DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ response filed 3/30/2026 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 The objection to claim 11 is withdrawn in view of the correction filed.
Claim Analysis:
3. 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.
4. 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.
Election/Restrictions
5. Claims 19 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/5/2026. Any rejections applied to claim 19 from the prior Office Action are automatically withdrawn given the claim is in a withdrawn status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
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 a rectangular beam (see Fig. 3) disposed directly 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 directly on the second side surface (see Fig. 4, 7)
alternatively 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”) such that it is directly on the second side surface- P47];
wherein the reinforcement structure (portions 58) comprises protrusion portions 58 directly formed on the first side surface (Fig. 5), each of the at least three protrusion portions 58 is a columnar structure (see Fig. 5), the at least three protrusion portions 58 are directly connected to the module beam (tray 20) (see Fig. 5), 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 a rectangular beam disposed directly on the first side surface; and
a crossbeam (“mounting beam”) configured to mount the housing, the mounting beam is disposed directly on the second side surface (see P47 in which 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 and is illustrated as being disposed directly on the second side surface];
wherein “the reinforcement structure” comprises at least three reinforcing members 42 (or 62) (“protrusion portions”) directly formed on the first side surface, each of the at least three protrusions is a columnar structure (see Fig. 5), the at least three protrusion portions 42 (or 62) are directly 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).
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].
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.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11, 17-18 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Loo et al. (US 2012/0301765) (“Interpretation C” previously applied is moved to one of obviousness and not anticipation; claims 8-9 previously rejected under this heading are consolidated herewith). Claim 20 is rejected under this heading using all three interpretations.
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)),
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 a rectangular beam disposed directly on the first side surface, wherein the module beam is a rectangular beam disposed directly 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 directly 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), each of the at least three protrusions is a columnar structure (Figs. 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.
Loo fails to disclose the at least three protrusion portions (projections 32) are directly connected to the module beam (bottom wall 40) (i.e., there is instead a gap in the areas to the left and right of L-shaped reinforcing members 42). The court has held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Accordingly, altering the shape of the protrusion portions (projections 32) such that they extend further down on the left and/or right side of where L-shaped reinforcing member 42 such that there is a direct connection between the at least three protrusion portions (projections 32) and the module beam (bottom wall 40) in order to provide the predictable result of increased stability between the two components (versus solely being supported on the L-shaped reinforcing members 42) is considered a change in form or shape that would not create any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, 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 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.
Regarding claim 11, 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).
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 20, Loo teaches wherein: the at least three protrusion portions (see specific Interpretation) are at least three first protrusion portions protruding directly from the first side surface in a direction toward the module beam (see the specific Interpretation A-C).
Loo fails to disclose the reinforcement structure further comprises at least three second protrusion portions protruding directly from the second side surface in a direction toward the mounting beam (either of mounting bracket 28 and/or the described crossbeam (P47);
the at least three second protrusion portions are directly connected to the mounting beam (either of mounting bracket 28 and/or the described crossbeam (P47),
and the at least three second protrusion portions are disposed at intervals along a length direction of the mounting beam, and the length direction of the mounting beam is perpendicular to the thickness direction.
Loo is silent as to how the crossbeam (“mounting beam”) is fixed to the second surface of the base plate; however, Loo teaches the use of at least three first protrusion portions on the opposite side having the structure recited (see Interpretations A-C set forth against claim 1), and that this is a suitable technique and construct to directly connect a module beam to the base plate. The court has held the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the relied-upon structure for the at least three first protrusion portions used to directly connect the module beam to the base plate, and apply that same technique and construct to the cross beam on the second/opposite side surface in order to reliably connect and mount the crossbeam to the base plate.
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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 1-184 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).
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, 16-18, and 20, 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).
11. The provisional rejection of claim 10 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 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) is maintained.
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.
12. The provisional rejection of claim 15 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 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).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
249
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response: The Examiner does not see how the relied upon portions 58, reinforcing members 42/62 or projections 32, individually, are each not “columnar” and not directly formed on a surface, and not directly connected to a rectangular beam. All of these features appear to be fully anticipated in each of Interpretation A-B. Interpretation C has been moved to an obviousness rejection because the at least three protrusions are not directly connected to the module beam in that interpretation.
The Examiner again 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 with the module beam described as rectangular (met by all interpretations).
Thus, 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.
With respect to the features of newly added claim 20, if said features have objective evidence in the record of a new or unexpected result achieved by the structure (met with an obviousness analysis on the basis of duplication of parts), Applicant is invited to explain said new or unexpected result with any objective evidence.
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
14. 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
15. 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 BILLIET/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 additional claims (claims 16-18) after the mailing of the prior Office Action; these claims are now also utilized in the double patenting rejection.
Prosecution Insights