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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 11/26/25. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Claims 2-7 and 11-15 are canceled. Claims 1, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
Specification
The amendment filed 11/26/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the limitations to “wherein the cooling port, the coolant tube, the bracket, and the gasket are all located above a lower edge of the end plate covering the front surface of the battery cell stack” are found not to be supported by the instant disclosure. It is noted that the Remarks filed 8/13/25 do not provide an explanation of how the limitation is supported.
The examiner is unable to find any support for the limitation in the originally filed specification. Further, the specification states that the drawings are not based on actual scale and elements may be exaggerated in size ([0040]). Therefore, it is impossible to determine from the drawings where the lower edge of the end plate is located in comparison to the cooling port, coolant tube, bracket, and gasket.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, with regard to claims 1 and 10, the limitations to “wherein the cooling port, the coolant tube, the bracket, and the gasket are all located above a lower edge of the end plate covering the front surface of the battery cell stack” are found not to be supported by the instant disclosure. It is noted that the Remarks filed 8/13/25 do not provide an explanation of how the limitation is supported.
The examiner is unable to find any support for the limitation in the specification. Further, the specification states that the drawings are not based on actual scale and elements may be exaggerated in size ([0040]). Therefore, it is impossible to determine from the drawings where the lower edge of the end plate is located in comparison to the cooling port, coolant tube, bracket, and gasket.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yum et al. (US 2016/0164148) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2018/0309152) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0288020).
Regarding claim 1, Yum teaches a battery module comprising:
a battery cell stack, or battery module (24), in which a plurality of battery cells (450, 452, 454, etc.) are stacked;
a module frame, or supporting frame (20) and support plates (44, 46), for housing the battery cell stack;
end plates, or end support plates (40, 42), for covering front and rear surfaces of the battery stack (see Figures 1, 2, and 12).
Yum further teaches a heat sink, or cooling plate assembly (22), attached to a bottom part of the module frame (22) (Figure 1);
a cooling port, or first tubular port (90), configured to supply a coolant to the cooling plate assembly (Figures 3-9, [0045]);
wherein the module frame comprises a module frame protrusion part that extends from a bottom part of the module frame (20) beyond the end plate (40) (Figure 12), and
wherein the cooling port (90) protrudes upward from an upper surface of the module frame protrusion part (Figure 12).
It is seen in Figures 1-3, 8, and 12 of Yum that the inner portion of the coolant port forms a coolant tube located in the center of the cooling port. Further, Yum teaches a heat sink connection port, or aperture (360), located on the module frame protrusion port (Figure 12). It is noted that instant Figure 6 depicts a refrigerant tube (511), considered to be analogous to a coolant tube, provided in the center of the port (500).
Regarding claim 10, Yum teaches a battery module including end plates, or end support plates (40, 42), on front and rear ends of a module frame, or supporting frame (20) and support plates (44, 46), and a cooling port, or first tubular port (90), protrudes upward from an upper surface of the module frame protrusion part (Figures 1, 3-9, 12; see also above rejection of claim 1).
Yum fails to teach specifically the manufacturing method of assembling the parts discussed above; however, the examiner finds that the skilled artisan will easily agree that the parts discussed above are necessarily coupled together in the claimed order so as to form the battery module taught by Yum. Additionally, it is clearly seen in Figure 12 that the end plate is attached in a direction perpendicular to the attachment of the cooling ports as shown in Figures 4 and 9.
As to the order in which the end plates and cooling part are attached to the module, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to attach the cooling port after the end plates in order to ensure that the cooling port does not interfere with proper alignment of the end plate as shown in annotated Figure 12 below, and further because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 IV C
With further regard to claims 1 and 10, Yum fails to teach some of the claimed structural elements.
Takahashi and Yamamoto are directed to connection structures of coolant pipes (90a of Takahashi; 92 of Yamamoto) for fuel cells. The teachings of Takahashi and Yamamoto are found to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. providing coolant to an electrochemical device.
Takahashi teaches the claimed structural elements as depicted in annotated Figure 9, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
714
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Takahashi does not teach that the cooling port is perpendicular to the module frame protrusion part (or the frame part of the module to which the cooling port is connected); however, Yamamoto teaches a cooling port provided perpendicularly to the module structure, wherein the cooling port (92) is connected to the module frame by a fastening member (95) (Figure 8).
Takahashi teaches that the structure as discussed above is desirable for attaching cooling fluid manifolds, or cooling ports, in order to suppress damage to the manifolds while ensuring tight coupling between the parts ([0017]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known connection structural elements of Takahashi and Yamamoto in the module of Yum in order to ensure tight coupling while suppressing damage to the component parts.
It is noted that both Yum and Yamamoto teach tubular ports; therefore any gaskets of Yum in view of Takahashi and Yamamoto would necessarily be annular. The combination does not suggest changing the shape of the elements of Yum, merely using the structural elements of Takahashi such as a bracket and gasket in order to ensure tight coupling.
Further regarding claims 1 and 10, as to the relative location of the components discussed above compared to the lower edge of the end plate, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide the cooling port, coolant tube, and bracket at a position above the lower edge of the end plate in order to provide easier accessibility for maintenance and/or repair. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI C)
As for claim 16, Yum teaches a battery pack (10) comprising the module discussed above ([0015]).
With regard to claim 17, Yum teaches that the heat sink, or cooling plate assembly (22), includes:
a lower plate, or pan member (80) that contacts the frame (20) (Figures 1 and 4);
an inlet, or first internal region (345), to supply coolant to the interior and an outlet, or second internal region (347), to remove coolant (Figure 9; [0045]);
and a flow passage part, or depressed plate portion (120), to allow coolant to flow (Figures 4-9).
As for claims 14 and 15, again the relative directions of assembly of the end plate and port are seen in Figure 12 of Yum:
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1033
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments on pages 6-7 of the Remarks concerning the rejection under 112a, the examiner is not convinced. The Figures cited do not specifically show “a lower edge of the end plate”, and it is noted that Figure 7 does not even appear to show the end plate. Furthermore, “above” is a relative term that is tied to an orientation of the module, and the claims do not specifically define the orientation of the module nor does the specification use the term “above” to describe the locations of any of the elements mentioned in the limitation at issue. The rejection is maintained.
On pages 8-12, Applicant argues generally that the combination of the prior art reference as cited in the rejection would be “difficult.” The examiner notes that this is not listed in the MPEP as a reason for references not being combinable. Additionally, this alleged “difficulty” appears to be merely an assertion by Applicant’s attorney, and is not supported by evidence. MPEP 2145 I
The examiner notes that the proposed modification in the rejection do not render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose nor does it change the principle operation of the references (see MPEP 2143.01 V, VI).
Further, Applicant is reminded that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle, using the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. MPEP 2141.03 I
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729