DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 -3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (US 2020/0153064; hereinafter “Ishikawa”) . Regarding claim 1 , Ishikawa teaches a battery cooling apparatus comprising: a housing ( cooling case 8, see Figs. 1-5; [0034] ) formed to accommodate a cooling oil in which a plurality of battery cells ( battery cells 5, see Figs. 1-5; [0033] ) are contained; and an oil cooling part ( combination of first metal portion 15 and second metal portions 16, see Fig. 3; [0035] ) which is provided in the housing ( see Fig s . 1-5 ) and exchanges heat with the cooling oil, wherein the oil cooling part includes a first cooling part ( first metal portion 15, see Figs. 1-5; [0035] ) which maintains a temperature in a preset temperature range to exchange heat with the cooling oil and a second cooling part ( cooling passages 17, which may be formed by inserting a metal pipe into the first metal portion 15; see Figs. 1-5 and [0039] ) which exchanges heat with the first cooling part using a refrigerant supplied from an outside. Regarding the functional language (e.g., formed to accommodate a cooling oil, exchanges heat with the cooling oil, which maintains a temperature in a preset temperature range to exchange heat with the cooling oil, which exchanges heat with the first cooling part using a refrigerant supplied from an outside), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Regarding claim 2 , Ishikawa teaches wherein: the first cooling part includes a heat pipe in which a hollow is formed ( first metal portion 15 has metal pipes inserted into the first metal portion 15 so it must have a hollow formed, see Figs. 1-5; [0035]-[0039]) ; and the second cooling part is provided in the hollow ( cooling passages 17, see Figs. 1-5; [00439]) and includes a cooling pipe in which a cooling path is formed (see [0039]) , wherein the refrigerant flows through the cooling path. Regarding claim 3 , Ishikawa teaches wherein the second cooling part includes: an inlet part through which the refrigerant is introduced from the outside (see [0039] – cooling passages 17 protruding from left side, see Fig. 2 ) ; a cooling body part that accommodates the refrigerant introduced through the inlet part (cooling passage 17 formed within first metal portion 15, see Figs. 1-5; [0039]) ; and an outlet part which discharges the refrigerant of the cooling body part to the outside (see [0039] – cooling passages 17 protruding from right side, see Fig. 2 ) . Regarding the functional language (e.g., through which the refrigerant is introduced from the outside, that accommodates the refrigerant introduced through the inlet part, which discharges the refrigerant of the cooling body part to the outside), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Regarding claim 5 , Ishikawa teaches wherein the second cooling part includes: an inlet part through which a refrigerant is introduced from the outside ( inlet part equated to the left half of the cooling pipes 17 protruding from the left side of cooling case 8 in Fig. 2 ) ; a cooling pipe through which the refrigerant introduced through the inlet part flows (metal pipes inserted into the first metal portion 15 that form cooling passage 17; see [0039]) ; a pipe housing which accommodates the cooling pipe and serves to transfer heat from the first cooling part to the cooling pipe (holes in first metal portion 15 which accommodate the pipes inserted to form cooling passages 17; see [0039]) ; and an outlet part which discharges the refrigerant of the cooling pipe to the outside ( outlet part equated to the right half of the cooling pipes 17 protruding from the right side of cooling case 8 in Fig. 2 ) . Regarding the functional language (e.g., through which the refrigerant is introduced from the outside, that accommodates the refrigerant introduced through the inlet part, which discharges the refrigerant of the cooling body part to the outside), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 2020/0153064) . Regarding claim 4 , Ishikawa is silent to wherein the inlet part and the outlet part are disposed at an upper end of the oil cooling part in order to avoid the inlet and outlet parts from coming into contact with the oil accommodated in the housing. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular placement of the inlet part and outlet part is merely an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). As the inlet and outlet ports of Ishikawa are located outside the housing, they are also deemed to prevent coming into contact with the oil accommodated in the housing. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2021/0273278; hereinafter “Yoshida”). Regarding claim 6 , Ishikawa teaches wherein the cooling pipe includes: a first pipe communicating with the inlet part ( inlet part equated to the left half of the cooling pipes 17 protruding from the left side of cooling case 8 in Fig. 2, and the first pipe is equated to the right half of the cooling pipes 17 protruding from the left side of cooling case 8 as seen in Fig. 2 ; see [0039] ) ; a second pipe connected to the first pipe (metal pipes inserted into the first metal portion 15 that form cooling passage 17; see [0039]) , and provided in an upper region of the pipe housing (see Fig. 3 and 5 – portion of metal pipe inserted into the first metal portion 15 that form cooling passage 17 are provided in upper half of first metal portion 15) ; and a third pipe through which the second pipe communicates with the outlet part ( outlet part equated to the right half of the cooling pipes 17 protruding from the right side of cooling case 8 in Fig. 2, and the third pipe is equated to the left half of the cooling pipes 17 protruding from the right side of cooling case 8 as seen in Fig. 2 ; see [0039] ) . Ishikawa is silent to wherein the second pipe is bent several times . Yoshida teaches a cooling pipe which includes a pipe that is bent several times. (see Fig. 2). Cooling plate 3 is a rectangular metal sheet 31, and in cooling plate 3, circulating path 32 is provided by inserting a metal pipe such as copper inside metal sheet 31 (see [0037]-[0038]). In view of Yoshida’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Ishikawa to include wherein the second pipe is bent several times, as taught by Yoshida, because the substitution of a known element (the second cooling pipe of Ishikawa) with another known element (the cooling pipe of Yoshida with several bends) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7 -10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 : The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach: wherein an upper end portion and a lower end portion of the oil cooling part are open. Claims 8 -10: Depend either directly or indirectly from claim 7 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVEN HA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5934 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00-5:00 EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3458 . 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. /S.S.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735 1 5 November 2025 /KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735