DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20180337378), hereinafter Stephens.
Regarding claim 1, Stephens teaches a traction battery pack ([0005]), comprising:
a cell stack including a plurality of battery cells arranged between a first cross-member assembly and a second cross-member assembly ([0005], cross members 230);
the first cross-member assembly and the second cross-member assembly, and a first reinforcement beam ([0006], [0010], [0059-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the frame of Stephens with a ladder frame configuration. Attaching the first reinforcement beam to the ladder frame would have been a routine design choice. Ladder frames are well known in the art for improving structural rigidity, load distribution, and support of battery system components. The modification would have involved the predictable use of a known frame design to achieve its established advantages and would have amounted to nothing more than routine design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stephens further teaches a pultruded structure ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to form the beam structure of Stephens as a pultruded beam structure. Stephens teaches that components of the tray are formed from pultruded materials. Given Stephens’ recognition of pultrusion as a suitable manufacturing technique for structural tray components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the same pultrusion process to the tray’s beam structure in order to obtain the known advantages of pultruded members, including high strength-to-weight ratio, dimensional consistency, corrosion resistance, an manufacturing efficiency. The modification merely involves using a known manufacturing technique for a known structural component to achieve its predictable benefits.
Regarding claim 3, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Stephens further teaches a beam structure ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to form the beam structure of Stephens as a pultruded beam structure. Stephens teaches that components of the tray are formed from pultruded materials. Given Stephens recognition of pultrusion as a suitable manufacturing technique for structural tray components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the same pultrusion process to the tray’s beam structure in order to obtain the known advantages of pultruded members, including high strength-to-weight ratio, dimensional consistency, corrosion resistance, an manufacturing efficiency. Furthermore, the selection of an E-shaped, an M-shaped, a W-shaped, or a C-shaped cross-section for the pultruded beam structure would have been an obvious matter of routine design choice, as such cross-sectional profiles were well known in the art for providing desired structural properties such as strength, stiffness, and load-bearing capability. The modification would have involved the predictable use of known beam configurations to achieve their established benefits and would have amount to no more than routine engineering optimization.
Regarding claim 4, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stephens further teaches the ladder frame includes a first engagement feature that is configured to interdigitate with a second engagement feature of the first reinforcement beam ([0042-0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to configure the ladder frame, as modified in claim 1. Stephens teaches reinforcement members and cross member that are connected together to provide structural support for the tray assembly. Additionally, those components engage on the inside surfaces of the battery tray components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing complementary interdigitating engagement feature between connected structural members is a known and predictable technique for facilitating assembly, improving alignment of the components, and enhancing load transfer across the connection. Accordingly, incorporating interdigitating engagement features between the ladder frame and the first reinforcing beam would have been an obvious design modification between the members and would have amounted to no more than routine engineering optimization.
Regarding claim 5, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 4, as stated above. Stephens further teaches:
The first engagement feature includes a first finger that is received within a first slot of the second engagement feature ([0042-0046]);
The second engagement feature includes a second finger received within a second slot of the first engagement feature ([0042-0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to implement the interdigitating engagement features of claim 4 using fingers and corresponding slots. Once it was obvious to provide interdigitating engagement feature between the structural members, the particular implementation of those features as alternating fingers and slots would have been a predictable and conventional arraignment for achieving interdigitation. Such finger-and-slot connections were well known for aligning mating components, increasing engagement area, and facilitating assembly. The selections of fingers and corresponding slots therefore represents nothing more than a routine design choice for implementing the previously discussed interdigitating connection and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Stephens further teaches engagement features. ([0042-0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to configure the second engagement feature with an E-shaped cross-section. As discussed with respect to claim 3, E-shaped cross-sections are well-known structural profiles used to provide desired strength, stiffness, load distribution, and engagement characteristics. Once it was obvious to provide interdigitating engagement features between structural members, selecting an E-shaped cross-section for one of the engagement features would have been a matter of routine engineering design choice based on the desired structural and assembly characteristics. The use of an E-shaped profile would have predictably provided multiple engagement surfaces and facilitated the interdigitating connection, resulting in no more than the predictable use of a known structural configuration for its established purpose.
Regarding claim 7, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 4, as stated above. Stephens fails to teach an end cap mounted to an end of the first reinforcement beam. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an end cap at the end of Stephens reinforcement beams. End caps are well known structural components conventionally used to close, finish, protect, and reinforce the ends of frame members and beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate and end cap to protect the exposed end of the reinforcement beam, improve the overall structural integrity and appearance of the assembly, and facilitate attachment to adjacent components. The modification merely involves the use of known finishing and attachment features for its established purpose and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Stephens fails to teach an end cap that includes a third engagement feature that is configured to interdigitate with the second engagement feature. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to configure the end cap of claim 7 to include a third engagement feature that interdigitates with the second engagement feature. As discussed with respect to claims 4 and 5, interdigitating engagement features are a known and predictable means of joining structural components, improving alignment, increasing engagement area, and enhancing load transfer between connected members. Once it was obvious to provide an end cap on the reinforcement beam, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the connection between the end cap and the adjacent structural member using complementary interdigitating features in order to achieve a secure and properly aligned connection. The modification represents nothing more than the routine application of a known connection technique to a known structural component and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stephens fails to teach a ladder frame includes an integrally formed fastener housing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the ladder frame of claim 1 with an integrally formed fastener housing. Fastener housings are conventional structural features used to facilitate the attachment of components to a frame and to provide a designated location for receiving fastening elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating a fastener housing into the frame structure would simplify assembly, improve component retention and provide a reliable attachment interface for associated components. The modification merely involves the incorporation of a known fastening feature into a known structural frame and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 9, as stated above. Stephens fails to teach a ladder frame includes an integrally formed fastener housing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a fastener insert within the fastener housing, the fastener insert being configured to receive a fastener. Fastener inserts were well known in the art as conventional means for securing components together and providing durable threaded or reinforced attachment points. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a fastener insert within the fastener housing to facilitate assembly, improve fastening reliability, and enhance the durability of the connection. The use of a fastener insert for receiving a fastener constitutes nothing more than the predictable use of a known attachment mechanism for its established purpose and would have amounted to routine engineering design.
Regarding claim 11, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Stephens further teaches a second reinforcement ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the frame of Stephens with a ladder frame configuration. Attaching the second reinforcement beam to the ladder frame would have been a routine design choice. Ladder frames are well known in the art for improving structural rigidity, load distribution, and support of battery system components. The modification would have involved the predictable use of a known frame design to achieve its established advantages and would have amounted to nothing more than routine design choice.
Regarding claim 12, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Stephens further teaches:
The first reinforcement beam establishes a first pultrusion of the first cross-member assembly or the second cross-member assembly ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230);
The second reinforcement beam establishes a second pultrusion of the first cross-member assembly or the second cross-member assembly ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230).
Stephens teaches first and second reinforcement beams and further teaches the use of pultruded materials for structural tray components, as taught in claim 2 above. Given Stephens recognition of pultrusion as a suitable manufacturing technique for structural members, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the reinforcement beams and associated cross member assemblies as integrated or corresponding pultruded structural features in order to obtain the known benefits of pultruded structures, including increased strength-to-weight ratio, dimensional consistency, corrosion resistance, and manufacturing efficiency. The modification merely involves applying Stephens disclosed pultrusion technology to the reinforcement beam and cross member arrangement to achieve predictable structural and manufacturing advantages and would have amount to no more than routine optimization of the tray structure.
Regarding claim 13, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Stephens further teaches:
The first reinforcement beam is mounted to an upper portion ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b);
The second reinforcement beam is mounted to a lower portion ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b).
As discussed with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify Stephens to include a ladder frame structure as a conventional support framework for the tray assembly. Stephens further expressly teaches a first reinforcement beam and a second reinforcement beam positioned within the frame structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to mount the first reinforcement beam to an upper portion of the ladder frame and to mount the second reinforcement beam to a lower portion of the ladder frame. In view of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that positioning reinforcement beams at upper and lower portions of a frame structure is a known and predictable configuration for distributing loads increasing rigidity, and improving structural stability. Once the ladder frame is incorporating into Stephens, mounting the first reinforcement beam to an upper portion and the second reinforcement beam to a lower portion would have been an obvious arraignment of known structural elements to achieve balanced reinforcement across the frame. Such positioning represents noting more than routine optimization of beam placement within a support frame to obtain predictable mechanical benefits.
Regarding claim 14, Stephens teaches a traction battery pack ([0005]), comprising:
a cross-member assembly ([0005], cross members 230) including:
a first reinforcement beam ([0006], [0010], [0059-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230);
a second reinforcement beam ([0006], [0010], [0059-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the frame of Stephens with a ladder frame configuration. Attaching the first and second reinforcement beams to the ladder frame would have been a routine design choice. Ladder frames are well known in the art for improving structural rigidity, load distribution, and support of battery system components. The modification would have involved the predictable use of a known frame design to achieve its established advantages and would have amounted to nothing more than routine design choice.
Regarding claim 15, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Stephens further teaches:
The first reinforcement beam establishes a first pultrusion of the cross-member assembly ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230);
The second reinforcement beam establishes a second pultrusion of the cross-member ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063], extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230).
Stephens teaches first and second reinforcement beams and further teaches the use of pultruded materials for structural tray components, as taught in claim 2 above. Given Stephens recognition of pultrusion as a suitable manufacturing technique for structural members, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the reinforcement beams and associated cross member assemblies as integrated or corresponding pultruded structural features in order to obtain the known benefits of pultruded structures, including increased strength-to-weight ratio, dimensional consistency, corrosion resistance, and manufacturing efficiency. The modification merely involves applying Stephens disclosed pultrusion technology to the reinforcement beam and cross member arrangement to achieve predictable structural and manufacturing advantages and would have amount to no more than routine optimization of the tray structure.
Regarding claim 18, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Stephens fails to teach a first end cap mounted to an end of the first reinforcement beam, and a second end cap mounted to an end of the second reinforcement beam. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an end caps at the end of Stephens reinforcement beams. End caps are well known structural components conventionally used to close, finish, protect, and reinforce the ends of frame members and beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate and end cap to protect the exposed end of the reinforcement beam, improve the overall structural integrity and appearance of the assembly, and facilitate attachment to adjacent components. The modification merely involves the use of known finishing and attachment features for its established purpose and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Stephens fails to teach
a first fastener insert received within a first fastener housing of the ladder frame;
a second fastener insert received within a second fastener housing of the ladder frame.
As discussed with respect to claims 9 and 10, fastener housings and fastener inserts are conventional structural features used to provide secure attachment points within a frame structure. Once it was obvious to incorporate a fastener housing and fastener insert into the ladder frame, it would have been an obvious matter of routine design choice to provide multiple such housings and inserts at different locations on the frame to accommodate multiple attachment points, improve load distribution, and facilitate assembly of associated components. The use of the first and second fastener inserts within corresponding first and second fastener housings merely represents the duplication of known fastening features to achieve their expected purpose and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Stephens further teaches a beam structure ([0006], [0010], [0015], [0057-0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to form the beam structure of Stephens as a pultruded beam structure. Stephens teaches that components of the tray are formed from pultruded materials. Given Stephens recognition of pultrusion as a suitable manufacturing technique for structural tray components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the same pultrusion process to the tray’s beam structure in order to obtain the known advantages of pultruded members, including high strength-to-weight ratio, dimensional consistency, corrosion resistance, an manufacturing efficiency. Furthermore, the selection of an E-shaped, an M-shaped, a W-shaped, or a C-shaped cross-section for the pultruded beam structure would have been an obvious matter of routine design choice, as such cross-sectional profiles were well known in the art for providing desired structural properties such as strength, stiffness, and load-bearing capability. The modification would have involved the predictable use of known beam configurations to achieve their established benefits and would have amount to no more than routine engineering optimization.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens in view of Matecki et al. (US 11660950), hereinafter Matecki.
Regarding claim 16, Stephens teaches the limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Stephens teaches a cross-member assembly, and a first and second reinforcement beams (extending reinforcement members 224a, 224b, cross members 230). Stephens fails to teach:
the first reinforcement beam establishes an upper plateau of the cross-member assembly;
the second reinforcement beam establishes a lower base of the cross-member assembly.
Matecki teaches structural frame members having upper and lower portions that define corresponding upper and lower plateaus within the frame structure (Fig. 7, 16, cross beam member 44, bracket 50).
Stephens and Matecki are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery assembly modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to configure the first and second reinforcement beams of Stephens such that the first reinforcement beam establishes an upper plateau of the cross-member assembly and the second reinforcement beam establishes a lower plateau of the cross-member assembly as taught by Matecki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Matecki’s arrangement because defining upper and lower plateaus within a frame structure provide improved component support, facilitates assembly and positioning of associated components, and enhances overall structural organization of the frame. The modification merely involves arranging known structural members according to a known configuration to obtain predictable structural and assembly benefits and would have amounted to routine engineering design.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens in view of Borghi et al. (US 20220169126), hereinafter Borghi.
Regarding claim 17, Stephens and Matecki teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Stephens, as modified by Matecki in claim 16, teaches a frame structure including an upper and lower plateau established by the reinforcement beams and cross member assembly. Stephens and Matecki fails to teach applying and adhesive for securing structural components within a battery support structure. Borghi teaches applying an adhesive to join together component of the frame assembly ([0041]).
Stephens, Matecki, and Borghi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery assembly modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to apply and adhesive to the upper plateau and the lower plateau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize adhesive at these locations to facilitate attachment of components, improve load distribution, reduce relative movement between assembled parts, and enhance overall structural integrity. The use of adhesive for joining and securing structural members was well known in the art and represents the predictable use of a known attachment technique for its established purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights