 6 and 9; [0053]); therefore, modified Buse further provides the following claimed structure:
Wherein the bracket includes a pair a brace portions (reinforcing portions 134, Fig. 6; [0065 – 0066]) a fitting potion sandwiched therebetween (recess 133, Fig. 6; [0056];[0065]), and the brace portions support a main body portion located closer to a center than an end portion of the cross member (Refer to how cross beam is exemplified to fit in recess 133 of the bracket in Fig. 9) (Claim 13).
Wherein the bracket joined to the cross member {i.e. embedded in the recess and welded to limiting portion 132} (Chen; Fig. 9; [0054]) and the side wall of the box portion on a line extending in a vertical direction (Refer to annotated Fig. 1 and 4 below and Chen: [0054]) (Claim 18).
PNG
media_image9.png
374
1146
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 1 and 4 from Buse exemplifying bracket positions in modified Buse.
Wherein the bracket is arranged between an end portion of the battery and the side wall of the box portion (Claim 19), that is in modified Buse the brackets secure the webs {i.e. corresponds to claimed cross beam} to the wall of the receiving tray of the battery pack and battery housing spaces (Buse: [0130] and Chen: [0053 – 0054]), as such, based on its location within the receiving tray, the brackets of modified Buse would necessarily and inherently be included between an end portion of the battery and a side wall of the box portion.
Wherein the outer peripheral frame {i.e. deformable frame} is fixed to a vehicle body of an electric vehicle (Buse: [0132]) and is a hollow body extending in a front-and-rear direction (Refer to how the deformable frame is circumferentially included on receiving tray 111 in Buse: Fig. 1 and 4 and Buse: [0146];[0148]), and the cross member is a hollow body extending in a left-and-right direction (Refer to horizontal webs 401-2/401-1 in Buse: Figs. 1 and 4 and Buse: Figs. 3A – 3B, [0044];[0140 – 0141]) (Claim 20).
Wherein the outer peripheral frame {i.e. deformable frame} and the cross member, each of which is formed by the hollow body, are aligned horizontally (Claim 21), that is Buse teaches the hollow deformable frame being circumferentially included on receiving tray 111; therefore at least the horizontal portion of the deformable frame is aligned with cross members {i.e. webs 401-1/401-2} that are included horizontally in the battery pack (Refer to Buse: Figs. 1 and 4 and Buse: [0148])
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A) and Chen (US PG Pub. 2021/0020877 A1) , as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Toyota (US PG Pub. 2019/0157642 A1, cited in IDS filed 02/13/2024) and Pierce (US PG Pub. 2014/0345091 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Buse discloses all limitation as set forth above. Buse further discloses wherein the cross member {i.e. a web of the grid 105 in Buse} is made of a steel plate ([0131];[0140 – 0141]).
Buse further teaches receiving tray 111 {i.e. corresponds to claimed box portion} being formed from steel ([0017]).
Modified Buse does not explicitly disclose wherein the box portion is made from aluminum alloy.
Toyota, also directed to battery case structures for electric vehicles and thus analogous to Buse, teaches an embodiment in which the bottom plate 16 of the battery case if formed of aluminum while the inner panel, outer panel, and cross beams are formed from steel plates ([0006];[0068]). This embodiment is taught by Toyota to ensure the strength of the side wall with respect to load from the side opposite the cross beam while also lightening the weight of the battery case ([0069]). Toyota further teaches that, in addition to increasing manufacturing cost, increasing weight of battery pack structures are a known disadvantage in that art ([0004]).
Therefore, since Buse teaches a battery pack structure which uses a steel outer peripheral frame as well as cross beams {i.e. webs of grid}, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack of Buse to use aluminum alloy for the tray {i.e. corresponds to claimed box portion} of the battery pack, as taught/suggested by Toyota, in the interest of reducing the weight of the battery pack while also ensuring its structure integrity with a reasonable expectation of success.
In modified Buse, the bracket is taught to be made of a material such carbon steel, aluminum alloy, magnesium alloy, aluminum magnesium alloy and the like (Chen: [0054]); therefore modified Buse does not explicitly disclose wherein the fitting portion of the bracket {i.e. recess 133 of the bracket in Fig. 6 of Chen) is made of a steel plate, and a joining portion of the bracket {i.e. base plate 131 of bracket in Fig. 6 of Chen } to the box portion is made of an aluminum alloy.
Pierce teaches a fastener system formed from dissimilar metals and the fastener is a clip that functions couple a component or cross member to a frame ([0011 – 0012]). Pierce further teaches, more specifically the clip being made with an inner layer portion 120 and outer layer portion 125 of different metals and selecting the metal of layer based on the metal in which each respective layer is contacting when used to couple a component/cross member to a frame ([0011 – 0012]). That is Pierce teaches having only the like metals contacting one another with respect to the frame, cross member/component, and bracket layers in order to avoid galvanic corrosion ([0011];[0016 – 0018]).
Therefore, since modified Buse as established above utilizes an aluminum alloy for the tray, which the base of the bracket 131 contacts, and steel for the cross member {i.e. grid with webs} which the recess 133 of the bracket contacts (Refer to Chen: Figs. 6 and 9), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bracket of Buse to be a bi-metal bracket formed from steel and aluminum, as taught by Pierce, and thus obtain a bracket in which the fitting portion of the bracket {i.e. recess 133 of the bracket in Fig. 6 of Chen) is made of a steel plate and a joining portion of the bracket {i.e. base plate 131 of bracket in Fig. 6 of Chen } is made of an aluminum alloy, with a reasonable expectation of success in separating the dissimilar metals of the battery pack case via the bracket and avoiding the potential for galvanic corrosion (Pierce: [0017]).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A) and Seok (US PG Pub. 2023/0420778 A) and Kawabe (US PG Pub. 2018/0237075 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Neirhoff (US PG Pub. 2019/0221797 A1 ).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Buse includes a fourth closed cross section portion (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
369
631
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing the corresponding fourth closed cross section portion in Buse.
Modified Buse does not disclose wherein a peripheral component storage space is formed between the box portion and the fourth closed cross section portion.
Neirhoff, also directed to battery housing structures included in a vehicle and thus analogous to Buse, teaches battery housing embodiment which include, between the first floor and the longitudinal reinforcing elements and/or transverse reinforcing elements arranged below this of , a cutouts provided for accommodating a cooling system ([0024];[0042 – 0043]). Proving a cooling system inside the space R allows for the minimization of the installation space required for the battery housing in order to be able to accommodate as many battery elements as possible in the limited space of the vehicle body and ensures adequate ground clearance. (Refer to Figs. 2a – 5a; [0005];[0011];[0043]).
Since Buse already teaches including cooling structure in the battery pack case ([0089];[092 – 0093]) and since the fourth closed cross section provides hollow space that would necessarily be capable of fitting/including a space for a cooling system/component, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a space between the tray body and the fourth closed cross section for holding a cooling system/cooling element, as suggested by Nerihoff, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the battery pack with a means for cooling the battery cells, as desired by Buse, while also allowing for increased installation space for the batteries of the battery pack.
Claim(s) 23 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stephens (US PG Pub. 2021/0111388 A1, filing date of 12/07/2020) and Seok (US PG Pub. 2023/0420778 A1, foreign priority date of 11/09/2020).
Regarding Claims 23 – 24, Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Buse further discloses wherein the outer peripheral frame is a side frame extending in a front-and-rear direction of the electric vehicle on both sides of the box portion in a left and right direction of the battery case structure, that is Buse teaches the deformable frame being circumferentially included on receiving tray 111 (Refer to Buse: Fig. 1 and 4 and Buse: [0146];[0148]) which would necessarily and inherently allow for the outer peripheral frame to be a side frame extending in a front-and-rear direction of the electric vehicle on both sides of the box portion in a left and right direction of the battery case structure.
PNG
media_image10.png
369
635
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing corresponding projecting portion of first closed cross section in Buse.
Buse further discloses a portion of the side frame forming the first closed cross section is formed into a projecting shape projecting toward the box portion (Refer to projecting portion shown in annotated Fig. 4 above).
In Buse the tray is taught to be a folding member or forming component of a sheet metal blank and includes a bottom 409, circumferential sidewalls 411-1, 411-2 and a connecting flange 413 (Fig. 4; [0148]).
Buse does not explicitly disclose a front cross member extending in a left-right direction is connected to a front end of the side frame; a rear cross member extending in a left-right direction is connected to a rear end of the side frame; the front cross member or rear cross member including a front wall located on a front side of the battery case structure and a rear wall located on a rear side of the electric vehicle with respect to the front wall;, a portion of the front cross member or the rear cross member, where the front wall and rear wall are provided, formed to have a closed cross sectional shape viewed from the left-and-right direction.
Stephens, directed to vehicle battery trays having tub-based components and thus analogous to Buse, teaches a battery tray for an electric vehicle includes a tub component that has a floor portion and a perimeter wall portion that integrally extends upward around a peripheral edge of the floor portion to border a battery containment area of the tub component ([0004]). Stephens further teaches embodiments where the battery tray includes an additional beam structure 51/52 between the perimeter wall of the tray and outer peripheral frame portion (Figs. 5B – 5C; [0058 – 0060]). The beams are further shown to be hollow structures, and thus have a closed cross-sectional shape in the viewed from the left and right direction, and further the structures function to complement or supplement the structure of the tub component {i.e. tray} (Figs. 5B – 5C; [0058]).
Since Buse also teaches a battery pack case utilizing a tray and outer peripheral frame and further teaches including the frame circumferentially around the tray (Buse: [00148]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a supplementary beam structure between the outer peripheral frame and tray, as taught by Stephens, with a reasonable expectation of success in further reinforcing the side walls of the tray and obtaining a battery pack with increase structural integrity as desired by Buse (Buse: [0015];[0018]).
By including the additional beam member between the front and rear portions of the deformable frame and tray, modified Buse, further includes the claimed structure of a front cross member extending in a left-right direction is connected to a front end of the side frame; a rear cross member extending in a left-right direction is connected to a rear end of the side frame; the front cross member or rear cross member including a front wall located on a front side of the battery case structure and a rear wall located on a rear side of the electric vehicle with respect to the front wall, a portion of the front cross member or the rear cross member, where the front wall and rear wall are provided, formed to have a closed cross sectional shape viewed from the left-and-right direction (Refer to configuration/shape of 51/52 in Figs. 5B – 5C of Stephens and Stephens: [0058 – 0060]).
As established above, modified Buse includes a beam structure in between the deformable tray and the receiving tray wall.
Modified Buse does not explicitly disclose wherein of the front wall and rear wall, a wall far from the box portion is connected to a distal end of the an outer wall of the side frame; however, one with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, due to the front wall of modified Buse being included between the deformable frame and the tray and the deformable frame being included circumferentially around the tray, a distal end of the an outer wall of the side frame to necessarily be connected to the front/rear cross members at wall far from box portion {i.e. front wall}.
Modified Buse further does not explicitly disclose, of the front and rear wall, the other wall close to the box portion includes a notch which has a shape for receiving the projecting portion of the side frame and is connected to the projecting portion inserted to the notch.
Seok, also directed to a battery case for application of electric vehicles and thus analogous to Buse, teaches coupling connecting frame/cross beam structures via shape-fitting and forming a slit in the frame which accepts a protruding portion of the cross beam (Figs. 3 – 5; [0006];[0034 – 0037]). The utilization of connecting with the slit and welding is taught by Seok to ensure watertightness between the connected portions ([0141]).
Therefore, since the deformable frame, as established above, includes a projecting portion, and modified Buse does not necessarily limit the shape/configuration of the additional beams 52/50 (Stephens: [0058 – 0059]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the other wall of the front/rear cross member that is close to the box portion to include a notch which has a shape for receiving the projecting portion, as suggested by Seok, because such a modification, absent new/unexpected results would be a change in shape with respect to beam that is considered an obvious engineering design choice [See MPEP 2144.04], and further, as one with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, based on Seok’s teachings, would provide the predictable result of a more secure, watertight connection between the two structures.
Additionally, in modified Buse the front/rear cross beam is formed of a height that it meant to allow the upper surface of the front/rear cross beam to engage the flange of the tub (Stephens: [0061]). Additionally, in Buse the deformable frame and tray are also connected at the flange (Buse: [0148]). Therefore in modified Buse respective upper surfaces for the front cross member and the rear cross member, and an upper wall formed by an upper end of the outer wall of the side frame bent in a horizontal direction toward a side of the box portion {i.e. refer to how in Fig. 4 deformable frame 109 has a shape where the upper frame is formed by the bent portion of the steel plate which makes up the frame} form an attachment surface to which an upper end flange of the box portion is attached on a while circumference.
As established above, the front/rear cross member of modified Buse are of a tubular shape (Stephens: [0059 – 0060]) and the corresponding second closed cross section corresponds is shown in annotated Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image11.png
351
495
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing second closed cross section portion.
Since the tubular shape of modified Buse’s front/rear cross beam is included along the entire height of the beam which is included between the deformable frame and the tray of the battery case, the portion of the front/rear cross member forming the closed cross section {i.e. lower portion of the cross beam} necessarily, based on its position, continues to the second closed cross section portion of the side frame (Claim 24).
Claim(s) 25 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse (CN111525054A). Stephens (US PG Pub. 2021/0111388 A1) and Seok (US PG Pub. 2023/0420778 A), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Kawabe (US PG Pub. 2018/0237075 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. Buse teaches implementing the battery pack in an electric vehicle and further teaches the deformable frame {i.e. corresponds to outer peripheral frame} including fastening structure for fastening to the main body components of the vehicle (Fig. 1; [0125];[0132]), but does not explicitly disclose the particulars of the main body components of the vehicle.
Therefore, modified Buse does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric vehicle includes a side sill extending in a front-and-rear direction on each of sides in a left-and-right direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
599
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing relevant portions of Kawabe’s vehicle side sill and battery pack structure.
Kawabe, directed to battery pack housing structure for electric vehicles that include battery packs and thus analogous to Buse, teaches a substructure of a vehicle that includes side sills which are a hollow elongated members in the front-rear direction that are disposed at both side parts in the vehicle width direction, respectively ([0029 – 0033]). The battery pack in Kawabe is taught to include a side frame with a protruding portion that allows the battery pack to be fastened to the side sill of the vehicle (See annotated Fig. 9 above; [0097 – 0098];[0119 – 0122]).
Since Buse already suggests mounting the battery pack via a fastening structure included on a protruding potion of the deformable frame (Fig. 1; [0132]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the battery pack of modified Buse using vehicle side sills, as taught by Kawabe, and thus obtain the claimed side sill structure (Refer to side sill 11 position and extension direction shown in Fig. 1 of Kawabe), with a reasonable expectation of success in securing the battery pack in a vehicle as desired by Buse.
PNG
media_image5.png
369
631
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing the corresponding fourth closed cross section portion in Buse.
Modified Buse as established above would further provide the claimed structure of wherein in the side frame {i.e. the deformable frame included on the sides of the tray in the left and right direction} includes a fourth cross section portion formed to project toward an outside of the electric vehicle along a lower surface of the side sill (Refer to annotated Fig. 4 above from Buse showing the corresponding fourth closed cross section and the mounting method as taught by Kawabe shown annotated Fig. 9 above) and has a closed cross-sectional shape when view from a front-and-rear direction of the vehicle (Refer to closed cross-sectional shape of the corresponding fourth closed cross section portion in annotated Fig. 4 of Buse above, Buse: [0132];[0148] and the direction the battery pack of modified Buse is mounted which is exemplified in Fig. 1 of Kawabe).
PNG
media_image12.png
379
707
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 showing corresponding portion in between the first and fourth closed cross section portions in Buse.
Modified Buse further discloses a portion between the fourth closed cross section of the side frame and first closed cross section (Refer corresponding portion shown in annotated Fig. 4 above) formed by a groove-shaped concave opening toward the box portion and extending in the front-and-rear direction, that is the portion shown in annotated Fig. 4 above is U-shaped and thus is a structure within the scope of the structure implied by the process step “is formed by a groove-shaped concave portion opening toward the box portion and extending in the front-and-rear direction” {i.e. Examiner note: the limitation “is formed by a groove-shaped concave portion opening toward the box portion and extending in the front-and-rear direction” is a product-by-process claim limitation [See MPEP 2113]}, that is the U-shaped portion shown in Buse is of a groove-shape that opens toward the tray and, by being part of the deformable frame that extends in the front-and-rear directions, also extends in the front-and-rear direction.}
Regarding Claim 26, modified Buse discloses all limitations as set forth above. As established above, Buse includes the claimed concave portion (Refer to rejection of claim 25 above).
Modified Buse does not explicitly disclose wherein a cooling pipe and high-voltage line are stored in the concave portion; however, the examiner notes that the instant limitation is intended use language [See MPEP 2114]. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, the structure of the concave portion of modified Buse is capable of performing the intended use of storing a cooling pipe and high voltage line, because the concave potion, by being a hollow/open space, necessarily and inherently would be capable of holding such components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 – 17 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 15 would be allowable for requiring the bracket, as established in claims 12 – 13, to be a bent article including at least one section holding wall formed to fill between the brace portions and the fitting portions. {Examiner note: For citations of the instant specification the examiner is utilizing the US PG Pub. version: US 2024/0213606 A1 of the instant application}.
Specifically, Buse in view of Chen (US PG Pub. 2021/0020877 A1) provides the bracket structure as claimed in claims 12 – 13 (Refer to rejections of claims 12 and 13 above).
Furthermore, the bracket shown in Fig. 6 of Chen, and thus the bracket of modified Buse, further includes a cross section having a W shape formed by the pair of brace portions {i.e. reinforcing portions 134} and the fitting portion {i.e. recess 133}, that is the two triangular reinforcing portions 134 in combination with the straight, squared portion in the middle appears to form a W-shape that corresponds to the W shape exemplified in Fig. 14 of the instant specification (Refer to the shape of 72 in Fig. 14 of the instants specification and [0091] of the instant specification).
Chen does not explicitly teach/suggest; however, the bracket being a bent article, rather Chen teaches the brackets being extruded/casted structures that allow for the formation of hollow portions between the corresponding pair of brace portions {i.e. reinforcing portions 134} and fitting portion {i.e. recess 133} (Refer to annotated Fig. 6 below and Chen: [0054];[0064 – 0066]).
PNG
media_image13.png
392
313
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 showing hollow portions of Chen’s bracket.
Articles that are extruded/casted are not the same as articles that are bent, because, under broadest reasonable interpretation bent means “changed by bending out of an originally straight or even condition” (Definition from Merriam-Webster) while extruded or casted means to “to shape by forcing through a die” or “to give a shape to (a substance) by pouring in liquid or plastic form into a mold and letting harden without pressure”. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a bent article would not read on/correspond to extruded or casted article. Additionally, as noted above, the extruded/casted W-shaped brackets of Chen include/result in, in the region between the brace portions and fitting portion (Refer to annotated Fig. 6 above), hollow portions for the purpose of achieving increased repeated impact force from the end portion 121 of the cross beam 12 and further to improve the strength and structural rigidity of supporting bracket ([0065 – 0066]). Therefore, as Chen explicitly teaches forming the brackets via casting/extrusion and further explicitly desires having the corresponding region between the brace portions and fitting portion to be hollow, the combination of Buse and Chen cannot render obvious the claimed structure which requires the bracket to be a bent article including at least one section holding wall formed to fill between the brace portions and the fitting portions, and further one with ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily be motivated to modify the bracket of Buse to have such a section holding wall structure as it would frustrates Chen’s purpose of achieving improved structural rigidity/strength via the hollow portions that exists in the corresponding region between the brace portions and fitting portion
Additional searches both inside and outside battery art revealed the following additional relevant prior art:
Ema (JP2007269123A), directed generally to frame structure fastening members, also teaches forming brackets by extrusion molding and specifically brackets having a structure including a base and a pair of supports (Figs. 1 – 3 and 6 – 7; [0011 – 0012];[0014]).The brackets in Ema are taught to be of a π-shaped extruded shape having a flat base and thus lack the claimed W-shape (See Figs. 1 – 3 and 6 – 7). Therefore Ema fails to explicitly teach/disclose a bent article whose cross section having a W shape formed by a pair of brace portions and further, like Chen, does not teach/suggest a bracket structure including a section holding wall that fill between the brace portions and the fitting portion {i.e. Ema teaches hollow potions such as 36 in Fig. 2 or simple rectangular support parts such as 3 in Fig. 1}.
Fusheng (CN108461685A) teaches a bracket for a battery cross member that is formed from two fixed beam connectors 160 (Fig. 4; [0048];[0053]). The fixed beam connectors 160 in Fusheng, provide a fitting portion for the cross beam and appear to be bent articles, that is each connector is of a bent L-shape (Refer to Fig. 4); however, as the bracket is formed from two separate bent L-shaped structures, Fusheng dos not teach/suggest a bracket that is a bent article having a continuous W-shaped cross-section and including a section holding wall filling the gap between the brace and fitting portions. Additionally, high strength connection is taught by Fusheng to be achieved by the fastening structure use to secure connectors, beams, and battery pack side walls together ([0053]).
Brausse (US PG Pub. 2017/0355255 A1) teaches a battery housing including cross beam brackets having an open triangular cross-sectional shape {i.e. deformable elements 9} that include a flat supporting portion 91 and connecting portions 92/93 that extend obliquely with respect to the plane of the supporting portion ([0025];[0027]). The bracket further includes a holding portion 90 that is inserted in a form-fitting manner into a receiving opening of the of the cross beams {i.e. transverse profiles 7/8} ([0028]). As such, like the above prior art, Brausse lacks the claimed a continuous W-shaped cross-section that includes a section holding wall filling the gap between the brace and fitting portions and teaches brackets designed as extruded profile parts ([0030]).
Therefore, as none of closest cited prior art teach/suggest the claimed bracket that is a bent article including at least one section holding wall filling the gap between the brace and fitting portions of the bracket, none of the cited art alone/in combination can render obvious the bracket structure of claim 15. Moreover, as Chen, Ema, Fusheng, and Brausse all teach successfully securing cross beam structures to side wall/frame structures using brackets that are simpler/do not require at least one section holding wall filling the gap between the brace and fitting portions, and further as prior art like Chen and Ema explicitly disclose wanting hollow/unfilled space between brace portions and a fitting portion to achieve improved bracket integrity/strength, there does not appear to be a motivation/reason explicitly disclosed/suggested by the closest prior art to form a bracket as claimed and for the reason disclosed by applicant (See [0084 – 0085]).
Claims 16 – 17 would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/10/2026
Prosecution Insights