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 Status
Claims 1-4 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 4 and 27.
Claims 5-20 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-4 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Wang is now relied on to teach the limitations specifically challenged in the arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests amending “another end portion” in line 7 to ---an other end portion---. Claims 2-3 are rejected because of dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the outflow path has a larger flow path area than the flow path area of the branch paths”. It is unclear from this recitation if one or both of the previously recited “pair of outflow paths” is being referred to. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to one of the outflow paths. Claim 3 is rejected based on its dependence on claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein each of the plurality of individual placement portions obtained by dividing the placement portion has an individual coolant flow path”. This recitation is indefinite because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim thus confusing the metes, bounds and scope of the claim as claim 4 is directed to an apparatus. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “wherein each of the plurality of individual placement portions has an individual coolant flow path”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu (US 20190131674 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lu discloses an electric vehicle ([0116]) battery case (Fig. 1; 10, 30) comprising:
a tray (Fig. 2; 100) including a placement portion (Fig. 2; 121) on which a battery (Fig. 1; 20) is placed and having a groove (“slot”; [0065]) formed in a bottom portion (“lower plate”; [0065]) of the placement portion (121);
a closing plate (“upper plate”; [0065]) joined to the tray (100) to close ([0065]) the groove ([0065]) and define a coolant flow path (“flow channel 130”; [0065]); and
a top cover (Fig. 1; 30) configured to seal the placement portion (121) of the tray (100);
wherein the placement portion (121) is divided into a plurality of individual placement portions (Fig. 2; see plurality of 121) by a projecting portion (Fig. 2; 122) having a bottom surface (Fig. 2; top and side surfaces of 122) partially projecting upward (Fig. 2) and extending in a vehicle width direction (annotated Fig. 2; W), and
PNG
media_image1.png
343
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of individual placement portions (plurality of 121) obtained by dividing (see 112(b) rejection above) the placement portion (121) has an individual coolant flow path (“a flow channel 130” [0074]; see Fig. 3) separate from an individual coolant flow path (130; see Fig. 2 and 3 and the plurality of 121; [0074]) of each of the other (121; [0073-0074]) of the plurality of individual placement portions (121), and
wherein each of the individual coolant flow paths (each 130 of the plurality of 121 in Fig. 2; [0074]) is provided with an inlet and an outlet ([0074]).
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal (US 20180233789 A1) in view of Wang (CN-109786895-A, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Iqbal discloses an electric vehicle battery case (“traction battery assembly”; [0021] including “cover” [0024]) comprising:
a tray (Fig. 3; element 110) including a placement portion (annotated Fig. 3; PP) on which a battery (Fig. 3; elements 104 and 106) is placed and having a groove (Fig. 3; element 140) formed in a bottom portion of the placement portion (PP);
PNG
media_image2.png
648
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a closing plate (Fig. 3; element 108) joined to the tray (110) to close the groove (140) and define a coolant flow path ([0025]; Fig. 3; 140 closed by 108); and a top cover (“cover”; [0024]) configured to seal ([0024]; see explanation below) the placement portion (PP) of the tray (110).
Regarding the limitation “configured to seal”, the examiner notes that “to seal” is defined as “[t]o cover, secure, or fill up” (seal. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved December 2 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/seal) and the cover “covers” 140 via attachment to 132 per [0024]. Thus, the cover is configured to seal the placement portion as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
490
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the coolant flow path (Fig. 3; 130 closed by 108) includes an inlet (Fig. 6; element 142), an outlet (Fig. 6; element 144), an inflow path (Fig. 6; element 160) extending from the inlet (142) from one end portion (annotated Fig. 6; 1EP) to another end portion (annotated Fig. 6; 2EP) in a front-rear direction (annotated Fig. 6; FR) of the tray (110), an outflow path (annotated Fig. 6; element OP) extending to the outlet (144) from the one end portion (1EP) to the other end portion (2EP) in the front-rear direction (FR) of the tray (110), and a branch path (annotated Fig. 6; element BP) branching from the inflow path (160) and joining at the outflow path (OP).
PNG
media_image4.png
599
878
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Iqbal fails to disclose wherein the coolant flow path includes a pair of outlets, an inflow path extending at a center in a width direction of the tray, a pair of outflow paths each extending to one of the pair of outlets from the one end portion to the other end portion in the front-rear direction of the tray at opposing outer portions in the width direction of the tray, and a plurality of branch paths each branching from the inflow path and joining at one of the outflow paths.
Wang relates to the field of heat dissipation technologies ([006]) and discloses that in the field of thermal management of electric vehicle batteries there is a need for heat dissipation uniformity ([009]). To address this need, Wang discloses
a tray (Fig. 6; 1-4) comprising a coolant flow path (Fig. 6; arrows);
PNG
media_image5.png
376
599
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the coolant flow path (Fig. 6; arrows) includes an inlet (annotated Fig. 6; I), a pair of outlets (annotated Fig. 6; O), an inflow path (annotated Fig. 6; IP) extending from the inlet (I) from one end portion (annotated Fig. 6; 1EP) to another end portion (annotated Fig. 6; 2EP) in a front-rear direction (annotated Fig. 6; X) of the tray (1-4) at a center (Fig. 6) in a width direction (annotated Fig. 6; Y) of the tray (1-4), a pair of outflow paths (annotated Fig. 6; OP) each extending to one of the pair of outlets (O) from the one end portion (1EP) to the other end portion (2EP) in the front-rear direction (X) of the tray (104) at opposing outer portions (Fig. 6; 3) in the width direction (Y) of the tray (1-4), and a plurality of branch paths (Fig. 6; 2) each branching from the inflow path (IP) and joining at one of the outflow paths (OP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iqbal by substituting the coolant flow path taught by Wang in place of Iqbal’s coolant flow path because doing so would reasonably be expected to provide heat dissipation uniformity to Iqbal’s device as taught by Wang ([0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Iqbal in view of Wang discloses wherein the inflow path (IP) has a larger flow path area (Fig. 6; flow path area of 1) than a flow path area (Fig. 6; flow path area of 2) of the branch paths (2), and
wherein the outflow path (O) has a larger flow path area (Fig. 6; flow path area of 3) than the flow path area (Fig. 6; flow path area of 2) of the branch paths (2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal (US 20180233789 A1) in view of Wang (CN-109786895-A, machine translation used for rejection below) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Park (US 20060225867 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Iqbal in view of Wang discloses wherein the flow path area (Fig. 6; flow path area of 1) of the inflow path (IP) decreases from the inlet (I) toward the outlets (O).
Iqbal in view of Wang fails to disclose wherein the flow path area of the outflow paths increases from the inlet toward the outlets.
Park discloses a coolant flow path (Fig. 2; flow path from 111 to 112) that includes an inlet (Fig. 2; element 111), an outlet (Fig. 2; element 112), an inflow path (Fig. 2; element 120) extending from the inlet (111), an outflow path (Fig. 2; element 130) extending to the outlet (112), and a plurality of branch paths (Fig. 2; element 113) each branching from the inflow path (120) and joining at the outflow path (130),
wherein the flow path area (Fig. 2; area of 120) of the inflow path (120) decreases from the inlet (111) toward the outlet (112), and wherein the flow path area (Fig. 2; area of 130) of the outflow path (130) increases from the inlet (111) toward the outlet (112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Iqbal in view of Wang by forming the outlet flow paths such that the flow path area of the outflow paths increases from the inlet toward the outlets as taught by Park, in order to permit a uniform amount of coolant to flow within the channels and permit the temperature of a surface of the tray contacting the battery cells to be constant (Park [0015]; [0003]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights