Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A and subspecies A1-a and A2-a in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species B and subspecies A1-b and A2-b, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/26/2026.
Upon reconsideration, the species requirement of subspecies A1 {i.e. battery pack housing rows} is withdrawn and claim 10, noted in the restriction to be directed to non-elected species A1-b are considered in the rejection below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 36 – 37 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein the cell comprises a cell body” is a redundant, because claim 1 already require the cells to have a cell body. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 25 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, Claims 25 and 40 recite the limitations "the width direction of the battery pack” and “the length direction of the battery pack; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as claim 1, from which claims 25 and 40 depends upon, only establishes that the battery pack has a first direction and a second direction and it is not established in claim 1 which of the previously claimed first direction/second direction is the length/width direction of the battery pack.
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 – 11, 22 – 24, 26 – 35, 38 – 39, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1 – cited in IDS filed 12/02/2025, Machine translation provided) in view of Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1 – cited in Third-Party IDS filed 01/18/2025), Shiozaki (EP1391950B1), and Miler (US PG Pub. 20190157635 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 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]) and a plurality of cells (Figs. 5, 53, 53’, and 53’’; [0112]) provided in the housing (Refer to Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width in Sluka.
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; 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).
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 or further 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 ranges 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 battery cell area and volume, and by extension the battery cell capacity, in view of physical/cost constraints relating to the manufacturing of the battery, with a reasonable exception of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
In the figures, Sluka only shows the traction battery including one row of battery cells (Figs. 9 – 15). Sluka further teaches, with respect to the structure of the traction battery housing and configuration of the cells that the module hosing can include at least one partition for separating secondary cell packs ([0099]), but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment where the housing accommodates two cells along the first direction {i.e. refer to width direction}.
Miler teaches a battery pack arrangement in which two rows of cells in a battery pack are adjacent with a structural member in between for the purpose of improving thermal management and improving the battery pack’s resistance to load, e.g. vertical loads perpendicular to a plane defined by the longitudinal axis 108 and the lateral axis 114 (Figs. 1B, 2F, and 3A – 3B; [0027 – 0028];[0033 – 0038];[0051 – 0052]). Miller further teaches that the use of longitudinal members between adjacent rows allow for the greater compression of the battery cells within the battery pack and that such compression may reduce swelling of battery cells within the channel during operation (e.g., during charging, discharging, etc.) and that reduced swelling may improve performance, lifetime, or both, of the battery cells utilized by the battery pack to store and deliver electrical power ([0055]).
Therefore, since Sluka already suggest implementing partitions within their traction battery housing in the interest of separating cell packs and further is concerned with thermal management ([0058];[0082];[0099]), 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 cell of Sluka to include two rows of battery cells, as taught by Miler, and thus obtain the claimed configuration of the housing accommodating two cells along the first {i.e. width} direction, because (1) such a modification, absent a new/unexpected results would be an rearrangement/duplication of parts with respect to the battery cells in the traction battery that is considered an obvious design choice [See MPEP 2144.04(VI)] that, as shown by Miler is already recognized in the art, and (2), because, as taught by Miler, such a configuration of battery cells would allow for both structural and thermal management improvements by allow for the inclusion of a longitudinal, structural member between the battery cell rows.
Regarding Claims 2 – 4, 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 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];[0119]).The active volume of the battery cells is partially derived from the area of each cell housing in the battery and further the width of the active volume is defined as the width of the internal components of the secondary cell, which as shown in Fig. 4, essentially makes up the width of each cell housing ([0085 – 0086]), as such one with ordinary skill the art would appreciate the sums of the active volumes of the cell housing to be the same/substantially similar to the sum of the volumes of the cell housings. Sluka additionally teaches an embodiment where the active volume of the total module volume is even more than 65% ([0085];[0111]). Therefore, based on the teachings above, Sluka disclosing an embodiment where the active volume of the total module volume is even more than 65%, and how the cells in Sluka are shown to take up the majority of the battery case space (Refer to Figs. 9 and 13 – 15), one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect 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 relationships of V1/V2 > 55% (Claim 2), V1/V2 > 62% (Claim 3), and further V1/V2 > 65% (Claim 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
363
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width in Sluka.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sluka discloses all limitation as set forth above. In modified Sluka, two rows of battery cells are provided and the rows are adjacent to one another in the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to Miler: Fig. 1A for example of arrangement). As such, modified Sluka further provides the claimed structure of wherein the first direction is a width direction of the battery pack (See “width” shown in annotated Fig. 9 above), the second direction is a length direction of the battery pack (See “length” shown in annotated Fig. 9 above), the length direction of the 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 above), 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 above).
Regarding Claims 6 and 9, modified Sluka discloses all limitation as set forth above. In modified Sluka, two rows of battery cells are provided and the rows are adjacent to one another in the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to Miler: Fig. 1A for example of arrangement). 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 wherein the battery pack further comprises a width direction transverse bean provided in the housing, the width direction transverse bean extending along the second direction {i.e. length direction} of the battery pack and dividing an internal space of the housing into two spaces, each space of the housing accommodating only one cell in the width direction of the battery pack (Claim 6).
Sluka further teaches, with respect to the structure of the traction battery housing and configuration of the cells that the module hosing can include at least one partition for separating secondary cell packs ([0099])
Miler further teaches including, in addition to a longitudinal member, lateral member(s) that connect to the side beams of the battery pack housing to form batter array compartments and achieve space-efficient battery packaging of the cells within the battery pack ([0028];[0030]). The lateral members are also taught by Miler to allow for improved structural reinforcement of the battery back as well as thermal management ([0034]).
Since Sluka teaches a desire to manage heat within the battery pack and design a battery pack that is mechanically stable, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the traction battery of Sluka to include as least one lateral members as taught by Miler, and thus obtain the claimed width direction transverse beam structure, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving space-efficient battery packaging of the cells within the battery pack in addition to improved thermal management and structural reinforcement.
In modified Sluka, the lateral member, which extends across the width direction of the pack and forms at least two sections of cells within the modified pack (Refer to 124 in Fig. 1B of Miler for example), corresponds to the claimed width-direction transverse beam. Furthermore, as the lateral member in modified Sluka splits the two rows of the battery cells in the length direction and the longitudinal members separates the two rows of cells in the width direction, the width direction transverse beam of modified Sluka divides an internal spacing of housing into two space and each space of the housing accommodates only one cell in the width direction of the battery pack (Claim 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
363
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width in Sluka.
The lateral member in modified Sluka corresponds to the claimed width-direction transverse beam, as such, modified Sluka includes at least one width-direction transverse beam extending along the width direction of the battery pack in the housing (Refer to 124 in Fig. 1B of Miler for example positioning of lateral member in modified Sluka), the plurality of cells are arranged along the length direction of the battery pack (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above) to form a battery array, that is one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the plurality of cells would form a battery array since the plurality of cells in a row are disclosed to be electrically connected to one another in a series ([0075 – 0076]), the width-direction transverse beam divides the battery array into at least two parts along the length direction of the battery pack (Refer to rejection of claim 6 above and the position of 124 in Fig. 1B of Miler), and each part of the battery array comprises at least one cell (Refer to rejection of claim 6 above and the configuration of the battery cell rows in modified Sluka exemplified in Figs. 1b/2F of Miler) (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sluka discloses all limitation as set forth above. In modified Sluka, two rows of battery cells are provided and the rows are adjacent to one another in the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to Miler: Fig. 1A for example of arrangement).
Sluka further shows a small gap between the ends of the battery cells and the side walls of the battery pack housing (Figs. 8 – 9, 13 – 15, and 21). Furthermore, in the figures, the length {i.e. length from the side wall to the side of battery cell} of the gap shown by Sluka appears to be relatively smaller than the length of the cells; therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art reasonably expect, based on the relative lengths of the cells and gaps, the sum of lengths of the gaps of both side in modified Sluka to necessarily and inherently be less than the length of the elongated cells and thus provide the claimed structure of 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 limitation as set forth above. In modified Sluka, two rows of battery cells are provided and the rows are adjacent to one another in the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to Miler: Fig. 1A for example of arrangement). Furthermore, as show in annotated Fig. 9 below, Sluka shows the cells extending from one side {i.e. left} to the other side {i.e. right} of the housing. As such, modified Sluka further provides the claimed structure of wherein along the width direction of the battery pack, the cell extends from one side to the other side of the housing (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
363
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 showing module housing length and width
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sluka discloses all limitation as set forth above. In modified Sluka, two rows of battery cells are provided and the rows are adjacent to one another in the width direction of the battery pack (Refer to Miler: Fig. 1A for example of arrangement and Sluka: Fig. 9). Furthermore, in between the battery cell rows, modified Sluka includes a longitudinal member (Sluka: [0099] and Miler: [0027]), as such, modified Sluka further provides the claimed structure of wherein the length direction of the cell is arranged along the width direction of the battery pack, the plurality of cells are arranged along the length direction of the battery pack (Refer to annotated Fig. 9 above) to form a battery array, that is one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the plurality of cells would form a battery array since the plurality of cells in a row are disclosed to be electrically connected to one another in a series ([0075 – 0076]), one-length transverse beam extending along the battery pack is provided in the housing (Sluka: [0099] and Miler: 118 in Fig. 1B/ 218 in 2F and [0027]), and the length direction transverse beam is located between two adjacent rows of battery arrays (Refer to position of 118 in Fig. 1B/ 218 in 2F in Miler).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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]).
Modified 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 some amount of inward pressing force on the cells, and thus read on the claimed structure, 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 limitation 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 two rows of modified cells {i.e. 1,400 – 1,500 mm} or slightly greater due to the inclusion of the structural member between the cell rows (Refer to Miler: 118 in Fig. 1B or 218 in 2F); and thus, be a housing width F that satisfies or is significantly close to the claimed range of 500 mm < F < 1500 mm.
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 selecting a width capable of appropriately accommodating the modified cells and longitudinal partition of Sluka’s battery pack and while also ensuring a battery pack with the desired active volume of 60% or more [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 23, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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 limitation as set forth above. Sluka further discloses wherein the housing is formed on an electric vehicle ([0113];[0118]).
Regarding Claims 26 – 27, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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). Additionally, 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 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 in view of physical/cost constraints relating to the manufacturing of the battery, with a reasonable exception of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claims 28 – 30, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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 in view of physical/cost constraints relating to the manufacturing of the battery, with a reasonable exception of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claims 31 – 32, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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 in view of physical/cost constraints relating to the manufacturing of the battery, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 35, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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 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) 21, 25, and 40 – 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sluka (EP3386001A1), Kumar (US PG Pub. 2012/0028105 A1), Shiozaki (EP1391950B1) and Miler (US PG Pub. 20190157635 A1), as applied to claim 1 and 35 above, and further in view of Stephens (US PG Pub. 2018/0337378 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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]).
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 to 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 modified Sluka’s battery pack has a structure and purpose similar to Stephens’ upper tray component {i.e. includes battery cells with cross members}, 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, and thus obtain the claimed vehicle tray, 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 25, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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 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 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]).
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 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 probable 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 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.
Modified 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), Shiozaki (EP1391950B1) and Miler (US PG Pub. 20190157635 A1), as applied to claim 1 and 33 above, and further in view of Cheng (CN107394279A – cited in Third-Party IDS filed 01/18/2025, Machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Sluka discloses all limitation 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), Shiozaki (EP1391950B1) and Miler (US PG Pub. 20190157635 A1), as applied to claim 1 and 35 above, and further in view of Xie (CN205488247U, Machine translation provided).
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 – 9, 11, and 21 – 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 –9, 11, and 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 18/604,555 is directed toward a battery pack comprising battery cells with dimensions and dimension ratios also required by the instant application (Claims 1 and 26 – 34) as well as structural limitations and a volume ratio {i.e. V1/V2} also required by instant application (Claims 1 – 9, 11, 21 – 25, and 35 – 37), and an electric vehicle/electronic 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, and 21 – 44 of co-pending Application No. 18/604,566 (reference application, published as US20240222764A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/604,566 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/electronic 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, and 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, 5 – 9, 11, 21 – 22, and 26 – 37), and an electric vehicle/electronic 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 – 4, 26 – 29, 33 – 37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 5, 13, 16 – 21 of co-pending Application No. 18/604,546 (reference application, published as US20240222760A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 18/604,546 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 – 5, 13, 16 – 21).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights