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
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 11/25/2025. Claims 3 – 5 and 9 – 10 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 21 – 30 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3– 20 and 31 – 40 are pending in the current Office action.
In light of applicant’s amendments to claims 3 – 5 and 9 – 10, the objections set forth in the previous Office action have been withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references alone/in any combination thereof teach/suggest a single cell embodiment satisfying all five quantitative constraints, nor do they provide a motivation with rational underpinning to coordinate these interdependent variables to arrive at the claimed specific ranges and limits.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully reminds applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Sluka, as established in the non-final rejection (See pg. 4), teaches battery cells with narrow, elongated, rectangular cell housing; Kumar teaches lithium battery cells for rectangular pouch cells that provide L/H, S/V, L/S, L/D, and L/V within/overlapping the claimed ranges and teaches controlling the cell dimensions to obtain desirable cell areas/volumes and that area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction (See pgs. 4 – 5); Kumar and Shiozaki both suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (See pg. 5). The teachings of Kumar by being directed toward optimizing battery cell dimensions for the purpose of optimizing battery density and further by teaching battery cell dimensions capable of provided elongated, narrow rectangular housing shapes appear applicable to Sluka’s battery cells, and thus, seem to properly support prima facie obviousness.
Furthermore, the examiner calculated the L/H, S/V, L/S, L/D, and L/V ratios using the minimum and maximum L, W, and H values to show the minimum and maximum L/H, S/V, L/S, L/D, and L/V values suggested by Kumar’s taught cell dimensions and establish a prima facie case of obviousness as, per MPEP 2144.05(I), where the recited range(s) overlap or lie inside prior art range(s), a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, by teaching battery cell dimensions that provide L/H, S/V, L/S, L/D, and L/V values within/overlapping the claimed range, per MPEP 2144.05(I), Kumar establishes a prima facie case obvious for claimed ranges and applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art failing to teach/suggest a single cell embodiment satisfying all five quantitative constraints of claim 1 are unpersuasive.
Additionally, the examiner respectfully submits, as established in the non-final office action and further below, that a skilled artisan would be motivated to select dimensions that provide the claimed ratios based on Kumar’s teachings {i.e. balancing the convenience of manufacturing vs. battery capacity by optimizing cell area and volume} and MPEP2144.09(II), absent demonstrated criticality. Though the prior art might not explicitly recognize all of applicant’s synergistic effects of improved battery pack utilization/higher energy density/better heat dissipation based on the claimed ratios, per MPEP 2145(II), applicant’s recognizing an advantage that would flow naturally from the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
As such, in light of the above discussion, applicant’s arguments are not fully persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are maintained and included below.
Examiner respectfully notes that applicant’s amendments filed 11/25/2025 are not fully responsive, but in the interest of compact prosecution, applicant’s amendments have been taken as a bona fide attempt. Specifically, the Examiner notes that applicant did not provide a complete response to the double patenting rejection set forth in the previous nonfinal Office action. MPEP 804 I-B-1 explicitly states “A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03.”
As such, the double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office action are maintained, and the examiner respectfully reminds applicant that a complete response to this OA is required, otherwise, the response may be held as non-responsive and may not be considered “bona fide” under MPEP 714.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3– 6, 8, 11 – 19, 32 – 35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 8/21/2025) in view of Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 8/21/2025) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1, cited in previous Office action mailed 8/21/2025).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3 – 6, Sluka discloses a cell (Fig. 1 – 4, 31; [0108 – 0110]) comprising a cell body having a length L (Fig. 3, 13; [0110]), a width H (Fig. 1 and 3, 15; [0108 – 0109]), and a thickness D (Fig. 1 and 4, 11; [0108]), the length L of the cell body being greater than the width H and the width H of the cell body being greater than thickness D (Refer Figs. 1 – 4).
Sluka does not explicitly disclose the cell body’s having a surface area S and a volume V; however, since the cell bodies in Sluka have a length, width and thickness, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the cells to also have a surface area S and a volume V.
Sluka teaches using battery cells with a narrow, elongated, rectangular cell housings (Figs. 2 – 4 and 6; [0050 – 0051];[0109 – 0111]), but does not particularly teach the dimensions of the cells. Sluka further teaches using lithium-ion cells as the electrochemical secondary cells of the traction battery ([0050]); therefore, Sluka does not explicitly disclose L/H = 4 – 21, S/V = 0.1 mm-1 – 0.35 mm-1, and L/S = 0.002 mm-1 – 0.005 mm-1.
Kumar teaches lithium ion battery pouch-type cells with thicknesses t between about 7 mm to 17 mm, widths w between 50 mm to 500 mm, and heights h {i.e. equivalent to claimed lengths} between 75 – 750 mm (Fig. 2; [0019];[0053 – 0058]). The dimensions of the cells in Kumar are chosen for practical and performance reasons such as convenient manufacturing, stable cycling, and controlling battery capacity ([0052];[0055]). Additionally Kumar teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
Since Kumar and Shiozaki both suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]); it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control Sluka’s cell dimensions to be within the range taught by Kumar, and thus obtain cells with lengths overlapping the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery with a desirable capacity and practical size.
By having a thickness D between about 7 mm to 17 mm, a width H between 50 mm to 500 mm, and a length L between 75 – 750 mm (Kumar: [0053 – 0058])), the cells of modified Sluka are capable of providing the following ratios:
L/H ratios of about 1.5 – 15, which overlaps the claimed range of 4 – 21.
S/V ratios of about 0.12 mm-1 – 0.35 mm-1, which is within the claimed range of 0.1 mm-1 - 0.35 mm-1.
L/S ratios of about 0.00094 mm-1 – 0.008 mm-1, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.002 mm-1 - 0.005 mm-1.
L/D ratios of about 4.4 – 107, which overlaps the claimed range of 23 – 208 (Claim 3).
L/V ratios of about 0.00012 mm-2 to about 0.0028 mm-2, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0005 mm-2 - 0.002 mm-2 (Claim 4) and H/V of about 0.0000079 mm-2 - 0.00019 mm-2, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0001 mm-2 - 0.00015 mm-2 (Claim 5).
Selection of cell dimensions that provide an L/H, L/S, L/D, L/V and H/V ratio within the overlapping portion of the ranges of modified Sluka and the claimed ranges would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the purpose of optimizing the cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing the cells, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
The cells of modified Sluka, as established above, have a length of 75 – 750, which overlaps the claimed length range of 400 – 1500 mm (Claim 6).
Selection of a cell length within the overlapping portion of the taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing, with a reasonable exception of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose wherein the surface area S of the cell body and the energy E of the cell body satisfy: S/E ≤ 1000 mm2·Wh-1, and the volume V of the cell body and the energy E of the cell body satisfy: V/E ≤ 2000 mm3·Wh-1.
Kumar further teaches obtaining cells having a volumetric energy density of about 400 to 1150 Wh/l with their taught cell shapes and sizes ([0096]). The volumetric energy densities taught by Kumar provide a V/E ratio of about 870 – 2500 mm3·Wh-1, which overlaps the claimed range of V/E ≤ 2000 mm3·Wh-1. Furthermore, since Kumar teaches battery cell dimensions that provide ratios that overlap with the claimed dimensional ratios, and further the claimed V/E ratio, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the cell dimensions in Kumar to further be capable of providing a S/E ratio that encompasses/overlaps the claimed range of S/E ≤ 1000 mm2·Wh-1.
Selection of cell dimensions that provide an S/E and V/E within the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the battery cell capacity, energy density, and convenience of manufacturing, with a reasonable exception of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the cell is a prismatic cell (Figs. 1 – 4; [0102]).
Sluka further teaches that housing of the battery cells can be made of aluminum, stainless steel, or brass ([0056]).
Modified Sluka does not specifically disclose an embodiment where the casing of the cells are aluminum; however, since Sluka teaches a finite list of cell housing materials, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select aluminum, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be suitable for the housing.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses a battery pack (traction accumulator, Figs. 5 – 7, 1, 1’, and 1’’; [0053 – 0054];[0112 – 0113];[0117]), comprising a housing (module housing; Figs. 5 – 6, 33; [0112 – 0113]); and a plurality of cells provided in the housing (Figs. 5, 53, 53’, and 53’’; [0112]), each of the cells is a cell according to claim 1 (Refer to rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claims 12 – 15, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka teaches optimizing the dimensions of the battery so that at least 60% of the module volume, which is the total volume of the battery, can be used as active volume, which is the individual active area of each individual secondary cell of the traction accumulator multiplied by the width of the internal components of the secondary cell ([0051];[0068];[0085 – 0086]). Furthermore, Sluka teaches that the individual cells essentially make up the module volume (Fig. 9; [0120]); thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect, based on Sluka’s teachings above and figures, the sum V1 of the volumes of the plurality of modified Sluka’s cells and the volume V2 of modified Sluka’s battery pack to necessarily satisfy the claimed relationship of V1/V2 > 55%.
Sluka additionally teaches an embodiment where the active volume of the total module volume is even more than 65%; therefore, modified Sluka further discloses wherein the sum V1 of the volumes of the plurality of Sluka’s cells and the volume V2 of Sluka’s battery pack satisfy the claimed relationships of V1/V2 > 60% (Claim 13), V1/V2 > 62% (Claim 14), and further V1/V2 > 65% (Claim 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width
Figure 9 in Sluka shows a 3D representation of the traction accumulator without the cover ([0117];[0120]). In the figure, the cells are shown to be arranged along the length of the housing and the length of the cells are along the width of the case (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the width of the housing is perpendicular to the length of the housing; thus, modified Sluka’s battery pack has a first direction {i.e., width} and a second direction {i.e., length} perpendicular to each other, a length direction of the cell arranged along the first direction of the battery pack, and the plurality of cells arranged along the second direction of the battery pack (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above). Furthermore, in Fig. 9 only one cell is shown to be included in the width direction; thus, Sluka’s housing accommodates only one cell in the first direction (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the first direction is a width direction of the battery pack (See “width” shown in annotated Fig. 9), the second direction is a length direction of the battery pack (See “length” shown in annotated Fig. 9), the length direction of each cell is arranged along the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to how long-side of cells correspond to the width of battery pack in annotated Fig. 9), and the plurality of cells are arranged along the length direction of the battery pack (Refer to how the cells are arranged in a row along the length of the pack in annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the housing accommodates only one cell in the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Sluka, a small gap is shown to be included between the ends of the battery cells and the side walls of the battery pack housing (Figs. 8 – 9, 13 – 15, and 21). The length {i.e. length from the side wall to the side of battery cell} of the gap shown by Sluka is small, and, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sum of the gap lengths from both side would be less than the length of the elongated cells; therefore, Sluka necessarily further discloses wherein, in the width direction of the battery pack, a shortest distance from one end of the cell to a side beam of the housing adjacent to the end of the cell is L1, a shortest distance from the other end of the cell to a side beam of the housing adjacent to the other end of the cell is L2, and the length L of the cell satisfies: L1+L2<L.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein along the width direction of the battery pack, each cell extends from one side to the other side of the housing (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width
Regarding Claim 32, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Sluka’s figures, the pack housing is shown to have very little space, in the width direction, between the cell walls and housing side walls (Figs. 8 – 9, 13 – 15, and 21); which indicates that the width of the housing is significantly close to the length of the cells; therefore, in modified Sluka, one with ordinary skill in the art would expect the width of the case to at least be the length of the modified cells {i.e. 75 – 750 mm} or slightly greater; and thus, be a housing width F that overlaps the claimed range of 500 mm – 1500 mm.
Sluka teaches optimizing the dimensions of the battery so that at least 60% of the module volume, which is the total volume of the battery, can be used as active volume, which is the individual active area of each individual secondary cell of the traction accumulator multiplied by the width of the internal components of the secondary cell ([0051];[0068];[0085 – 0086]).
The dimensions of the pouch-type cells in Kumar are chosen for practical and performance reasons such as convenient manufacturing, stable cycling, and controlling battery capacity ([0019];[0052]; [0055]). Additionally Kumar teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a housing width within the claimed range of 500 – 1500 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success in accommodating larger capacity cells {i.e. cells closer to 750mm in length would necessarily provide larger areas which allows for capacity increase} in the battery pack and further achieving the desired active volume of 60% or more with larger capacity cells.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses the battery pack comprising a battery management system, that is Sluka teaches including additional electronics in the housing, such as a contactor module, that allows for, for example the reading out of condition monitoring data collected from sensors within the module, and includes a control board, memory unit and processor unit ([0100]).
Regarding Claim 34 – 35, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses an electric vehicle (Claim 34), that is Sluka teaches mounting the battery pack in vehicle ([0113];[0118]), and wherein the battery pack is disposed at the bottom of the electric vehicle, and the housing is fixedly connected to the chassis of the electric vehicle ([0113]) (Claim 35).
Regarding Claim 40, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses an energy storage device, that is the traction accumulator of Sluka is an energy storage device for a vehicle ([0028];[0113]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng (CN107394279A, cited in previous Office action mailed 8/21/2025).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. The cells of modified Sluka, as established above, have length of 75 – 750 mm, which is outside of the claimed range of 800 – 1500 mm.
Kumar teaches controlling the dimensions of pouch-type cells to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0019];[0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases, obtained through optimizing battery dimensions, are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
Cheng teaches a high capacity polymer lithium ion battery pouch-type cells wherein the width of the battery is greater than 300 mm, the length of the battery is greater than 250 mm and the thickness is greater than 5mm ([0007];[0067]). In Examples 4, 5 and 6, Cheng discloses embodiments of battery cells with widths of 800 mm, 815 mm, and 1000 mm, respectively ([0091];[0098];[0105]). {Examiner Note: The width dimension in Cheng is equivalent to claimed length dimension}.
Kumar and Shiozaki both suggest that prismatic and pouch cells designs are known in the art to be conventional and interchangeable (Shiozaki: Figs. 19 and 27; and Kumar: [0049]).
Therefore, since Sluka already discloses using an elongated battery cell in their traction battery, and Kumar does not necessarily teach against constructing battery cells longer than 750 mm {i.e. that is they only teach cost/physical practicality as limiting factors}, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the overlapping portion of the range taught by Cheng for the length of modified Sluka’s cells, with a reasonable expectation of success in selecting a battery length suitable, and, as shown by Cheng, known in the art, to be capable of providing a high capacity lithium ion battery.
Claim(s) 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Xie (CN205488247U, cited in previous Office action mailed 8/21/2025).
Regarding Claims 9 – 10, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. In one embodiment of the cells, Sluka teaches including a bursting joint 76 on one end of the battery cell in the length direction (Fig. 16; [0134]);
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose the cell comprising at least one anti-explosion valve, and the at least one anti-explosion valve is provided on at least one end of the cell body in the length direction (Claim 9).
Xie teaches prismatic lithium ion cells including an explosion-proof valve on arrange on an end of the battery cell housing in the length direction (Fig. 3; [0024 – 0025]). The valve is taught to improve the safety of the battery ([0027]).
Since Sluka already teaches an embodiment including structure mean to burst under pressure on at least one end of the battery, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an explosion-proof valve on at least one end of battery cell housing, as taught by Xie, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the battery cell safety.
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose the two ends of the cell body in the length direction respectively provided with an anti-explosion valve (Claim 10).
However, 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 cells to respectively provide an anti-explosion valve on each end in the length direction, because such a modification would be a duplication of parts that would still allow for the improvement in the battery safety [MPEP 2144.04(VI)].
Claim(s) 20, 31, and 36 – 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), as applied to claims 1, 17, 11 and 34 above, and further in view of Stephens (US PG Pub. 2018/0337378 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 8/21/2025).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. As established above, Sluka shows including one row of cells along the length direction of the battery pack (Figs. 9, 15, 21). Sluka further teaches a desire to have a method of cooling included in the traction battery module, and teaches an embodiment incorporating cooling channels within the battery housing to achieve such cooling ([0073 – 0074];[0095]). Sluka additionally teaches a desire to design their battery pack in a way that mechanically stable when applied in a vehicle ([0025 – 0026];[0146]).
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose having at least one width-direction transverse beam extending along the width direction of the battery pack provided in the housing and the plurality of cells being arranged along the length direction of the battery pack to form a battery array.
Stephens teaches a battery tray for a vehicle that includes an upper tray component with cross members 30 integrally extending along the width of the battery case to define battery containment sections within the tray (Fig. 3; [0004]). The cross members further have added utility in that they include hollow interior cavities for weight reduction and/or to provide packaging space for cooling lines ([0052]).
Since Sluka teaches a desire to manage heat within the battery pack and design a battery pack that is mechanically stable for use in a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include at least one of the cross members taught by Stephens, which have hollow interiors capable of holding cooling lines, between the plurality of cells, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a suitable means of cooling within the battery pack and further increasing the mechanically stability of the battery pack by adding an additional structure to restrain the battery cell housings.
In modified Sluka, the cross member, which extends across the width direction of the pack and forms at least two sections of cells within the modified pack, corresponds to the claimed width-direction transverse beam. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the plurality of cells would form a battery array since the plurality of cells are disclosed to be electrically connected to one another in a series ([0075 – 0076]).
Furthermore, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, by being included in between two groups of cells stacked along the length direction of the battery pack, that the transverse beam of modified Sluka divides the battery array into at least two parts along the length direction of the battery pack, and, since the battery pack includes a plurality of cells on either side of the beam, each part of the battery array comprises at least one cell.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka teaches a desire to design their battery pack in a way that mechanically stable when applied in a vehicle ([0025 – 0026];[0146]). Sluka further teaches that the battery pack can be mounted on a vehicle chassis ([0113]).
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing includes a vehicle tray that is fitted and connected to the vehicle body.
Stephens teaches a battery tray for a vehicle, meant to be attached the bottom of the vehicle body, that includes an upper tray component to hold the cells and a lower/outer tray component that holds the upper tray component ([0039];[0041]). The lower/outer tray component provides side reinforcement members that absorb and dissipate side impact forces imparted at the vehicle and a bottom panel that lowers impact absorption ([0043]).
Since Sluka’s battery pack has a structure and purpose similar to Stephens’ upper tray component, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Stephen’s taught lower/outer tray with Sluka’s battery pack, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing Sluka’s battery pack a secure and suitable means to mount the battery pack to a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 36, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka teaches mounting the battery pack on a vehicle chassis in the underfloor area of the vehicle ([0113]); therefore, Sluka further discloses an electric vehicle comprising a battery pack disposed at a bottom of the electric vehicle.
Modified Sluka does not disclose the particulars of the positioning; however, and therefore, does not explicitly disclose wherein the width direction of the battery pack is arranged along a width direction of a vehicle body of the electric vehicle, and a length direction of the battery pack is arranged along a length direction of the vehicle body of the electric vehicle.
However, Stephens shows that is known in the art, when implementing battery pack structures into a vehicle, to arrange the width of the structure along the width of the vehicle body and the length of the structure along a length of the vehicle (Refer to Figs. 1 – 2); therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when mounting the battery pack of modified Sluka on the vehicle chassis, to mount the battery such that the width direction of the battery pack is arranged along a width direction of a vehicle body, and the length direction of the battery pack is arranged along a length direction of the vehicle body, with a reasonable expectation of success that such an arrangement would be suitable for vehicle.
Regarding Claims 37 – 39, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka teaches a desire to design their battery pack in a way that mechanically stable when applied in a vehicle ([0025 – 0026];[0146]).
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose wherein the width F of the housing and the width W of the vehicle body satisfy 50% ≤ F/W ≤ 80% (Claim 37).
Stephens shows including a battery tray in a vehicle in a central, lower region of the vehicle (Refer to Figs. 1 and 2; [0039]). In Figs. 1 – 2, the battery tray in Stephens is further shown to have a relatively smaller width than vehicle, and Stephens further teaches that is desirable to ensure that the battery modules included in the tray are in central location so that they batteries are away from probable impact locations and the tray is in a location that evenly distributes the weight of the battery modules and provides the vehicle with a relatively low center of gravity ([0039]).
One with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, in addition to the position, the battery pack size would also be relevant to ensuring that the cells are located in a central location of the vehicle away from probably impact locations, the battery pack has evenly distributed weight, and the vehicle has a relatively low center of gravity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the battery pack of modified Sluka such that the width of the battery pack housing F and width of the vehicle W provides a F/W within the claimed range in order to ensure that the battery pack is of a size that allows for the battery cells to be away from probable impact locations, the even distribution of weight, and the vehicle to have a relatively low center of gravity, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
As established above, the cells of modified Sluka have a cell length that is optimized in order to provide a battery with a desirable capacity and practical size (Kumar: [0052];[0055]). Furthermore, Sluka shows the battery cells having a length that is relatively less than, but close, to the width of the battery pack housing (Refer to Fig. 9 in Sluka for example).
Therefore, based on the F/W of modified Sluka above, and the fact that the cells in modified Sluka are shown to have a cell body length that is relatively close to the width of the battery case, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect modified Sluka to provide a L/W within or at least overlapping the claimed range of 46% ≤ F/W ≤ 76% (Claim 38)
Selection of an L/W within the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the that art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention, in order to optimize the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing, as well as the sizing the battery pack, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Modified Sluka does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of the vehicle body is 500 – 2000 mm (Claim 39); however, as established above, it is known in the art, when implementing a battery pack in vehicle, for the battery pack to have a relatively smaller width than the vehicle (Refer to Stephens: Figs. 1 – 2).
As such, one with ordinary skill in the art would expect the width of the vehicle of modified Sluka to be greater than the width of the battery pack, which, as established above, based on the length of the modified cells would have to be at least slightly greater than 75 – 750 mm, and thus in a range overlapping the claimed range.
The dimensions of the pouch-type cells in Kumar are chosen for practical and performance reasons such as convenient manufacturing, stable cycling, and controlling battery capacity ([0019];[0052]; [0055]). Additionally Kumar teaches controlling the dimensions to obtain desirable cell facial areas, characterized by width and height, between 25,000 to 50,000 mm2 and battery volumes between 250,000 – 500,000 mm3 ([0057 – 0058]). Kumar further teaches that increases in area provide increases in battery capacity, and that capacity increases are limited by physical/cost constraints relating to battery construction ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a vehicle width within the claimed range of 500 – 1500 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success in selecting a width capable of appropriately accommodating the battery pack of modified Sluka and further capable of accommodating a battery pack with higher capacity cells {i.e. cells closer to 750mm in length would necessarily provide larger areas which allows for capacity increase}.
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, 3 – 6 and 8 – 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2, 4 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,300,832 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘832 is directed toward battery cells with dimensions and dimensions ratios (Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 8, 10 – 11 and 13 – 14), battery cell structure {i.e. explosion-proof valve structure} (Claims 15 – 16) and a battery pack comprising the cells (Claim 17) which are also required by the instant application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 2/19/2026