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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 12 have been amended and claim 14 was cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15 are currently pending.
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.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakilimoghaddam et al. (U.S. 20210247145, referenced in IDS submitted 11/15/2022) in view of Teng et al. (U.S. 20130143093, referenced in IDS submitted 11/05/2024) and Kim (KR 20200015207A, Espacenet translation provided for reference).
With respect to claim 1, Vakilimoghaddam discloses a battery module (4) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a battery cell stack (4) in which a plurality of battery cells (2) are stacked (Fig. 1);
a module frame (12 – first plate) accommodating the battery cell stack (plurality of 2) therein having a lower frame (12) covering lower surfaces of the battery cell stack (Fig. 1), the lower frame having a bottom part (14 – outer surface) extending parallel to the stacking direction and the longitudinal direction (Fig. 13 and 16); and
a heat sink (10 – heat exchanger) disposed under the module (4) and configured to cool the plurality of battery cells (2) (Fig. 1, [0002]), the heat sink (10) comprising a lower plate (30 – sealing surfaces), a flow path part (34 – fluid flow passages) which is a flow path for a coolant (heat transfer fluid), and a dimple part (144 – flow obstructions) on a surface of the flow path part (34) (Fig. 2 and 11, [0043]),
the bottom part (14) of the lower frame (12) overlying an entirety of the lower plate of the heat sink (10), such that the lower plate (30) of the heat sink (10) is entirely contained within an area of the bottom part (14) of the lower frame (12) (Figs. 2 and 4; [0039]),
the flow path part (34) is formed in all areas of the lower plate of the heat sink (10) except a portion in which the lower plate (30) contacts the bottom part (14) of the module frame (12) (via peripheral sealing surface 32) (Fig. 4; [0039])),
wherein the flow path part (34) is a structured recess downward from a skeleton the lower plate (18) (Fig. 13 and 16), an upper side of the of the flow path part (34) is covered by the bottom part (14 – outer surface) of a lower frame (12 – first plate) (Fig. 13 and 16), and the heat sink (10) and bottom part (12) are together configured to receive a flow of the coolant throughout a space extending between the flow path part (34) and the bottom part (12) ([0040], Fig. 13 and 16).
In a separate embodiment (Fig. 8), Vakilimoghaddam does disclose partition walls formed in the flow path part (34) that extend along a same direction and form separate first and second flow paths (112a-c and 114a-c) which make up an entirety of the flow path part (34) (Fig. 8, see non-final rejection of 07/22/2024 for annotated figure), but Vakilimoghaddam does not disclose that the separate flow paths formed have equal widths.
Teng discloses a heat sink (220) with partition walls (labeled) that forms multiple flow paths (242a-b, 244 a-b, 246a-b) (Fig. 5B – below) and teaches that the flow paths (242a-b, 244a-b, and 246a-b) all have equal widths (Fig. 5B). Teng further teaches that this arrangement provides a uniform coolant flow distribution for each battery cell in the battery module and provides a desired, localized coolant flow within each battery cell, which efficiently cools each of the cells and further serves to minimize temperature differences within each battery cell.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the separate flow paths created by the partition walls in Vakilimoghaddam had equal widths as taught by Teng in order to provide a uniform coolant flow distribution for each battery cell in the battery module and provide a desired, localized coolant flow within each battery cell, which efficiently cools each of the cells and further serves to minimize temperature differences within each battery cell.
Neither Vakilimoghaddam nor Teng disclose that the battery cells are arranged adjacent to one another along a stacking direction and each having leads extending therefrom in a longitudinal direction of the battery cells perpendicular of the stacking direction, each battery cell having a major plane surface extending in a vertical plane perpendicular to the stacking direction, that the module frame including an upper plate covering an upper surface of the cell stack or that the lower frame also covers opposite side surfaces of the battery cell stack, or that the lower surface of the battery cell stack contacts an upper surface of the bottom part of the lower frame.
Kim discloses a battery module (10a) with in a module frame (200 – case part) housing battery cell stack (100) (Fig. 5), the lower part of the frame (200) being a heat sink (50 – cooling plate) with a coolant flow path (500 – coolant passage) and teaches that the battery cells (100) are arranged adjacent to one another along a stacking direction (Fig. 10a) and each having leads (120 – electrode tabs) extending therefrom in a longitudinal direction of the battery cells 9100) perpendicular of the stacking direction (Fig. 4 and 5), each battery cell having a major planar surface (top surface along “d1” arrow) extending in a vertical plane to the stacking direction (Fig. 4 and 5) and that the module frame (200) has an upper plate (210 – top cover part) covering an upper surface of the battery cell stack (Fig. 5). Kim further teaches that the above configuration allows for contact between a close contact portion (132) of the cells (100) to the cooling plate (50) so that heat inside the cells (100) can be discharged ([0066]) and so that the tops of the battery cells (100) are protected by the upper plate (210) ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the cells disclosed by Vakilimoghaddam were in the orientation taught by Kim and that the module frame disclosed by Vakilimoghaddam included an upper plate as taught by Kim in order to allow for heat to be discharged from the cells and to protect the upper surface of the cells.
While Kim does not teach that a lower frame covers the sides of the battery stack, Kim does teach separate side walls (220 – side cover part) present as part of module frame (200) (Fig. 5). Kim further teaches that these side walls cover and protect the sides of the battery cells (100) (Fig. 5, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed modify the lower plate disclosed by Vakilimoghaddam with the side walls taught by Kim in order to protect the sides of the battery cells.
Kim discloses a battery module (10a) with in a module frame (200 – case part) housing battery cell stack (100) of cells (110) (Fig. 5) and teaches that bottom of the cells (110) are left exposed to the upper surface of the bottom part of the cooling plate ([0049]). Kim further teaches that this allows for direct contact between the cells and the cooling plate to create a direct cooling pathway ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to modify the module frame disclosed by Vakilimoghaddam so that the sides of the battery cell stack may be in direct contact with the upper surface of the lower frame in order to allow for direct contact between the cells and the cooling plate to create a direct cooling pathway.
Applicant is reminded "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice," In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In this case, the side walls of the instant application as shown in Fig. 4 do not add any feature to the invention outside of the structural protection, which is taught by Kim. Therefore, the side walls being integral to the lower plate does not change the mode of operation of the side walls or produce an unexpected result. Therefore, the one-piece construction is an obvious design variation.
With respect to claim 2, Vakilimoghaddam discloses the dimple part (144) is a plurality of dimples (144) each having a hemispherical shape and each protruding upward from the surface of the flow path part (34) (Fig. 11 and 18).
With respect to claim 3, Vakilimoghaddam discloses the plurality of dimples (144) are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 4, Vakilimoghaddam discloses the heat sink further includes an inlet (40) configured to receive inflow of the coolant therethrough and an outlet (42) configured to receive outflow of the coolant therethrough (Fig. 11, [0052]), and the dimple part (144) is spaced apart from the inlet (40) and the outlet (42) (Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 6, modified Vakilimoghaddam discloses a flow path part comprising a first side wall (labeled), a second side wall (labeled), and dimples (144) (Fig. 11 – below) with a partition wall (labeled) formed on the flow path part (34) (Fig. 8 – above), but does not teach a first portion of the dimple part is disposed between the partition wall and the first side wall, while a second portion of the dimple part is formed between the partition wall and the second side wall, effectively placing dimple projections on either side of the partition wall in the separate flow channels formed by the partition wall as shown in Fig. 10 of applicant’s drawings.
However, Vakilimoghaddam does teach that the purpose of the dimple parts (144) is to increase turbulence in the flow of the coolant as it flow through the flow path part (34), which improves heat transfer ([0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include dimple parts (144) in each of the separate pathways (112a-c, 114a-c) formed by the partition walls (labeled) (Fig. 8) in order to increase turbulence, thus improving heat transfer in the separate pathways formed by the partition wall.
PNG
media_image2.png
389
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, modified Vakilimoghaddam discloses the heat sink further includes an inlet (40) configured to receive inflow of the coolant therethrough and an outlet (42) configured to receive outflow of the coolant therethrough (Fig. 11, [0052]), a start of the partition wall (labeled) is spaced apart from the inlet (40) (Fig. 8 – above), and the dimple part (144) is formed along a longitudinal direction of the flow path part (34) from the start of the partition wall (labeled) (as can be seen from a comparison of Fig. 8 and 11 above once combined), the dimple part (144) being spaced apart of the inlet (40) (Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 8, modified Vakilimoghaddam discloses an end part of the partition wall (labeled) is spaced apart from the outlet (42) (Fig. 8), and the dimple part extends from the start part of the partition wall (labeled) to the end part of the partition wall (labeled) (as can be seen from a comparison of Fig. 8 and Fig. 17 once combined), the dimple part (144) being spaced apart from the outlet (42) (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 10, Vakilimoghaddam discloses a battery pack (energy storage system with a plurality of connected battery modules) ([0003]) comprising the battery module of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 11, Vakilimoghaddam discloses dimples (144) (Fig. 11), but does not disclose the dimples each have a diameter greater than a width of the partition wall. However, examiner cites MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.., which states that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Without persuasive evidence to the contrary, the limitation reciting the relative dimensions of the dimples compared to the partition wall is not a patentable limitation.
With respect to claim 12, modified Vakilimoghaddam discloses dimples (144) in first and second flow paths (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose in said figure that the dimples cover the majority of a first and second flow paths. However, Vakilimoghaddam does disclose that additional dimples (144) can be employed through the entirety of the flow paths (64), thus reading on the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 13, Vakilimoghaddam discloses dimples (144) arranged in a flow path (64) (Fig. 11), but does not disclose the dimples are arranged alternately adjacent to each other on opposite sides of a centerline of the first flow path part and the second flow path part. However, according to the MPEP 2144.04.VI.C., the rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device is held unpatentable. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the relative positioning of the dimples to each other would not modify the operation of the flow path, and therefore, is not a patentable feature.
With respect to claim 15, Vakilimoghaddam discloses a partition wall (Fig. 8), but does not disclose the width of the partition wall is less than a width of the skeleton of the lower plate extending between adjacent portions of the flow path part. However, examiner cites MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.., which states that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Without persuasive evidence to the contrary, the limitation reciting the relative dimensions of the partition wall compared to the skeleton is not a patentable feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 5-8 of response, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to claims 4. 7, 12, and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 4, 7, 12, and 14 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument are premised on the assertion that because Fig. 6 of Kim shows a heat transfer member (40) separating the battery cells and heat sink, Kim teaches away from the battery cells directly contacting the heat sink. However, the heat transfer member (40) is described by Kim in the embodiment shown in Fig. 6 and towards the end of the specification, not as a necessary component for the invention. Kim explicitly states in the specification that “[0049] On the other hand, the battery module 10 according to an embodiment of the present invention is one side of the cell body 110 of the plurality of battery cells 100 exposed to the outside of the cooling plate (cooling plate) (shown in Figure 5) ), directly. At this time, the above-described cooling plate 50 may cool the plurality of contacted battery cells 100 including a coolant flow path (shown in FIG. 5) through which coolants such as cooling water may flow.” This explicit recitation is sufficient to teach direct contact between the battery cells and the heat sink.
Applicant further argues that the new amendment which states that the lower part of the heat sink is entirely contained within an area of the bottom part of the lower frame overcomes the prior art because “Vakilimoghaddam has cooling elements larger that the modules that overlie them.” While the examiner does not disagree with applicant’s arguments, applicants arguments are not recitation of the new limitations. The new limitations are directed to the size of the cooling elements relative to a lower part of a frame, not the plurality of modules. Therefore, the prior art still reads on the new limitations.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of Teng does not teach two flow paths creating an entirety of the flow path part. However, the originally cited prior art to teach multiple flow paths, Vakilimoghaddam, does teach that multiple flow paths create an entirety of the flow path part. Teng is only relied upon the rejections of records to teach equal widths between multiple flow paths, not the relation of the flow paths area vs. the area of the flow path part overall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727