BATTERY PACK

§102 §103 §112

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Specification 2. The amendment filed 8/5/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: within each of the abstract and the specification, the changing of: “an upper side of the plate part” to “a first side of the plate part” and “a lower side of the plate part” to “a second side of the plate part” Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. The same amendments are made to the claims; thus Applicant is directed to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph for further explanation. With respect to the abstract, it is noted a corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 4. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-15; claim 3, and thus dependent claims 4-10; and claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant amends original claim 1 on 8/5/2024 and changes the following: “an upper side of the plate part” to “a first side of the plate part” and “a lower side of the plate part” to “a second side of the plate part” This is a broadening-in-scope amendment that has no basis in the original disclosure; it cannot be said that at the effective filing date of the invention (i.e., at least the parent PCT application of which the instant application is a national stage entry filed on 12/1/2023), Applicant contemplated the breadth of the scope now presented by the proposed amendments. It is noted that with respect to upper and lower sides of the plate part, this has a relationship between the sides that they are opposite to one another in at least a first direction such the upper and lower sides would be understood to be parallel to one another. The same cannot be said for first and second sides, wherein a first side could be perpenidcular to a second side, as well as parallel therewith. Accordingly, what may constitute the claimed “first and second” sides is now broadened from that originally disclosed of “upper and lower sides.” For example, Kurita (US 2012/0315508) anticipates the claimed subject matter with the housing having a plate part 13, a plurality of battery devices 11 on a first side of the plate part (i.e., front side), and a ladder plate 14 (“cover plate”) on a second side of the housing (i.e., a side surface), with the first (front) and second sides perpendicular to one another, and a plurality of fastening members 15 that meet the remaining requirements (see Fig. 1): PNG media_image1.png 475 594 media_image1.png Greyscale Additionally, it cannot be said, for example, that there is a teaching that there is a cover plate on a second side of the plate part, that now may be an upper side of the plate part. The claims now allow for such an interpretation. As another example, the claimed cover plate could now be above the battery devices and the battery devices below the plate part given the broadening-in-scope amendment. An illustrated example of this exists in Lee (EP 4,776,416): PNG media_image2.png 423 674 media_image2.png Greyscale Th above construct was not described anywhere in the instant application as originaly filed or considered contemplated at the effective filing date of the invention; however, the broadening-in-scope amendments would be anticipated by the above reference (if prior art). Claims 3 and 15 recite further details utilizing the amended language. Applicant should correct claims 1, 3, and 15 to revert back to the original language. Appropriate correction is required. 5. 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. 6. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-15; claim 2; claim 5; claim 8; claim 9; claim 10; and claim 15 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. A) Claim 1 defines in part: “…a plurality of fastening members configured to fix the cover plate and the housing, wherein each of the plurality of fastening members includes a head part and a shank, a diameter of the shank being less than a diameter of the head part…” The claim first defines that there are a plurality of fastening members that each include a head part and a shank. Accordingly, there are thus intrinsically a plurality of respective shank parts and a plurality of head parts. Accordingly, the recitaton of, “..a diameter of the shank being less than a diameter of the head part..” fails to properly invoke antecedent basis, and does not make clear if the feature claimed is applicable to [each] shank part relative to its corresponding head part, or if only one of the fastening members has to have the feature claimed1. It does not appear that Applicant contemplated the latter option (i.e., there is no written description basis of “at least one” fastening member has said features). B) Claim 1 recites, “the head part of each of the plurality fastening members” There is insufficent antecedent basis for this limitation. This should be corrected to: “the corresponding head part of each of the plurality of fastening members…” C) Claim 2 recites, “the shank of each of the plurality of fastening members…” There is insufficent antecedent basis for this limitation. This should be corrected to: “the corresponding shank of each of the plurality of fastening members…” D) Claim 5 recites “a width of each of the plurality of ribs,” wherein it is not clear from the claims whether this is a considered a (collective) width of each of the plurality of ribs or a (respective) width of the each of the plurality of ribs. E) Claims 8-10 each recite a width comparison feature of each of the plurality of first ribs relative to a width of each of the plurality of second ribs. It is not clear from the claims whether this is considered a (collective) width or a (respective) width of the given components. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear and require correction. F) Claim 15 recites the feature of, “wherein the plurality of screw thread receiving parts are at a same level as the plurality of channels.” The meaning of the italicized feature is not clear because the meaning of “level” is not appropriately explained in the specification or the claims. “A level” is a broad term that could have multiple meanings and requires additional context. As examples, the battery pack could be said to have an upper level and a lower level divided by any dividing line (e.g., the halfway point; a line dividing the housing relative to constituents below or not part of the housing; a line existing above the plate part of the housing). As another example, “a level” could be a horizontal cross-sectional level having a given length, width, and thickness that cuts through a section of the battery pack. As another example, “a level” could be a two-dimensional plane cutting through a certain cross-section of the battery pack. The instant application does not clarify the meaning of a level within the specification or the claims such that metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation & Recommendations 7. As is standard in the prior art, one entity may be considered “on” another entity or a with intervening consituents between (i.e., indirectly on). It is also noted that the language of “on a [given] side” can also be simply locational (i.e., the entity exists adjacent to (i.e., “on”) a given side of something). As is also standard in the prior art, an entity may be considered “in contact with” another entity with the contact being indirect contact (i.e., with intervening component(s) therebetween) or direct contact. The same is also true of language such as “coupled to” (this may be indirectly coupled to within intervening component(s)) or “fixed to” or any other number of verbs describing one entity relative to another. The Examiner recommends that the claims further clarify, where properly supported, the structural requirements of the claim by removing these types of interpretations with the use of “directly coupled” or is “in direct contact,” etc. If the use of such language is solely supported by the figures, Applicant should point out the specific figure relied on for the feature and also amend the specification accordingly such that there is proper antecedent basis for the limitation in the specification (see MPEP 608.01(o)) (e.g., a coresponding amendment to the specification such as “As shown in Fig. #, the ____ is directly on the _____.”). Claim language added to the claims having no antecedent basis in the specification without corresponding amendments to the specification (see MPEP 608.01(o)) may be returned with a Notice of Non-Compliance with no additional time period for reply given the requirement has been clearly outlined in this Office Action. 8. The claim also recites, “a plurality of battery devices.” These could be interpreted as respective individual battery cells, or each battery device requires a plurality of battery cells. It is highly recommended that the plurality of battery devices is further defined to avoid the interpretion that battery cells reads on on the qutoed feature (see Kurita (US 2012/0315508) discussed above). The Examiner recommends requiring each of the plurality of battery devices 120 includes a plurality of battery cells (P65 of the PGPUB) to avoid the application of prior art including constructs with “a plurality of battery devices” being interpreted as a plurality of battery cells. 9. The majority of the dependent claims only ever reference the housing of the battery pack as having the features claimed, although the great majority if not all of the features are taught in the written description or shown in the figures as being more narrowly part of the plate part of the housing. The housing may include many other entities than just the claimed “plate part” (e.g., side walls, top wall, etc.) of the parent claim. The comment is made to demonstrate the breadth of where the dependent claim features may be located (i.e., they are not required to be part of the “plate part” of the parent claim, but rather may exist elsewhere within the claimed housing). 10. For compact prosecution purposes, the Examiner has applied the closest prior art to the claims in view of the instant application figures/originally claimed construct (see 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph); however, there is a vast amount of anticipatory prior art references available given the breadth of the claims presented that could be applied should Applicant not rememdy the above issues with appropriate claim amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 11. 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. 12. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota et al. (WO 2022/180675) (published Sept. 01 2022; using US 2023/0158878 family member as an English-language translation and copy thereof). First Interpretation2 Regarding claim 1, Ota teaches a battery pack 1 (Fig. 1) comprising: a housing 10 having a bottom plate 10b (“plate part”) (Figs. 1-5A; P17-21); a plurality of battery modules3 (“a plurality of battery devices”) on a first [an upper4] side of the bottom plate 10b (“plate part”) of the housing 10 (Figs. 1, 4-5A; P18, 20); an underguard plate 2 (“a cover plate”) on a second [a lower2] side of the bottom plate 10b (“plate part”) of the housing 10 (Figs. 1, 4-5A; P17, 23-29); and a plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) configured to fix the underguard plate 2 (“cover plate”) and the housing 10 (Figs. 4-5A; P25), wherein each of the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) includes a head part and a shank (see Figs. 4, 5A), a diameter of the shank being less than a diameter of the head part (see Figs. 4, 5A), and wherein the head part of each of the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) is in contact with the the underguard plate 2 (“cover plate”) (see Figs 4, 5A; entire disclosure relied uon). Second Interpretation Regarding claim 1, Ota teaches a battery pack 1 (Fig. 1) comprising: a housing 10 having a bottom plate 10b (“plate part”) (Figs. 1-5A; P17-21); a plurality of battery modules3 (“a plurality of battery devices”) on a first [an upper5] side of the bottom plate 10b (“plate part”) of the housing 10 (Figs. 1, 4-5A; P18, 20); a resin undercover 3 (“a cover plate”) on a second [a lower2] side of the bottom plate 10b (“plate part”) of the housing 10 (Figs. 1, 4-5A; P17, 23-29); a plurality of resin pins 25 (“fastening members”) configured to fix the resin undercover 3 (“cover plate”) and the housing 10 (P17, 25-26; see Figs. 1-4)) including a head part and a shank (illustrated in each of Figs. 1 and 4), a diameter of the shank being less than a diameter of the head part (Figs. 1 and 4), and wherein the head part of each of the plurality of resin pins 25 (“fastening members”) is in contact with the resin undercover 3 (“cover plate”) (Figs. 1 and 4). Regarding claim 2, Ota teaches wherein the shank of each of the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) is in contact with the housing 10 (Figs. 4, 5A). Regarding claim 3, Ota teaches wherein the housing 10 includes a plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) configured to allow a fluid to flow therethrough (P20) and extending in a first direction (mulitple interpretations) parallel to the first/upper side of the plate part (see Fig. 2, 4, 5A), and wherein the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) are interposed between the plurality of channels (see Figs. 4, 5A). Regarding claim 4, Ota teaches wherein the housing 10 includes a plurality of brackets 15 (“ribs”) interposed between the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) and extending in the first direction (see Figs. 2, 4, 5A), and wherein the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) are [directly] coupled to the plurality of brackets 15 (“ribs”) (Figs. 4, 5A). Alteranatively, Ota teaches wherein the housing 10 includes a plurality of flanges 10f (“a plurality of ribs”) interposed between the cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) and extending in the first direction (see Figs. 2, 4, 5A), and wherein the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) are [indirectly] coupled to the plurality of flanges 10f (“ribs”) [via brackets 15] (Figs. 4, 5A). Regarding claim 6, Ota teaches wherein the housing 10 includes a plurality of cavities (i.e., the cavities within the brackets 15 and/or the respective cavities defined between a given cooling pipe 12 and bracket 15; a given flange 10f and adjacnet cooling pipe 12; or between adjacent cooling pipes 12s) between the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) and the plurality of brackets 15 (“ribs”) [or flanges 10f (“ribs”) – see alternative interpretation above) (see Figs. 1- 5A), and wherein the plurality of cavities are empty spaces extending in the first direction (see Figs. 1- 5A). Regarding claim 7, Ota teaches wherein the housing 10 includes a plurality of brackets 15 (“first ribs”) and a plurality of flanges 10f (“second ribs”) that are interposed between the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) and extending in the first direction (see Figs. 1-4; as noted above, multiple interpretations existing for “the first direction”), and wherein each of the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) is coupled to a corresponding bracket 15 (“first rib”) among the plurality of brackets 15 (“first ribs”), and wherein each of the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) is spaced apart from the plurality of flanges 10f (“second ribs”) (Figs. 1-4; entire disclosre relied upon). Regarding claim 8, Ota teaches wherein a width of each of the plurality of brackets 15 (“first ribs”) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is a same as a width of each of the plurality of flanges 10f (“second ribs”) in the second direction (best shown in Fig. 2). For clarity, in the following non-limiting interpretation, when viewing the bottom surface of the housing 10 in Fig. 2 as it is oriented on the page, the “first direction” (parent claim 3) is considered the direction extending in the top-to-bottom direction of the page; and the “second direction” is considered the direction extending left-to-right (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 9, Ota teaches wherein a width of each of the plurality of brackets 15 (“first ribs”) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is different from a width of each of the plurality of plurality of flanges 10f (“second ribs”) in the second direction. For clarity, in the following non-limiting interpretation, when viewing the bottom surface of the housing 10 in Fig. 2 as it is oriented on the page, the “first direction” (parent claim 3) is considered the direction extending in the top-to-bottom direction of the page; and the “second direction” is considered is either the direction extending left-to-right (see Fig. 2) or into the page (see Fig. 2 or 4). Regarding claim 10, Ota teaches wherein a width of each of plurality of brackets 15 (“first ribs”) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is greater than a width of each of the plurality of plurality of flanges 10f (“second ribs”) in the second direction. For clarity, in the following non-limiting interpretation, when viewing the bottom surface of the housing 10 in Fig. 2 as it is oriented on the page, the “first direction” (parent claim 3) is considered the direction extending in the top-to-bottom direction of the page; and the “second direction” is considered is either the direction extending left-to-right (see Fig. 2) or into the page (see Fig. 2 or 4). Regarding claim 11, Ota teaches wherein the housing 10 includes a first plate (see Fig. 4; P18-19 describing that bottom plate 10b is formed by joining four extruded aluminumal materials via welding to one another at flanges 10f) and a second plate (Fig. 4; P18-19) extending in the first direction (multiple interpretation; note any three-dimensional object extends in all three x, y, z directions) and welded together (at welding flanges 12f) (Fig. 4; P18-19), and wherein each of the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) is spaced apart from welded surfaces (occuring at welding flanges 12f) of the first and second plates (see Figs. 2 and 4). Regarding claim 12, Ota teaches wherein the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) are arranged in a matrix (best shown in Figs. 1-2). Regarding claim 13, in the Second Interpretation, Ota teaches wherein the plurality of of the plurality of resin pins 25 (“fastening members”) are arranged in a zigzag shape (see Figs. 2-4). 13. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota et al. (WO 2022/180675) (published Sept. 01 2022; using US 2023/0158878 family member as an English-language translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further evidenced by: Huyett Marketing Department, “What is a Blind Rivet Nut? An Introductory Guide,” published 3/16/2023, accessed at https://ww.huyett.com (copy provided). Regarding claim 14, Ota teaches the housing 10 includes blind nuts 16 within brackets 15 fixed by swaging (P22) and wherein the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) are each described as a fastener that is inserted into the bolt hole 23a and fastened to the respective blind nut 16 (P25). The “plurality of fastening members including a head part and a shank” as defined in claim 1 are more commonly and simply referred to as a rivet (see evidential reference: “A rivet is a fastener with a head and a shank that fastens two or more surfaces together”). A blind nut 16 as taught by Ota, is also known as a blind threaded insert, threaded insert, or simply rivet nuts that feature a partially threaded, collapsible shank that is either bulged or swaged (see evidential reference; note swaging is taught by Ota- P22). Once swaging is completed, a bolt with threads (also termed a screw) threads the hollow shank portion of the blind rivet but 16 to complete the material connection such that the blint rivet nut receives the fastener (see evidential reference). The illustrated blind [rivet] nuts 16 with the opening illustrated and corresponding plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members” as claimed; also termed a rivet in the general state of the prior art), described as fixed by means of swaging (P22) with each bolt 23b (“fastening member”) fastened to the blind nut 16 (P25) are thus considered to intrinsically have a plurality of screw thread receiving parts (within blind rivet nut 16) that are in contact with the intrinsic screw threads of the plurality of bolt 23b (“fastening members”) as there does not appear to be any manner in which the described construct would not have said features and provide the fastening feature taught. The most relevant portions of the evidential reference relied upon are provided below: PNG media_image3.png 293 873 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 209 783 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 362 865 media_image5.png Greyscale It is noted that if Applicant contests this fact finding with respect to inherency, it is requested that Applicant provide an example of how the achieved connection is occuring without the above intrinsic structure in view of the collective whole of: the figures of Ota (Figs. 1-5A), the taught feature that the blind nuts 16 that are fixed by swaging (P22), the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) are described as a fastener that is inserted into the bolt hole 23a and fastened to the blind nut 16 (P25), and the evidential reference explaining the structure that achieves this fastening. The Examiner does not see any possibility where the above features are not intrinsic based on the description and figures of Ota in view of the evidential reference demonstrating the known struture of a blind rivet nut 16 in the illustrated format shown in Figs. 1-5A. Regarding claim 15, Ota teaches the housing 10 includes a plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) configured to allow a fluid to flow therethrough (P20) and extending in a first direction (mulitple interpretations) parallel to the first/upper side of the plate part (see Fig. 2, 4, 5A), and wherein the plurality of screw thread receiving parts [intrinsic as detailed above; located within blind rivet nuts 16] are at6 a same level7 (multiple interpretations) as the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) (see Figs. 1-5A). As some non-limiting interpretations7, it can be said that the the plurality of screw thread receiving parts [intrinsic as detailed above; located within blind rivet nuts 16] and the the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) are “at a same level” in the context of both exist at a lower level of the battery pack, the battering pack being considered to have an upper level and a lower level divided by any dividing line (e.g., the halfway point; a line dividing the housing relative to constituents below or not part of the housing; a line existing above the plate part of the housing, etc). Alternatively, the the plurality of screw thread receiving parts [intrinsic as detailed above; located within blind rivet nuts 16] and the the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) are “at a same level” in the context “a level” could be a horizontal cross-sectional level having a given length, width, and thickness that cuts through a section of the battery pack (best shown in fig. 5A). Alternatively, the the plurality of screw thread receiving parts [intrinsic as detailed above; located within blind rivet nuts 16] and the the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) are “at a same level” in the context “a level” is a two-dimensional plane cutting through a certain cross-section of the battery pack (see Fig. 5A). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 14. 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. 15. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (WO 2022/180675) (published Sept. 01 2022; using US 2023/0158878 family member as an English-language translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claims 1 and 4 above. Regarding claim 5, Ota does not specific a width value or width range for each of the plurality of brackets 15 (ribs”) (first interpretation) the plurality of flanges 10f (alternative interpretation) (claimed range is 5 mm to 20 mm); however, they intrinsically each have some width value as they are three-dimensional objects, wherein given the claimed width feature is not defined with respect to other components or in a given direction relative to the components, there are multiple interptations of what the claimed “width” measurement is. The plurality of brackets 15 (“ribs”) (first interpretation) provide the functionality of housing a respective blind nut 16 to which a respective bolt 23b (“fastening member”) is inserted into and fastened, wherein the collective bracket 15 (“rib”), blind nut 16, and bolt 23a function to secure the housing 10 to the underguard plate 2 (“cover plate”). The brackets 15 (“rib”) also serve to protect the cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) when deformation of the cover plate 2 (“a cover plate”) occurs (see Figs. 5B-5C; P29-40) and must protrude to have a certain width (in the up-down direction of Fig. 5C) to protect the cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) such that the deformation is not applied to the cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) (Figs. 5B-5C; P29-40) The plurality of welding flanges 10f (“ribs”) (alternative interpretation) are utilized to join and weld the four extredued aluminum materials that form bottom plate 10b and are taught as formed downwardly along the sides edges of the extruded materials and used to weld the extruded materials to each other (P18; Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine an appropriate or optimum width value or range (in a given direction presently not specified) of the plurality of brackets 15 (“ribs”) (first interpretation) and the plurality of welding flanges 10f (“ribs”) (alternative interpretation) in ordre that they may achieve their respective functions as detailed above, the feature largely considered a matter of design choice. To this end, the court has held that, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) and that the change in dimensions, form, or shape, without any new or unexpected results fully commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter, is a matter of obvious engineering design (see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It is noted that is the position of the Examiner that the instant application provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the claimed width range, wherein of particular note is that the “width” as claimed could be measured in a variety of directions such that arguendo, even if a specific width in a given direction was taught in the specification as critical and creating a new or unexpected result, the claim would not be commensurate in scope with the evidenced offered. 16. Claims 14 and 15 are alternatively rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (WO 2022/180675) (published Sept. 01 2022; using US 2023/0158878 family member as an English-language translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, as further evidenced by: Huyett Marketing Department, “What is a Blind Rivet Nut? An Introductory Guide,” published 3/16/2023, accessed at https://ww.huyett.com (copy provided), and further in view of Cook et al. (US 2022/0302547). Regarding claim 14, the full anticipatory rejection presented against claim 14 above is incorporated here by reference and not repeated. For compact prosecution purposes, an alternative obviousness rejection is made here in the instance Applicant can demonstrate that the findings of inherency are somehow misplaced. Ota teaches the housing 10 includes blind nuts 16 within brackets 15 fixed by swaging (P22) and wherein the plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) are each described as a fastener that is inserted into the bolt hole 23a and fastened to the respective blind nut 16 (P25). In the instance it can be demonstrated that the blind nuts 16 do not intrinsically have a plurality of screw thread receiving parts in contact with screw threads of the plurality of bolts (“fastening members”), the following obviousness analysis is made. In the same field of endeavor of a battery pack including a battery enclosure fastener, Cook teaches it a known construct that the fastening device may be in the format of a nut into which a bolt is inserted and fastened, wherein threads of the bolt and engaged with threads of the nut to thereby secure first and second parts of the battery enclosure to one another (P7; 22-23, 38, 45; entire dislcosure relied upon). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the blind nuts 16 and plurality of bolts 23b (“fastening members”) of Ota with respective threading such that the blind nuts 16 include respective screw thread receiving parts and the bolts 23b (“fastening memebrs”) have corresponding screw threads that allow for the components to engage and be secured to one another, thereby providing a way to secure the componetns of the battery pack to one another. Regarding claim 15, Ota teaches the housing 10 includes a plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) configured to allow a fluid to flow therethrough (P20) and extending in a first direction (mulitple interpretations) parallel to the first/upper side of the plate part (see Fig. 2, 4, 5A), and wherein the plurality of screw thread receiving parts [located within blind rivet nuts 16] are at8 a same level9 (multiple interpretations) as the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) (see Figs. 1-5A). As some non-limiting interpretations7, it can be said that the the plurality of screw thread receiving parts [intrinsic as detailed above; located within blind rivet nuts 16] and the the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) are “at a same level” in the context of both exist at a lower level of the battery pack, the battering pack being considered to have an upper level and a lower level divided by any dividing line (e.g., the halfway point; a line dividing the housing relative to constituents below or not part of the housing; a line existing above the plate part of the housing, etc). Alternatively, the the plurality of screw thread receiving parts [intrinsic as detailed above; located within blind rivet nuts 16] and the the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) are “at a same level” in the context “a level” could be a horizontal cross-sectional level having a given length, width, and thickness that cuts through a section of the battery pack (best shown in fig. 5A). Alternatively, the the plurality of screw thread receiving parts [intrinsic as detailed above; located within blind rivet nuts 16] and the the plurality of cooling pipes 12 (“channels”) are “at a same level” in the context “a level” is a two-dimensional plane cutting through a certain cross-section of the battery pack (see Fig. 5A). Conclusion 17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The following are additional anticpatory references of at least the subject matter of claim 1: Jeon et al. (US 2018/0287227); and Hirose et al. (US 2020/0119321). Additionally, the EP search report dated 5/26/2025 (see Global Dossier filed and IDS citations) cites five10 additional anticpatory (“X”) references against at least the claims listed below: PNG media_image6.png 493 460 media_image6.png Greyscale Jeon et al. (US 2025/0266548) having a common assignee and some common inventors, less all, is prior art and anticipates at least claim 1: PNG media_image7.png 466 653 media_image7.png Greyscale Hur et al. (US 2025/0167369) has a common assignee and some common inventors, less all, that constitutes prior art and anticipates at least claim 1. 18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BILLIET, nee Barrow, whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST. 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, Ula C Tavares-Crockett can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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. /AMANDA J BILLIET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 1 It is noted that whatever correction is made to the claim should also be made to the abstract when replacing the abstract which recites same. 2 Unless otherwise explicitly noted in the dependent claims, the First Interpretation is relied upon to reject the dependent claims. This is not to say that the Second Interpreation might not also inclue the necessary structure to meet the dependent claims; the Examiner does not have sufficient time to expand upon multiple interpretations for each and every claim. Applicant should review the entire document as a whole, including alternative itnterpretations where set forth, when making claim amendments for compact prosecution. 3 It is noted that a plurality of battery cells is taught as being housed inside each battery module (P18). In an alternative interpretation, the battery cells also read on “a plurality of battery devices” as presented. 4 The original, supported language is addressed for compact prosecution purposes. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph regarding the original construct claimed. 5 The original, supported language is addressed for compact prosecution purposes. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph regarding the original construct claimed. 6 “at” is broadly defined as “in, on, or near” 7 See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph regarding this limitation; the claim is examined as best as possible. 8 “at” is broadly defined as “in, on, or near” 9 See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph regarding this limitation; the claim is examined as best as possible. 10 The first “X” reference listed is the Chinese family member of the Ota reference applied above.