DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-04-30, the following has occurred: Claims 1 has been amended; Claims 10 and 12 have been canceled; Claims 19 and 20 have been added.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a 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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-04-30 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Applicant argues that Burkert does not teach the claimed “gap”—identified as a gap, distinct from the claimed “spacing,” in an annotated Fig. 7B. The Non-Final Rejection indicates that there is a “first assembly gap” that is “provided between the end of the reinforcing member 6 and the end plate along the first direction” (6 being referred to in Burkert as a “temperature control element”). Applicant apparently argues that because the temperature control element 6 in Burkert is “received within carrier body 13, while end elements 146 are positioned at both ends of the carrier body,” there simply is no “gap” between the temperature control element 6 and the end plate (Remarks at p. 10). Applicant explains: “That is, end element 146 of Burkert is located outside of the temperature control element 6 along the extension direction […] Accordingly, because the gap to the left shown in annotated Fig. 7B of Burkert is between end element 146 and ‘end plate,’ not between temperature control element 6 (allegedly analogous to Applicant’s reinforcing member) and ‘end plate,’ Burkert fails to disclose or suggest Applicant’s first assembly gap, which is ‘provided between the end of the reinforcing member and the end plate along the first direction,’ as recited in claim 1” (Id.). The Figs. from Burkert are provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
401
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Office acknowledges that the temperature control element 6 is positioned within the carrier struts 1, and that the claimed “reinforcing members” 146 are formed as part of the carrier struts. The Office respectfully disagrees, however, that there is no “gap” between the temperature control element 6 and the end plate, simply because the temperature control element “made of a metal profile, such as an aluminum profile” is provided in “at least one recess” that is formed in the “separating web” of the carrier struts (¶ 0036). First, there is very clearly a “gap” shown in Fig. 7B, and it is positioned between the temperature control element 6 and the end plate as shown. It reads on the claim language as written. Second, there is also a “gap” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word between the temperature control element and the end plate, and that gap is smaller in size than the “spacing” between the cells and the end plate. See Fig. 3A. Applicant argues that there is no “gap” between 6 and the end plate because the reinforcing member or end element 146 is in the way, presumably filling the gap. But even if 146 fills the gap, there is still a gap. “Gap” is synonymous with “spacing.”
Applicant impermissibly reads the limitation more narrowly than the broadest reasonable interpretation by importing limitations concerning the definition of “gap,” such as that it spans the innermost surface of the end plate and stretches to the nearest surface of the reinforcing element without any intervening structures. The claims therefore remain rejected over Burkert.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, and 13-20 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)
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)
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, 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)
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 the reinforcing member 6 is a metal profile and the carrier strut is plastic (¶ 0036), such that the stiffness along the first direction of the reinforcing member 6 either implicitly is, or would be expected to be, greater than a stiffness of the buffer member 146
Insofar as the stiffness is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to form a stiffer metal profile than a plastic resin end piece, since metal typically has a higher longitudinal stiffness that plastic resins conventional in the art for cell carrier struts. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights