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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/11/2024, 04/08/2025, 04/23/2025, 09/26/2025, and 01/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 03/11/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 03/11/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the ventilation portion” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the ventilation portion” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the outer ventilation portion” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn et al. (U S2020/0152926 A1; hereinafter “Wynn”).
Regarding claim 1, Wynn discloses a battery module frame (Title/Abstract) comprising a polyhedral battery module frame (100/110) in which a plurality of battery cells (200) are accommodated (as shown in Figs 1 and 2), comprising:
a first layer (metallic layer, [0023-0025]) made of an aluminum material (aluminum foil, [0023]);
a second layer (composite body, [0019]) stacked on the first layer (see [0025] which describes that the metallic layer may be affixed to the composite body) and made of a reinforced plastic material ([0019]); and
a third layer (metallic layer, [0023-0025]) stacked on the second layer (see [0025] which describes that the metallic layer may be affixed to the coating layer; see also [0023-0024] which describes the metallic layer on opposite sides of the composite body/coating layer) and made of an aluminum material (aluminum foil, [0023]).
Wynn discloses that the second layer is a reinforced plastic material (as noted above) made specifically of glass fibers infused with an epoxy polymer ([0019]), but does not explicitly disclose that the reinforced plastic material has a higher melting point than the first layer, i.e. aluminum material.
Wynn is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery module frames.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the composite body material of Wynn would reasonably have a higher melting point than that of the aluminum first layer because the materials are substantially similar to the instant reinforced plastic material, specifically both are glass fibers with an epoxy resin polymer (as noted above and as described in the Instant Specification e.g. pg. 10, lines 11-15), and because where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case or either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Wynn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
With respect to the limitation “the battery module frame is formed by performing press processing on all the first to third layers in a stacked state”, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. "The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e.----." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Because patentability of product claims are based on the product’s structure, and Wynn discloses the claimed structure (as noted above), the process limitations are not afforded patentable weight since such limitations do not appear to provide the claimed product with patentably distinct structure.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Wynn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Wynn further discloses a fastening portion, specifically a bolted portion, that is formed on the first or third layer (see [0015] which describes that the cover (100) and frame (110) are affixed via e.g. bolts, and which thus necessarily penetrate through the first or third layers because the cover is formed of the first and third layers, as noted above).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Wynn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Wynn further discloses that the reinforced plastic material that forms the second layer is a material in which aromatic nylon fibers (glass fibers, [0019]) and a thermosetting resin (epoxy, [0019]) are combined, specifically as a glass fiber reinforced plastic ([0019]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn et al. (U S2020/0152926 A1; hereinafter “Wynn”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lin et al. (CN 107887537 A; hereinafter “Lin”; see attached machine translation for reference).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Wynn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Wynn does not disclose that in at least one side of the battery module frame, specifically an upper surface, ventilation portions exposing the second layer are formed in a portions of the first layer and the third layer.
Lin teaches an electric vehicle battery box (Title). Lin teaches that the battery box is comprised of a cover body with exhaust through holes (2321, as shown in Fig 3) for providing cooling and waterproofness using two channel air flow via forced convection using the chimney effect, thus improving the lightweight property, safety, good radiating performance, and drainage (pg. 18, ¶7).
Lin is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery module frames.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ventilation portions, i.e. ventilation holes, of Lin in the upper surface, i.e. cover, of Wynn with the reasonable expectation that doing so would provide cooling via forced convection using the chimney effect and improve the lightweight property, safety, good radiating performance, and drainage of the battery module frame, as suggested by Lin. The skilled artisan would find it further obvious that the ventilation portions of modified Wynn expose the second layer because they are through holes (Lin: as shown in Figs 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wynn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Wynn further discloses that the ventilation portion is provided as a plurality of ventilation portions formed in a diagonal direction (Lin: absent additionally recited reference (i.e. diagonal to which surfaces?), it is submitted that there is a diagonal direction passing through the two ventilation portions, as shown in Fig 3, e.g. from one lower corner of one ventilation portion to the opposing upper corner portion of the other ventilation portion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a battery module frame wherein an inner ventilation portion formed in the first layer and outer ventilation portions formed in the third layer do not overlap each other.
Wynn et al. (U S2020/0152926 A1; hereinafter “Wynn”) in view of Lin et al. (CN 107887537 A; hereinafter “Lin”; see attached machine translation for reference) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claim 10. Modified Wynn discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Wynn does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited inner and outer ventilation portions not overlapping each other. To the contrary, modified Wynn explicitly discloses that the ventilation portions are through holes formed in the battery module cover (Lin: as shown in Figs 3-5), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon such through holes and be directed towards offset ventilation portions because doing so would defeat the explicit purpose of providing an exhaust for cooling purposes (Lin: see e.g. pg. 18, ¶7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoon et al. (US 9,640,790 B2) discloses a battery module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/03/2026
Prosecution Insights