DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2025-12-30 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 2025-11-28, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 14 have been amended; Claims 10 and 12 have been (previously) canceled.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-18 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to require “wherein a first assembly gap is provided between the end of the reinforcing member and the end plate along the first direction […] under external load along the first direction, the first assembly gap closes such that the reinforcing member abuts the end plate and load is transmitted to the buffer member.” The specification as filed appears to refer to two separate embodiments:
Paragraph 0073 indicates that the reinforcement member 31 may be connected to the end plate in the first direction X by welding, adhering, abutting and the like.
Paragraph 0082, which contains the language of “first spacing” for a buffer member for the first time, indicates that the buffer member can be located within the “first spacing” and absorb impact forces transmitted by the deformation of the end plate. Paragraph 0086 appears to refer to a second embodiment in which the end plate is not connected to the end plate, but has “a first assembly gap” as claimed. When the end plate is deformed inwards from external forces, the assembly gap is narrowed so that the end plate beings to abut the reinforcing member and thereby “buffer the impact stress,” protecting the battery pack.
The specification does not clearly refer to a “first assembly gap clos[ing] such that the reinforcing member abuts the end plate and load is transmitted to the buffer member.” In the embodiment with an assembly gap, once the reinforcing member abuts the end plate it is the reinforcing member that assumes the load, not the buffer member. The force is apparently offloaded onto the reinforcing member from the buffer member in this embodiment. The claim appears to be directed towards something like the opposite: when the gap is closed by external forces impinging on the end plate, the load is “transmitted to the buffer member.” It is not clear what the relations are between the “buffer member,” the “reinforcing member,” the “end plate,” and the “first assembly gap” that might result in load being “transmitted to the buffer member” as a consequence of the first assembly gap closing and the reinforcing member beginning to abut the end plate. If anything, load would seem to be transmitted to the reinforcing plate and offloaded from the buffer member in the embodiment depicted in instant Fig. 3. The claim could, alternatively, be interpreted such that the buffer member is merely a section of the reinforcing member, and so when the gap is closed, the end plate abuts the buffer member, which is just a part of the reinforcing member. Claim 1 and its dependent claims have been interpreted this way as the most natural reading of the claim language, but it is unclear whether this is unambiguously described in the specification. Instant Fig. 3, for example shows the buffer member already contacting the end plate, so there does not appear to be any written description of an embodiment in which the buffer member, as a part of the reinforcing member, also has a first assembly gap.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As described above with regard to the written description, it is unclear what is meant by the clause “the first assembly gap closes such that the reinforcing member abuts the end plate and load is transmitted to the buffer member.” The embodiments as described and depicted in the instant application appear to show the first assembly gap closing such that the reinforcing member abuts the end plate and load is transmitted from the buffer member to the reinforcing member. If something else is meant, amendments should be made to clarify the structural relationships between the claimed elements. Claim 1 and its dependent claims have been interpreted such that the buffer member is merely a section of the reinforcing member, and so when the gap is closed, the end plate abuts the buffer member, which is just a part of the reinforcing member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burkert (US 2024/0213613 to Burkert et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Burkert teaches:
a battery comprising a battery pack of cells stacked along a first direction (Figs. 2 and 8, abstract)
a frame with a middle space that accommodates the battery pack(s) and an end plate that is part of the frame (e.g. Fig. 8, annotated Fig. 7b)
a reinforcing member 6 extending along the first direction and disposed on at least one lateral side of the battery pack in the first direction, and connected thereto (Fig. 3A, ¶ 0079)
PNG
media_image1.png
422
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
401
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a buffer member 146 located between the battery pack and an inner surface of the frame in the first direction, the buffer member comprising a plastic material and a reinforcing fiber material, such as glass or ceramic fibers, the buffer member being rigid, but designed to absorb load and protect the batteries, and interpreted to be “deformable” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, being formed of a rigid, reinforced plastic material, that is still capable of “absorbing” loads that are transferred through the outer frame but would not be expected not to bend or buckle at all under high enough loads, and is depicted as providing plenty of extra space along a ribbed edge, capable of deformation (¶0029-0032 and 0070, Figs. 3A and 7B)
wherein a first assembly gap is provided between the end of the reinforcing member 6 and the end plate along the first direction, and a first spacing is provided between the battery pack and the end plate along the first direction the first spacing is larger than the first assembly gap (Fig. 7b)
wherein a conditional external shock applied to the end plate, that deforms (damages, or breaks) the end plate, the first assembly gap closes such that the end plate would abut the buffer member 146, transmitting its load to the buffer member
Insofar as the buffer member can be interpreted to be a part of the reinforcing member, the end plate would be abutting the reinforcing member which comprises a buffer member accepting the load from the external shock.
Regarding Claim 3, Burkert teaches:
wherein a maximum size of the reinforcing member along the first direction is larger than a maximum size of the battery pack along the first direction (Fig. 7B)
Regarding Claim 4, Burkert teaches:
wherein two ends of the reinforcing member along the first direction exceed the battery pack (Fig. 7B)
Regarding Claim 5, Burkert teaches:
multiple reinforcing members provided, including at two lateral sides of the battery pack in the second direction, both connected to the battery pack (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 6, Burkert teaches:
wherein the reinforcing member is configured to be connected to a side-columnar surface of the battery cell, having the greatest surface area (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 7, Burkert teaches:
the reinforcing member having a heat exchange chamber (¶ 0082, Figs. 3C-D)
Regarding Claim 9, Burkert teaches:
multiple battery packs are provided with multiple reinforcing members between adjacent packs, side by side along a second direction intersecting the stacking direction (Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 11, Burkert teaches:
a bottom plate and a cover plate connected to the reinforcing members which are positioned between them (¶ 0085-0089)
Regarding Claim 13, Burkert teaches:
multiple battery packs with multiple reinforcing members, arranged alternately, and the buffer member 146 is sandwiched between adjacent two of the reinforcing members (Figs. 3A and 5)
Regarding Claim 14, Burkert teaches:
a coolant tube (visible sticking out from the plate 6 in Fig. 3A) that is in fluid connection with a cooling chamber circulating coolant in the reinforcing member 6, and connected to an end of the reinforcing member along the first direction, and fitted into an avoidance groove visible in the end portion of 146
Regarding Claim 15, Burkert teaches:
the avoidance groove located on a surface (i.e. the surface being pointed to as “1” in the Fig. 7B) that extends away from the battery cell stack along the first direction
Regarding Claim 16, Burkert teaches:
a bottom plate connected to the frame and a bottom of the buffer member faces the bottom plate is provided with a guiding structure (see e.g. protrusions on bottom of 146 in Fig. 7B)
Regarding Claim 17, Burkert teaches:
separating members 143 located in the frame extending along the first direction and connected to an inner surface of the frame to separate the space into sub-spaces for accommodating the battery packs and reinforcing members 6 (Fig. 3B, ¶ 0064)
Regarding Claim 18, Burkert teaches:
an electric apparatus connected to the pack (¶ 0003)
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkert (US 2024/0213613 to Burkert et al.) and Zhao (CN 217562697 to Zhou, the Office cites to provided machine translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Burkert does not teach:
adjacent two of the cells connected to each other through an adhesive
Zhao, however, from the same field of invention, regarding stacked cells in a battery pack, teaches providing an adhesive connection between cells along the stacking direction (p. 4). Furthermore, using potting foams or other adhesives was well-known in the art for adhering cells together (see e.g. ¶ 0011 of Burkert). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Although Burkert teaches that the embodiment shown does not need to be bonded or potted, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that bonding provided a tradeoff in terms of e.g. recyclability for improved cell insulation or, alternatively, cell thermal conductance. While a prior art reference that “teaches away” from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness, “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For a reference to teach away, it must explicitly criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Likewise, the mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the other alternatives. See MPEP § 2145, D.
Regarding Claim 8, Burkert does not teach:
adhering the reinforcing member to the battery cell
Zhao, however, from the same field of invention, regarding stacked cells in a battery pack, teaches providing an adhesive connection between cells and reinforcing members (p. 7, etc.). Furthermore, using potting foams or other adhesives was well-known in the art for adhering cells together and to the frame (see e.g. ¶ 0011 of Burkert). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Although Burkert teaches that the embodiment shown does not need to be bonded or potted, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that bonding provided a tradeoff in terms of e.g. recyclability for improved cell insulation or, alternatively, cell thermal conductance. While a prior art reference that “teaches away” from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness, “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For a reference to teach away, it must explicitly criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Likewise, the mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the other alternatives. See MPEP § 2145, D.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claim amendments overcome the prior art of record. The claims, however, are now rejected for lack of written description and indefiniteness. The prior art still appears to read on a gap between a reinforcing member, which has a buffer member portion, and an end plate, that would be closed conditional on the end plate being deformed inward by external force, wherein the load would be transmitted to the buffer member once it abuts the end plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723