Nee 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 12/02/2025. Claims 26, 36, 37, and 42 are amended. Claims 10 and 12 – 20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 – 9, 11, and 21 – 44 are pending in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are maintained.
In light of applicant’s amendments, the objections set forth in the previous Office action with respect to claims 26, 36 – 37, and 42 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sluka cannot disclose/define/calculate the applicant’s claimed V1/V2 volumetric ratio, because the Sluka measures “active volume” in terms of active area times width of internal components and optimizes it relative to a “module volume”; thus its metric is not the claimed V1/V2. Specifically, applicant argues that Sluka does not disclose the sum of cell-body 3-D volumes V1 nor the pack’s full bounding volume V2 as defined in applicant’s specification and therefore cannot “necessarily” satisfy the claimed ratios.
The examiner acknowledges that the volumetric ratio taught in Sluka is not the exact same as the sum of cell-body 3-D volumes V1 nor the pack’s full bounding volume V2 as defined in applicant’s specification, but respectfully remind applicant that in the rejection, the examiner relied on the drawings, the definition of Sluka’s volumetric ratio, and Sluka’s explicit teaching of the individual cells “essentially” forming the module volume in [0120]), to support why one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the battery module structure to provide a volume ratio within the claimed range. Thus examiner did not directly interpret Sluka’s taught volume ratio as the applicant’s ratio, as seemingly argued by applicant. Specifically, as noted in the rejection, Sluka teaches having at least {emphasis added} 60%, and most preferably more than 65%, of the module volume be active volume and the active volume being at partially derived from the area of each cell housing in the battery; thus, the active volume in Sluka at least is based on the length and heights of each battery cell housing (Refer to [0085];[0111]). The width of the active volume, as noted in the rejection, is defined as a width of the internal components of the secondary cell, which as shown in Fig. 4 essentially makes up the width of each cell housing (Refer to [0085 – 0086]), as such one with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the sum of active volumes of the cell housing to be substantially similar to/the same as the sum of the cell housing volumes. Furthermore the module volume in Sluka appears to be a volume based on the dimensions of the battery module housing based on [0085 – 0086];[0119]. As such, based on the figures {i.e. the batteries appear to take up the majority of the space of the case} and due to Sluka’s taught active volume: module volume percentage being art least partially derived from dimensions of the each battery cell housing and the battery module housing, applicant’s arguments regarding the difference between the claimed volume ratio and ratio described in Sluka is rendered unpersuasive, and the Examiner maintains that one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the battery module of Sluka to necessarily have a V1/V2 ratio within the claimed range(s) as established in the previous Office action and below.
Examiner respectfully notes that applicant’s amendments filed 11/17/2025 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 rejection(s) 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 8, 11, 21 – 24, 26 – 33, 35, 38 – 39, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1) in view of Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1), and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1) {Examiner Note: All prior art was cited in the previous Office action mailed 08/14/2025}
Regarding Claims 1 – 4, 21 and 33, Sluka 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]) being formed on a vehicle body ([0113];[0118]); and a plurality of cells (Figs. 5, 53, 53’, and 53’’; [0112]) provided in the housing.
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 Sluka’s cells and the volume V2 of 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, Sluka further necessarily 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 2), V1/V2 > 62% (Claim 3), and further V1/V2 > 65% (Claim 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width
Figure 9 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, Sluka’s battery pack has a first direction {i.e., width} and a second direction {i.e., length} perpendicular to each other, and a length direction of the cell is arranged along the first direction of the battery pack, and the plurality of cells are 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).
Sluka teaches using battery cells with a narrow, elongated, rectangular cell housings (Figs. 2 – 4 and 6; [0050 – 0051];[0109 – 0111]); therefore, Sluka further discloses wherein each cell comprises a cell body. Sluka further teaches using lithium-ion cells as the electrochemical secondary cells of the traction battery ([0050]).
Sluka does not explicitly disclose the length of the cell body being 400 – 2500 mm, and further 400 – 1500 mm (Claim 21) or 700 – 2500 mm (Claim 33).
Kumar teaches lithium ion battery 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; [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]).
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki 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, 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 ranges, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery with a desirable capacity and practical size.
Selection of a cell length 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 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)].
Regarding Claims 5, 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 6, 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 7, 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 8, 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 11, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the housing comprises side beams located at two sides of the battery pack in the width direction (side walls; Figs. 7 and 9, 61, Fig. 15, 161; [0117];[0149]); and the housing comprises end beams located at two ends of the battery pack in the length direction (rear walls; Figs. 7 and 9, 67 and Fig. 14, 167; [0117];[0121 – 0122]).
Sluka does not explicitly disclose the side beams supporting two ends of the cell in the length direction and the end beams providing an inward pressing force against cells adjacent to the end beams.
However, since Sluka teaches using tension/compression forces from the housing walls to arrange the cells in the housing, and in Fig. 12 further shows an alternate embodiment of the battery pack where no gap is included between the cell sides, spacer, and housing side walls ([0079];[0099];[0141]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the side beams support the cell ends and the end beams exert an inward pressing force on the cells, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable battery pack structure and achieving the prevention of movement/misalignment of the cells in the battery pack.
Regarding Claim 22, 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. 700 – 750 mm } or slightly greater; and thus, be a housing width F that satisfies the claimed range of 500 mm < F < 1500 mm.
Furthermore, it would have also 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 selecting a width capable of appropriately accommodating the modified cells of Sluka’s battery pack and achieving a battery pack with an active volume of 60% or more.
Regarding Claim 23, 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 24, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the housing is formed on an electric vehicle ([0113];[0118]).
Regarding Claim 26 – 27, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka teaches using battery cells with a narrow, elongated, rectangular cell housings (Figs. 2 – 4 and 6; [0050 – 0051];[0109 – 0111]); therefore, Sluka further discloses wherein each cell comprises a cell body having a length L (Fig. 3, 13; [0110]), width H (Fig. 3, 15; [0108 – 0109]), and a thickness D (Fig. 1 and 4, 11; [0108]). The cells are shown to have a cell body length greater than the width and a cell body width greater the thickness (Refer to Figs. 1 – 4). As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}.
Kumar teaches lithium ion battery 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 length} between 75 – 750 mm (Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). As such Kumar generally teaches battery cells with L/H ratios of 1.5 to 15, which overlaps the claimed range of 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 21 (Claim 26), and L/D ratios of about 4.4 to 107, which overlaps the claimed range of 23 ≤ L/D ≤ 208 (Claim 27).
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 select cell dimensions that provide an L/H ratio and L/D ratio within the claimed ranges, for the purpose of optimizing the cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity and the convenience of manufacturing, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claims 28 – 30, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka teaches using battery cells with a narrow, elongated, rectangular cell housings (Figs. 2 – 4 and 6; [0050 – 0051];[0109 – 0111]); therefore, Sluka further discloses wherein each cell comprises a cell body having a length L (Fig. 3, 13; [0110]), width H (Fig. 3, 15; [0108 – 0109]), and a thickness D (Fig. 1 and 4, 11; [0108]). The cells are shown to have a cell body length greater than the width and a cell body width greater the thickness (Refer to Figs. 1 – 4). As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}. Furthermore, since modified Sluka’s battery cells have a length, width, and thickness, one with ordinary skill would further expect the cells to provide a volume V.
As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}. The widths and thickness of the battery cells in modified Sluka are generally 50 mm to 500 mm and 7 mm to 17 mm, respectively (Kumar: Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). As such, the cells of modified Sluka are capable of volumes ranging from about 2.45x105 mm3 to about 6.38 x106 mm3, and are further capable of providing L/V ratios ranging from about 0.00012 mm-2 to about 0.0029 mm-2, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0005 mm-2 - 0.002 mm-2 (Claim 28); H/V ratios of about 0.000078 mm-2 about 0.0002, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0001 mm-2 - 0.00015 mm-2 (Claim 29); and D/V ratios ranging from about 0.0000027 mm-2 to about 0.000028 mm-2, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.0000065 mm-2 - 0.00002 mm-2 (Claim 30).
Kumar further 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]), selection of cell dimension that would provide an L/V ratio, H/V ratio, and D/V ratio within the claimed ranges, 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 expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 31 – 32, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka teaches using battery cells with a narrow, elongated, rectangular cell housings (Figs. 2 – 4 and 6; [0050 – 0051];[0109 – 0111]); therefore, Sluka further discloses wherein each cell comprises a cell body having a length L (Fig. 3, 13; [0110]), width H (Fig. 3, 15; [0108 – 0109]), and a thickness D (Fig. 1 and 4, 11; [0108]). The cells are shown to have a cell body length greater than the width and a cell body width greater the thickness (Refer to Figs. 1 – 4). Furthermore, since modified Sluka’s battery cells have a length, width, and thickness, one with ordinary skill would further expect the cells to provide a volume V and surface area S.
As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}. The widths and thickness of the battery cells in modified Sluka are generally 50 mm to 500 mm and 7 mm to 17 mm, respectively (Kumar: Fig. 2; [0053 – 0058]). As such, the cells of modified Sluka are capable of volumes ranging from about 2.45x105 mm3 to about 6.38 x106 mm3, surface areas ranging from about 80500 mm2 to about 7.92 x105 mm2, and further are capable of providing L/S ratios ranging from about 0.00095 mm-1 to about 0.0087 mm-1 , which encompasses the claimed range of 0.002 mm-1 - 0.005 mm-1 (Claim 31), and S/V ratios ranging from about 0.12 mm-1 to about 0.33 mm-1, which is within the claimed range of 0.1 mm-1 - 0.35 mm-1 (Claim 32).
Kumar further 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]), selection of cell dimensions that provide an L/S ratio 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 volumetric density and capacity of the cell to be suitable for applications in vehicle battery packs, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 35, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the cell is a prismatic cell (Fig. 2; [0102]).
Sluka teaches that housing of the battery cells can be made of aluminum, stainless steel, or brass ([0056]).
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 38 – 39, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further discloses an electric vehicle (Claim 38), 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 39).
Regarding Claim 44, 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) 9, 25, and 40 – 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1, Machine translation provided), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), as applied to claim 1 and 35 above, and further in view of Stephens (US PG Pub. 2018/0337378 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, 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 using the battery pack in a vehicle ([0028]).
Sluka teaches a desire to have a method of cooling included in the traction battery, and further teaches an embodiment incorporating cooling channels within the battery housing to achieve such cooling ([0073 – 0074];[0095]). Sluka further 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 25, 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]).
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, and the length direction of the battery pack is arranged along a length direction of the vehicle body; or the width direction of the battery pack is arranged along the length direction of the vehicle body, and the length direction of the battery pack is arranged along the width direction of the vehicle body.
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 he 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 Claim 40, 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, and the length direction of the battery pack is arranged along a length direction of the vehicle body.
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 pack 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 the vehicle.
Regarding Claims 41 – 43, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sluka further teaches a desire to design their battery pack in a way that mechanically stable when applied in a vehicle ([0025 – 0026];[0146]).
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 41).
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 42).
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.
Sluka does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of the vehicle body is 500 – 2000 mm (Claim 43); 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 the vehicle and be of size (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 slight greater than 700 – 750 mm.
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 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.
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1, Machine translation provided), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), as applied to claim 1 and 33 above, and further in view of Cheng (CN107394279A, cited in the previous Office action mailed 08/14/2025).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Sluka discloses all limitations as set forth above. As established above, the length of Sluka’s modified cell bodies are within the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kumar and the claimed range {i.e. 700 – 750 mm}, as such the battery cells of modified Sluka have a length outside of the claimed range 800 < L < 1500 mm.
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, 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 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}.
The examiner acknowledges that Kumar’s discussion of battery cell dimensions is directed to pouch cell designs (Kumar: [0019]); however, both Kumar and Shiozaki, 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 the 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) 36 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1, Machine translation provided), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1) and Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), as applied to claim 1 and 35 above, and further in view of Xie (CN205488247U, cited in the previous Office action mailed 08/14/2025).
Regarding Claims 36 – 37, 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 36).
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 37).
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)].
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 – 7, 16 – 19, 31 – 32, and 34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 – 9, 11, 21 – 22, 24, and 28 – 34 of co-pending Application No. 17/421,883 (reference application, published as US20220123404A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 17/421,883 directed toward a battery pack with structural limitations, a volume ratio {i.e. V1/V2}, and battery cells with dimensions and dimension ratios also required by the instant application (Claims 1, 5 – 9, 11, 21 – 22, and 28 – 34), and an electric vehicle comprising the battery pack (Claim 24).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, and 21 – 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 and 31 – 40 of co-pending Application No. 18/604,560 (reference application, published as US20240222763A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/604,560 is directed toward a battery pack with structural limitations, a volume ratio {i.e. V1/V2}, and battery cells with dimensions and dimension ratios also required by the instant application (Claims 1 – 20 and 31 – 33), and an electric vehicle/energy storage device comprising the battery pack (Claims 34 – 40).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, and 21 – 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 and 31 – 40 of co-pending Application No. 18/604,551 (reference application, published as US20240222761A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/604,551 is directed toward a battery pack with structural limitations, a volume ratio {i.e. V1/V2}, and battery cells with dimensions and dimension ratios also required by the instant application (Claims 1 – 20 and 31 – 33), and an electric vehicle/energy storage device comprising the battery pack (Claims 34 – 40).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, and 21 – 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 and 31 – 40 of co-pending Application No. 18/604,555 (reference application, published as US20240222762A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/604,555 is directed toward a battery pack with structural limitations, a volume ratio {i.e. V1/V2}, and battery cells with dimensions and dimension ratios also required by the instant application (Claims 1 – 20 and 31 – 33), and an electric vehicle/energy storage device comprising the battery pack (Claims 34 – 40).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, and 21 – 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 9, 11, 21 – 44 of co-pending Application No. 18/608,980 (reference application, published as US20240250359A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/608,980 is directed toward a battery pack with structural limitations, a volume ratio {i.e. V1/V2}, and battery cells with dimensions and dimension ratios also required by the instant application (Claims 1 – 9, 11, 21 – 37), and an electric vehicle/energy storage device comprising the battery pack (Claims 38 – 44).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, and 21 – 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 9, 11, 21 – 44 of co-pending Application No. 18/610,319 (reference application, published as US20240222767A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/610,319 is directed toward a battery pack with structural limitations, a volume ratio {i.e. V1/V2}, and battery cells with dimensions and dimension ratios also required by the instant application (Claims 1 – 9, 11, and 21 – 37), and an electric vehicle comprising the battery pack (Claims 38 – 44).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 3/3/2026