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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted June 23, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended and claim 12 is new, resulting in claims 1-12 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2011/0151311 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 6, Lee teaches a battery pack (30, Lee Figs. 7-9, [87]) comprising:
a first battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 8 shown below) including a plurality of battery cells (310, Lee [89])
a first side bracket disposed on a side plate of the first battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 7 shown below, referred to as “side bracket” and all elements pointed to are the side bracket)
a second battery module stacked on the first battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 8 shown below), and including a plurality of battery cells (310, Lee [89])
a second side bracket disposed on a side plate of the second battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 7 shown below, the first and second modules are represented by Fig. 7)
a mounting bracket disposed on an outer side of the first side bracket and the second side bracket (elements 340 taken together are the mounting bracket, annotated Lee Fig. 8 shown below)
wherein the mounting bracket covers the first side bracket and the second side bracket and is fastened to each of the first side bracket and the second side bracket by a plurality of fastening members extending through the mounting bracket in a lateral direction perpendicular to a stacking direction of the first and second battery modules (annotated Fig. 8 shown below)
wherein the first side bracket is attached to the side plate of the first battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 7 shown below, claim 3)
wherein the first side bracket has a nut that is secured to an inner surface thereof (annotated Lee Fig. 7 shown below, claim 4)
a first fastening member that is fastened to the nut through the mounting bracket (annotated Lee Fig. 7 shown below, claim 6)
PNG
media_image1.png
812
1235
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
833
1126
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
849
932
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Lee further teaches a bottom bracket (elements 330 and 360, Lee Fig. 8) covering a lower surface of the first battery module and the first side bracket (annotated Lee Fig. 8 shown below) and a third fastening member passing through the bottom bracket and the mounting bracket (annotated Lee Fig. 8 shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
702
1244
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Lee further teaches a top bracket covering an upper surface of the second battery module wherein the mounting bracket is fastened to the top bracket (annotated Lee Fig. 8 shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
769
1352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Lee further teaches a front bracket covering a front surface of the first battery module and a front surface of the second battery module and the mounting bracket being fastened to the front bracket (annotated Lee Fig. 8 shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
870
951
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster dictionary (adhesion definition, Merriam-Webster dictionary). These rejections describe an alternative interpretation of Lee using Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a battery pack (Lee Fig. 5) comprising:
a first battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 5 shown below) including a plurality of battery cells (Lee [80] each of the modules includes a plurality of cells)
a first side bracket disposed on a side plate of the first battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 5 shown below)
a second battery module stacked on the first battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 5 shown below), and including a plurality of battery cells (Lee [80] each of the modules includes a plurality of cells)
a second side bracket disposed on a side plate of the second battery module (annotated Lee Fig. 5 shown below)
a mounting bracket fastened to the first side bracket and the second side bracket (annotated Lee Fig. 5 shown below)
wherein the first side bracket is attached to an outer surface of the side plate of the first battery module by an adhesion member (Merriam-Webster dictionary defines adhesion as “steady or firm attachment”. Fig. 2 depicts a nut and bolt used to fasten the side bracket to the side plate which results in a “steady or firm attachment” between the side bracket and the side plate.)
PNG
media_image7.png
842
946
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claims 2, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches all features of claim 1, as described above (first interpretation of Lee using embodiment of Figs. 7-9). Lee further teaches that the battery cells can be cylindrical (Lee [38]) in an embodiment of their battery pack. The embodiment of Lee depicted in Figs. 7-9 does not explicitly teach that the battery cells can be cylindrical. However, since Lee teaches that battery packs of their invention can include cylindrical battery cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cylindrical battery cells in the embodiment of Lee depicted in Figs. 7-9, thus resulting in a plurality of cylindrical battery cells extending in an up-down direction in the first battery module and the second battery module, in order to obtain a battery pack comprising battery cells suitable for a desired application.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches all features of claim 1, as described above (first interpretation of Lee using embodiment of Figs. 7-9). The embodiment presented in Figs. 7-9 of Lee does not teach a middle bracket between the first battery module and the second battery module to cover the second side bracket and a second fastening member passing through the middle bracket and the mounting bracket.
However, the embodiment of Lee Fig. 4 teaches a middle bracket between the first battery module and the second battery module to cover the second side bracket (130 with frame bent portions 132, Lee Fig. 4) in order to bear the weight of the battery cells (Lee [61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the middle bracket of Fig.4 to the battery pack embodiment of Figs. 7-9 in order to provide additional support for bearing the weight of the battery cells.
Lee Fig. 4 does not teach a second fastening member passing through the middle bracket and the mounting bracket, instead the middle bracket and mounting bracket are fastened via welding (Lee Fig. 4, welding portions 165). However, since Lee teaches that it is known to fasten components of a battery pack using fastening members, as depicted in Lee Fig. 8, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the welding portions for fastening members passing through the middle bracket and the mounting bracket in order to achieve the predictable result of an assembled battery pack capable of supporting the weight of battery cells.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches all features of claim 1, as described above (first interpretation of Lee using embodiment of Figs. 7-9). Lee teaches a vehicle comprising the battery pack according to their invention (Lee [105]). Lee does not explicitly teach a vehicle comprising the battery pack of Figs. 7-9. However, since Lee teaches that it is suitable for battery packs of their invention to be used in vehicles, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the battery pack of Figs. 7-9 in a vehicle in order to achieve the predictable solution of an electric vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the specification due to language usage in the abstract is overcome by applicant’s amendments to the abstract in the response received on June 23, 2026. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
The rejections of claims 1 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee using the alternative interpretation of Lee are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received June 23, 2026. These rejections of claims 1 and 4-5 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andre (US 2015/0249238 A1): appears to disclose a battery pack for a vehicle comprising stacked battery modules, wherein each module contains a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 2, abstract).
Hamada (US 2012/0040237 A1): appears to disclose a battery pack comprising stacked battery modules and support members (Figs. 1-3).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights