DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 12/30/2025 was received. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 Objections
2. The objection to claim 4 is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claim.
3. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 as amended does not include proper subject-verb agreement in the final line (“and the second protrusion portion is connect to the mounting beam.”)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis:
4. The following was provided in the previous Office Action and is repeated here.
It is noted with respect to the breadth of the claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
196
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The use of “mount,” “connect,” etc. as used in the claims is properly interpreted as an indirect mounting, indirect connection, etc. unless the claims are amended to require direct mounting, direct connection, etc. The same is true of one element “on” another element which is interpreted as allowing for the interpretations of directly on or indirectly on the another element as is standard in the state of the prior art and similar to the definition above.
5. Claim 1 is analyzed below given all the “configured to” statements (see corresponding footnotes):
A housing configured to accommodate a battery module1, comprising:
a base plate having a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to each other in a thickness direction, wherein a reinforcement structure is provided on the base plate;
a module beam configured to mount the battery module2, wherein the module beam is disposed on the first side surface; and
a mounting beam configured to mount the housing3,
wherein the mounting beam is disposed on the second side surface;
wherein the reinforcement structure…”
These interpretations will be utilized in all prior art rejections below and not repeated therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The rejection of (at least) claims 1, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwab (US 2011/0262801) is withdrawn in view of the amendments provided.
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Long et al.(WO 2025/043672) (copy provided) is withdrawn in view of the proper statement of Common Ownership made in the response filed 12/30/2025 disqualifying the reference from being applied as prior art.
7. Newly added independent claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwab (US 2011/0262801)
Regarding claim 19, Schwab teaches a housing 20 configured to accommodate a battery module, comprising:
a bottom wall 52 (“base plate”) having a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to each other in a thickness direction, wherein a reinforcement structure (60a/63) is provided on the base plate;
a rib 66 (“module beam”) configured to mount the battery module (Figs. 3-4; P22-23), wherein the rib 66 (“module beam”) is disposed on the first side surface; and
a receiving member 61 (“mounting beam”) configured to mount the housing 20,
wherein the reinforcement structure (60a/63Z) comprises a protrusion portion 63 formed by the bottom wall 52 (“base plate”) recessed toward the first side surface and protruding from the first side surface, the protrusion portion 63 is connected to the rib 66 (“module beam”), a cavity (indentation portion 60a) is formed on the second side surface of the base plate corresponding to the protrusion portion 63, and the receiving member 61 (“mounting beam”) is provided with a protrusion block (illustrated) (Figs. 1, 3) inserted into the cavity (indentation 60a) of the bottom wall 52 (“base plate”) to connect the receiving member 61 (“module beam”) with the bottom wall 52 (“base plate”) (Figs. 1-4; P15-24).
8. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-14 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Loo et al. (US 2012/0301765) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments provided.
The rejections against claims 2 and 4 are withdrawn in view of their cancellation.
The rejections of claims 8-10 are withdrawn in view of the amendments made and the withdrawal of at least one of the interpretations set forth against claim 1 from the prior Office Action in view of the amendments made.
Newly added independent claim 19 is also rejected under this heading.
It is noted some of the prior interpretations have been withdrawn; one prior interpretation is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments provided; and at least two new interpretations of the subject matter of Loo are presented below to reflect the amendments made.
First Interpretation – withdrawn in view of the amendments filed
Second Interpretation – withdrawn in view of the amendments filed
Third Interpretation – maintained and updated to reflect the amendments; hereinafter renamed “Interpretation A”
Regarding claim 1, Loo teaches a housing (24/40 – Figs. 3, 7 or 24/40/20=10 – Fig. 3) configured to accommodate a battery module, comprising:
a base plate 40 having a first side surface (upper surface in Fig. 3) and a second side surface (lower surface in Fig. 3) opposite to each other in a thickness direction, wherein a reinforcement structure (portions 58 of L-shaped reinforcing member 42 that are welded to base plate 40 – Fig. 5) is provided on the base plate 40;
a module beam (tray 20 including projections 32) configured to mount the battery module 36, wherein the module beam (20/32) is disposed on the first side surface (Figs. 4-5); and
a frame 24 (“mounting beam”) configured to mount the housing, wherein the frame 24 (“mounting beam”) is disposed on the second side surface (see Fig. 4)
alternatively the “mounting beam” could be mounting bracket 28 (“mounting beam”) configured to mount the housing 10, wherein the mounting beam is disposed on the second side surface; or the “mounting beam” could be the described crossbeam that is taught being located between a pair of mounting brackets and parallel with the reinforcing members 42 and fixed on the lower surface of bottom wall 40 (“the second side surface”)- P47];
wherein the reinforcement structure (portions 58) comprises protrusion portions 58 formed on the first side surface (Fig. 5), the at least three protrusion portions 58 are connected to the module beam (tray 20) (see Fig. 54), the at least three protrusion portions 58 are disposed at intervals along a length direction of the module beam (tray 20) (Fig. 3), and the length direction of the module beam (tray 20) is perpendicular to the thickness direction (Figs. 3-8; entire disclosure relied upon).
Interpretation B
Regarding claim 1, Loo teaches a housing 10 configured to accommodate a battery module (Fig. 3-8; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
base plate 40 having a first side surface (upper surface in Fig. 3) and a second side surface (lower surface in Fig. 3) opposite to each other in a thickness direction, wherein a reinforcement structure (reinforcing members 42 or 62) is provided on the base plate 24;
a tray 20 (“module beam”) [or just bottom surface 34 thereof] configured to mount the battery module 36, wherein the tray 20 (“module beam”) [or bottom surface 34] is disposed on the first side surface; and
a mounting bracket 28 (“mounting beam”) configured to mount the housing 10, wherein the mounting beam is disposed on the second side surface;
[alternatively, see described crossbeam (“mounting beam”) that is taught being located between a pair of mounting brackets and parallel with the reinforcing members 42 and fixed on the lower surface of bottom wall 40 (“the second side surface”)- P47; alternatively, frame 24 (“mounting beam”) also reads on the claimed mounting beam];
wherein “the reinforcement structure” comprises at least three reinforcing members 42 (or 62) (“protrusion portions”) formed on the first side surface, the at least three protrusion portions 42 (or 62) are connected to the tray 20 [or bottom surface 34 thereof formed to have projections 32] (see Figs. 4-5; P50-51, 53), the at least three protrusion portions 42 (or 62) are disposed at intervals along a length direction of the tray 20 (“module beam”) (P46, 52), and the length direction of the tray 20 (“module beam”) [or just bottom surface 34 thereof] is perpendicular to the thickness direction (Figs. 3-5).
Interpretation C
Regarding claim 1, Loo teaches a housing 10 configured to accommodate a battery module (Fig. 3-8; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
a base plate (metal frame 24) having a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to each other in a thickness direction (annotated below in truncated Fig. 3- note that for each of the first and second side surfaces, either the external or internal surface of the corresponding side wall could be construed as the first/second side surface)
PNG
media_image2.png
363
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a reinforcement structure (bottom surface 34 having projections 32 of tray 20) is provided on the base plate 24 (Figs. 4-5);
a module beam (bottom wall 40) configured to mount the battery module, wherein the module beam (bottom wall 40) is disposed on the first side surface; and
a mounting beam (either of mounting bracket 28 and/or the described crossbeam (P47)) configured to mount the housing, wherein the mounting beam is disposed on the second side surface (Fig. 3; P47);
wherein the reinforcement structure (bottom surface 34 having projections 32 of tray 20) comprises at least three protrusion portions (projections 32) formed on the first side surface (Fig. 3-5), the at least three protrusion portions (projections 32) are connected to the module beam (bottom wall 40), the at least protrusion portions (projections 32) are disposed at intervals along a length direction the module beam (bottom wall 40), and the length direction of the module beam (bottom wall 40) is perpendicular to a thickness direction.
The above interpretations are non-limiting; there are still many interpretations that read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 3, Loo teaches wherein a plurality of first recesses 56 (“first cavities”) are formed (indirectly) on a side of the at least three protrusion portions (58- Interpretation A; 42/62 – Interpretation B) facing away from the module beam (tray 20 [or just bottom surface 34 thereof]. Within Interpretation C, Loo teaches where a plurality of first recesses (where the modules exist) are formed on a side of the at least protrusion portions (projections 32) facing away from the module beam (bottom wall 40).
Regarding claim 5, Loo teaches (Interpretation B) wherein at least three clearance portions (recesses 56) are provided on a beam sidewall of the module beam (tray 20) facing the base plate 40, and the at least three protrusion portions (42/62) are inserted into the at least three recesses (“clearance portions”) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Loo teaches (Interpretation B) wherein each of the at least three clearance portions (recesses 46) is a through-hole (in the direction shown in Fig. 5) in the beam sidewall of the module beam (tray 20) facing the base plate 40 (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Loo teaches (Interpretation B) wherein the at least three clearance portions (recesses 56) are connected to a beam sidewall of the module beam 20 facing away from the base plate 40 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Loo teaches (Interpretation A) wherein the at least three protrusion portions 58 are at least three first protrusion portions; and the reinforcement structure further comprises a “second protrusion portion” (i.e., a fourth one of 58), the second protrusion portion is formed on the second side surface, the second protrusion portion is connected to the mounting beam (28/crossbeam/24). Alternatively, (Interpretation A), the “second protrusion portion” could be bracket 44. Alternatively, the reinforcement structure (portion 58) comprises a second protrusion portion (raised portion 60), the second protrusion portion 60 is formed (indirectly) on the second side surface, and the second protrusion portion 60 is connected to the mounting beam (frame 24).
Loo teaches (Interpretation B) wherein the at least three protrusion portions 42/62 are at least three first protrusion portions; and the reinforcement structure further comprises a “second protrusion portion” (i.e., a fourth one of 42/62), the second protrusion portion is formed on the second side surface, the second protrusion portion is connected to the mounting beam (28/crossbeam/24). Alternatively, (Interpretation B), the “second protrusion portion” could be bracket 44.
Loo teaches (Interpretation C) wherein the at least three protrusion portions 32 are at least three first protrusion portions; and the reinforcement structure further comprises a “second protrusion portion” (i.e., a fourth one of 32), the second protrusion portion is formed on the second side surface, the second protrusion portion 32 is connected to the mounting beam (28/crossbeam/24). Alternatively, (Interpretation B), the “second protrusion portion” could be bracket 44.
Regarding claim 12, Loo teaches (Interpretation B) wherein the second cavity (i.e., fourth recess 56) is formed on a side of the second protrusion portion facing away from the mounting beam (28/crossbeam/24). Alternatively, the “second cavity” could be the corresponding cavity holding the module 36 formed by tray 20 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Loo teaches (Interpretation B) wherein the second protrusion portion is one of a plurality of second protrusion portions (i.e., fourth and fifth reinforcing structures 42/62 – Fig. 3), and the plurality of second protrusions portions are disposed at intervals on the first side surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Loo teaches (Interpretation B) wherein a gap (see Fig. 5) is formed between a beam sidewall of the mounting beam (28/crossbeam/24) facing away from the base plate 40 and the base plate 40, and the second protrusion portion 42/62 (or bracket 44) is connected to a beam sidewall of the mounting beam (28/crossbeam/24) (Figs. 3-8).
Regarding claim 16, Loo teaches (Interpretation A and B) wherein the base plate 40 is provided with fluid channels (64), and the fluid channels contain a heat exchange medium (air) for heat exchange with the battery module (intended use language; the construct is only that of “a housing”).
Regarding claim 17, Loo teaches a battery (Figs. 1-3), comprising a battery module 36 and the housing according to claim 1, wherein the battery module 36 is accommodated within the housing and mounted on the module beam (Interpretation A & B - tray 20 – Fig. 3).
.Regarding claim 18, Loo teaches an electric device, comprising the battery according to claim 17, wherein the battery is configured to provide electrical energy (Fig. 1; P1-6; entire disclosure).
Regarding claim 19, Loo teaches a housing 10 configured to accommodate a battery module (Fig. 3-8; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
a base plate (tray 20) having a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to each other in a thickness direction, wherein a reinforcement structure (projection 32) is provided on the base plate (tray 20);
a module beam (reinforcing member 42) configured to mount the battery module, wherein the module beam is disposed on the first side surface (indirectly); and
a mounting bracket 28 (“mounting beam”) configured to mount the housing 10, wherein the mounting beam is disposed on the second side surface (indirectly);
[alternatively, see described crossbeam (“mounting beam”) that is taught being located between a pair of mounting brackets and parallel with the reinforcing members 42 and fixed on the lower surface of bottom wall - P47; alternatively, frame 24 (“mounting beam”) also reads on the claimed mounting beam; alternative cover 22 could be the claimed mounting bracket which is directly on the second sides surface];
wherein “the reinforcement structure” comprises a protrusion portion (projection 32) formed by the base plate (tray 20) recessed toward the first side surface and protruding from the first side surface, the protrusion portion (Projection 32) is connected to the module beam 42 (reinforcing member 42), a cavity (recess 56) is formed on the second side surface of the base plate corresponding to the protrusion portion (projection 32), and the mounting beam (reinforcing member 42) is provided with a protrusion block (raised portion 60) inserted into the cavity (recess 56) of the base plate (tray 20) to connect the module beam (reinforcing member42) with the base plate (tray 20) (Figs. 3-8; entire disclosure relied upon).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loo et al. (US 2012/0301765) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Loo teaches (Interpretation C) wherein the module beam 40 is fixed to the base plate 24 (inner frame edge 38 of frame 24 – P45), and/or the mounting beam (crossbeam – P47) is fixed to the base plate (inner frame edge 38 of frame 24) (P47).
Loo fails to disclose how the fixing feature is achieved for these entities; however, with respect other entities that are taught as being “fixed” to one another, Loo teaches that they are fixed by welding (P46, 51, 79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to weld the module beam 40 and the base plate 24 to form a welding portion as the “fixing” means, and/or to weld the mounting beam (crossbeam – P47) to the base plate (frame 24) to form a welding portion as the “fixing means” given Loo teaches other entities that are “fixed” to one another, wherein welding is a suitable means to achieve the “fixing” feature (P46, 51, 79), as would also be immediately recognized and apparent to those having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Loo teaches (Interpretation C) wherein in the thickness direction of the base plate 24, a projection of the mounting beam (crossbeam – P47) and a projection of the module beam 40 at least partially overlap; and at least a portion of each of the mounting beam (crossbeam – P47), the module beam 40, and the base plate 24 are welded together to form the welding portion (P47; see rejection above). It is noted that the claim does not specify that both projections are required to occur in the thickness direction of the base plate; nor does the claim require that there is a singular welding portion that unites all three of these entities to one another directly; however, regarding the latter, it is noted that the taught fixing of each of these entities occurs at the inner edge frame 38 of frame 24 (“base plate”) (P45, 47) such that providing a singular welding portion versus multiple welding portions would be prima facie obvious in order to reduce the number of welds required to achieve the fixing effect desired of these three entities.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loo et al. (US 2012/0301765) as applied to at least claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Pyo (US 2013/0045397).
Regarding claim 10, Loo fails to disclose a welding clearance hole is provided on a beam sidewall of the mounting beam (crossbeam – P47) facing away from the base plate 24, and the fixing/welding portion is formed on a beam sidewall of the mounting beam (crossbeam -P47) facing the base plate 24 and exposed through the welding clearance hole.
The crossbeam 47 (“mounting beam”) is not illustrated; however, the determination of where to provide the fixing/welding portion to the mounting beam (crossbeam- P47) would appear to intrinsically have to occur on a beam sidewall facing the base plate 24 as otherwise these entities could not be welded to one another. Alternatively, selecting the surface (e.g., “a beam side wall of the mounting beam facing the base plate) that faces the surface it is to be welded to is considered prima facie obvious as the weld would appear to otherwise not be possible.
As to the claimed welding clearance hole, Pyo teaches analogous art of a battery pack where welding holes are provided in the case to provide access for a welding rod (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the crossbeam (“mounting beam”) with a welding clearance hole provided on a beam sidewall facing away from the base plate (i.e., what would be a top/access area) such that a welding rod could be utilized to provide the taught fixing of the crossbeam and the base plate 24 (P47) which would have to occur on a beam sidewall of the mounting beam facing the entity (the base plate 24) that it is to be welded to given the technique of providing welding holes for access for a welding rod is a known technique in the art as taught by Pyo, readily applicable to the construct of Loo in order to provide the predictable result of access to the surface desired to be welded that would be otherwise obstructed without such a weld clearance hole.
11. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loo et al. (US 2012/0301765) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0059897) is maintained.
Regarding claim 15, Loo fails to disclose the:
an adhesive layer is further provided between the module beam and the base plate, and the module beam is fixed to the base plate through the adhesive layer;
and/or an adhesive layer is further provided between the mounting beam and the base plate, and the mounting beam is fixed to the base plate through the adhesive layer (all interpretations).
Huang teaches analogous art of a housing intended to accommodate a module using cross beams, sides plates, lower housing, etc., wherein Huang teaches that cross beam and side plate of the lower housing and/or the reinforcing beam may be connected by adhesive as this achieves a benefit that the strength connection between the entities is increased (P59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide an adhesive layer between the components named (either or both) given the technique is known in the art as taught by Huang and provides the advantageous, taught, predictable result of increasing the strength connection between the entities (P59).
Double Patenting
12. The provisional rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-14 and 16-18 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-154 of copending Application No. 19/296,751 in view of Loo et al. (US 2012/0301765) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made in both applications (i.e., two new independent claims added in the '751 application). Newly added claim 19 of the instant application is also rejected under this heading.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the instant application claim 1 and the '751 claim 1 (and/or the '751 claim 14 and/or the '751 claim 15 ) recite the same entities but utilize different terminology as mapped below:
“a housing” (instant application) versus “a box” ('751 application)
“a base plate” versus “a bottom plate”
“a first surface or a second surface” of the base plate (one of them) versus “an outer wall surface facing outward from the box”
“a reinforcement structure” versus “a connecting portion”
with “a mounting beam” being the same in both, the mounting beam of the instant application defined as “disposed on the second side surface” with amended claim 1 of 19/296,751 amended to define “disposed on the outer wall surface of the bottom plate” (i.e., they define the same thing).
The instant application defines the bottom plate as having first and second sides surfaces opposite to each other in a thickness direction, wherein this is intrinsically true of the '751 claim 1 having “an outer wall surface” given the bottom plate is a three-dimensional object.
See also the similar structure presented within newly added independent claims 14 and 15 of the '751 claim set.
The only difference is that the instant claim requires a module beam configured to mount the battery module, wherein the module beam is disposed on the first side surface of the base plate (i.e., “bottom plate”), and the reinforcement structure has the defined amended features of the final five lines of the claim. Specifically, claim 1 of the instant application now defines “at least three protrusion portions” and the newly added independent claim 14 of the '751 claim set recites the following similar feature:
PNG
media_image3.png
321
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The missing features are all taught by Loo, wherein it is a known construct and technique to provide a module beam (see interpretations set forth under the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections using Loo, entirely incorporated here and not repeated) and reinforcement structure comprising at least three protrusion portions (“a plurality of connecting portions” of the '751 claim 14) with the defined features of the final five lines of the instant application claim (see interpretations set forth under the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections using Loo, entirely incorporated here and not repeated)
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 '751 claim with the module beam and reinforcement structure construct of the instant claim in order to provide the predictable results of being able to stably mount the battery module within the housing/box via the reinforced structure having the module beam, and the benefits achieved by the various “reinforcement structure” construct taught by Loo in terms of stability, easy mounting, etc. (entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claims 3, 5-9, 11-14 and 16-18, the subject matter is either met by the claims of the '751 application or the Loo reference (see interpretations set forth under the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 USC 103 rejections using Loo, entirely incorporated here and not repeated).
Regarding claim 19, the instant application claim 19 and the '751 claim 1 (and/or the '751 claim 14 and/or the '751 claim 15 ) recite the same entities but utilize different terminology as mapped below:
“a housing” (instant application) versus “a box” ('751 application)
“a base plate” versus “a bottom plate”
“a first surface or a second surface” of the base plate (one of them) versus “an outer wall surface facing outward from the box”
“a reinforcement structure” versus “a connecting portion”
with “a mounting beam” being the same in both, the mounting beam of the instant application defined as “disposed on the second side surface” with amended claim 1 of 19/296,751 amended to define “disposed on the outer wall surface of the bottom plate” (i.e., they define the same thing).
The instant application defines the bottom plate as having first and second sides surfaces opposite to each other in a thickness direction, wherein this is intrinsically true of the '751 claim 1 (or 14 or 15) having “an outer wall surface” given the bottom plate is a three-dimensional object.
The only difference is that the instant claim requires a module beam configured to mount the battery module, wherein the module beam is disposed on the first side surface of the base plate (i.e., “bottom plate”), and the reinforcement structure has the features as defined in the last six lines of the claim.
The missing features are all taught by Loo, wherein it is a known construct and technique to provide a module beam and reinforcement structure comprising the recited structure of the final six lines of the instant application claim (see interpretation set forth under the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections using Loo, entirely incorporated here and not repeated)
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 '751 claim with the module beam and reinforcement structure construct of the instant claim in order to provide the predictable results of being able to stably mount the battery module within the housing/box via the reinforced structure having the module beam, and the benefits achieved by the various “reinforcement structure” construct taught by Loo in terms of stability, easy mounting, etc. (entire disclosure relied upon).
13. Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/296,751 in view of Loo et al. (US 2012/0301765) as applied to at least claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Pyo (US 2013/0045397).
Regarding claim 10, the claim set of '751 does not claim the instant claim 10 features, and Loo fails to disclose a welding clearance hole is provided on a beam sidewall of the mounting beam (crossbeam – P47) facing away from the base plate 24, and the fixing/welding portion is formed on a beam sidewall of the mounting beam (crossbeam -P47) facing the base plate 24 and exposed through the welding clearance hole.
The crossbeam 47 (“mounting beam”) of Loo is not illustrated; however, the determination of where to provide the fixing/welding portion to the mounting beam (crossbeam- P47) would appear to intrinsically have to occur on a beam sidewall facing the base plate 24 as otherwise these entities could not be welded to one another. Alternatively, selecting the surface (e.g., “a beam side wall of the mounting beam facing the base plate) that faces the surface it is to be welded to is considered prima facie obvious as the weld would appear to otherwise not be possible.
As to the claimed welding clearance hole, Pyo teaches analogous art of a battery pack where welding holes are provided in the case to provide access for a welding rod (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the crossbeam (“mounting beam”) with a welding clearance hole provided on a beam sidewall facing away from the base plate (i.e., what would be a top/access area) such that a welding rod could be utilized to provide the taught fixing of the crossbeam and the base plate 24 (P47) which would have to occur on a beam sidewall of the mounting beam facing the entity (the base plate 24) that it is to be welded to given the technique of providing welding holes for access for a welding rod is a known technique in the art as taught by Pyo, readily applicable to the construct of Loo in order to provide the predictable result of access to the surface desired to be welded that would be otherwise obstructed without such a weld clearance hole.
14. The provisional rejection of claim 15 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/296,751 in view of Loo et al. (US 2012/0301765) as applied to at least claim 1, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0059897) is maintained.
Regarding claim 15, the claims of '751 nor Loo teach the subject matter presented in claim 15. Huang teaches analogous art of a housing intended to accommodate a module using cross beams, sides plates, lower housing, etc., wherein Huang teaches that cross beam and side plate of the lower housing and/or the reinforcing beam may be connected by adhesive as this achieves a benefit that the strength connection between the entities is increased (P59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide an adhesive layer between the components named (either or both) given the technique is known in the art as taught by Huang and provides the advantageous, taught, predictable result of increasing the strength connection between the entities (P59).
Examiner Comments
15. This section was previously provided and is repeated here. A number of references are applied against the claims to demonstrate the breadth thereof. The fact that a dependent claim is not addressed in a specific rejection of record (or a specific interpretation thereof) does not mean that it is not taught by the reference. Applicant should review the entire disclosure of the prior art references applied, as well as the prior art cited below, to understand the full scope of what is taught in the prior art, and provide claim amendments that adequately address what is shown and taught in all of these references for compact prosecution purposes.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered. The rejection against claims 1, 17, and 18 as being anticipated by Schwab has been removed as Schwab does not teach the amended features of claim 1; however, Schwab anticipates the newly added independent claim 19 (see rejection above outlining how Schwab anticipates new claim 19).
With respect to the Loo reference, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
364
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This was one of the three prior interpretations of Loo which is now withdrawn; however, at least one of the other original interpretations (not relying on the above-named components but other entities for the claim limitations) is maintained with an additional two interpretations set forth in this Office Action. Accordingly, Applicant does not argue the third interpretation (now “Interpretation A”) that is maintained, and the components relied upon therein for the claim elements which is maintained, wherein all features presented in the amended claim are met in this interpretation. Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of Loo is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made.
The Examiner highly recommends utilizing language of “directly on” or “directly connected” (versus just “on” or “disposed on” or “connected to”) wherever one entity is claimed relative to another (where appropriate/supported) in order to help limit the many interpretation of Loo applicable to the claims given the breadth of these phrases without the use of “directly” (see claim analysis section, repeated below):
PNG
media_image1.png
196
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The use of “mount,” “connect,” etc. as used in the claims is properly interpreted as an indirect mounting, indirect connection, etc. unless the claims are amended to require direct mounting, direct connection, etc. The same is true of one element “on” another element which is interpreted as allowing for the interpretations of directly on or indirectly on the another element as is standard in the state of the prior art and similar to the definition above.
The Examiner also recommends further setting forth actual structure of the “module beam” and the “mounting beam” given at the present time, only their respective capabilities (see “configured to” statements) and their relative locations are defined broadly. It would appear helpful to define what these entities are shaped like (see module beam 120 in Fig. 4 and mounting beam 130 in Fig. 8) given a “beam” is broadly defined as follows (from www.dictionary.com/browse/beam):
PNG
media_image5.png
70
870
media_image5.png
Greyscale
From Fig. 4, it appears module beam 120 is a rectangular, hollow beam, whereas mounting beam 130 has the form shown in Fig. 8. Defining what these entities are shaped like would help limit what reads on them within Loo and the prior art as a whole.
Applicant argues the nonstatutory double patenting rejection and that because Loo does not teach the amended features, the rejection should be withdrawn. This is not persuasive given Loo does teach the features claimed as outlined in the rejection above. Accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
All comments are respectfully submitted.
Conclusion
17. The prior art or copending applications made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is repeated below from the prior Office Action:
copending US application 19/296,751
copending US application 19/251,099
Charbonneau et al. (US 2013/0088044);
Yamaguchi et al. (US 2013/0229030);
Katayama et al. (US 2014/0284125);
Huang et al. (US 2021/0402863);
Hara et al. (US 2017/0305249).
Wang et al. (CN 209320718 – cited and copy provided by Applicant) teaches the following construct:
PNG
media_image6.png
362
497
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
416
531
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
267
375
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ding et al. (CN 112599915) (machine translation provided) teaches the following construct including a lower shell/casing 11 intended to house battery modules that has reinforcement beams 7, 8 as well support structure 6 and reinforcement ribs 12 provided on one surface and cross beams 3, 4 provided on the other surface; the components all being welded together:
PNG
media_image9.png
610
704
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
583
697
media_image10.png
Greyscale
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J 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 Ruddock 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 BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 This is a capability of the housing versus a requirement that the housing accommodates a battery module. Accordingly, so long as a housing of the prior art is considered capable of achieving the feature claimed, the claim will be met.
2 This is a capability of the “module beam” with no structure recited. Accordingly, so long as a module beam of the prior art is considered capable of achieving the feature claimed, the claim will be met.
3 This is a capability of the “mounting beam” with no structure recited. Accordingly, so long as a mounting beam of the prior art is considered capable of achieving the feature claimed, the claim will be met. It is noted that the mounting beam is not required to mount to the housing; it is only a capability thereof.
4 The '751 claim set added two independent claims (claims 14 and 15) after the mailing of the prior Office Action; these claims are now also utilized in the double patenting rejection.
Prosecution Insights