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, Claim Status, and Other Notes
The amendment filed 20 January 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 31 October 2025. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3–10 are pending in the application.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the Instant Application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PGPub of the Instant Application. See US 2022/0399596 A1.
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, 3, 4, and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp et al. (US 2020/0176838 A1) in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2020/0106144 A1), as evidenced by Zhu et al. (CN 110635193 A1; see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Kopp discloses a battery housing part (see lower portion of housing 5, FIG. 1) for a battery housing (see housing 5, [0075], FIG. 1–3, 5, 6) of a battery module (see battery module 1, [0071], FIG. 1) for accommodating battery cells (see lithium ion battery cells 20 and battery cells 2, [0072]–[0073], FIG. 1), having a cooling channel (see flow space 9, [0078], FIG. 2B) with a cooling channel bottom (see bottom portion of receiving element 7, [0082], FIG. 2B), a cooling channel wall (see outer walls of receiving element 7 shown in e.g. FIG. 6, annotated below) for delimiting the cooling channel ([0084]), and flow-disturbing elements (see flow guidance elements 10, [0086], FIG. 2B, 4A, 4B) for disturbing a coolant flow in the cooling channel ([0087]), the flow-disturbing elements projecting in a height direction in a projection-like manner from the cooling channel bottom ([0086], FIG. 2B, 4A, 4B, 6), the cooling channel wall including an outer periphery in a shape of a rectangle (e.g. FIG. 2B shows that the outer walls of receiving element 7 are in the shape of a rectangle);
wherein the flow-disturbing elements are configured in a form of normal elements ([0032]; note that [0032] discloses that it is preferable for the flow-disturbing elements to be spaced apart from the cover plate, i.e. be in the form of normal elements).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 6 of Kopp annotated by the Examiner
Kopp does not disclose wherein a part of the flow-disturbing elements is configured in a form of supporting elements, the supporting elements being configured to be higher than the normal elements in the height direction in order to support a covering member covering the cooling channel, wherein the supporting elements define a plurality of supporting element groups, each group of the plurality of supporting element groups having a plurality of the supporting elements formed adjacently to each other, but does disclose a covering member (see cover plate 8, [0082], FIG. 2 and 6).
Schmitt teaches a battery housing part (see cooling plate 10, [0038], FIG. 1) for a battery housing of a battery module (see traction battery, [0003]) for accommodating battery cells (see at least one battery cell, [0038]) having a cooling channel (see flow chamber 16, [0039], FIG. 2) with a cooling channel bottom (see bottom of flow chamber 16, [0039], FIG. 2), a cooling channel wall (see outer walls of frame 12 and webs 46, [0040], [0050], FIG. 2) for delimiting the cooling channel ([0050]), and flow-disturbing elements (see supporting elements 30, [0042], FIG. 2) for disturbing a coolant flow in the cooling channel ([0042]), the flow-disturbing elements projecting in a height direction in a projection-like manner from the cooling channel bottom ([0042], FIG. 2 and 3), the cooling channel wall including an outer periphery in a shape of a rectangle (FIG. 2). Schmitt further teaches that the flow-disturbing elements are configured in a form of supporting elements which support a covering member (see cover 14, [0039], FIG. 1) covering the cooling channel ([0016], claim 1). Finally, Schmitt teaches that when the supporting elements define a plurality of supporting element groups, each group of the plurality of supporting element groups having a plurality of the supporting elements formed adjacently to each other (see parallelogram, [0048], FIG. 3), the turbulence can be increased ([0023]). Note that Schmitt is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of battery temperature control.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery housing part of modified Kopp such that a part of the flow-disturbing elements is configured in a form of supporting elements, the supporting elements being configured to be higher than the normal elements in the height direction in order to support a covering member (note that this would necessarily be the case in order for the supporting elements to contact the covering member, which Schmitt teaches to be the case), wherein the supporting elements define a plurality of supporting element groups, each group of the plurality of supporting element groups having a plurality of the supporting elements formed adjacently to each other, as taught by Schmitt, for the purpose of supporting the covering member covering the cooling channel while increasing turbulence.
Kopp does not disclose wherein each group of the plurality of supporting element groups distanced from one another and located adjacent to a corner of the outer periphery of the cooling channel wall such that the covering member is supported at four corners of the rectangle.
However, it is a well-known practice in the field of battery temperature control to provide supportive structures in a cooling channel such that they are distanced from one another and located adjacent to corners of an outer periphery of a cooling channel such that the covering member is supported at the four corners, in order to prevent deformation of the cooling channel and covering member, as evidenced by Zhu ([0009], FIG. 1, 4).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery housing part of modified Kopp such that each group of the plurality of supporting element groups is distanced from one another and located adjacent to a corner of the outer periphery of the cooling channel wall such that the covering member is supported at four corners of the rectangle.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kopp discloses the battery housing part as set forth above. Kopp further discloses wherein the flow-disturbing elements are in a form of pegs (see cross section area 12… has a circular shape, [0094], FIG. 2B).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kopp discloses the battery housing part as set forth above. Modified Kopp further discloses (Schmitt [0056], FIG. 2–4) wherein a flat bearing plateau is formed on one end face of each of the supporting elements at a distance from the channel bottom.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kopp discloses the battery housing part as set forth above. As also set forth above, modified Kopp discloses supporting elements which project in a height direction from the cooling channel bottom to contact and support a covering member, and cooling channel walls which delimit the cooling channel. Kopp further discloses (FIG. 6) that the covering member contacts the cooling channel walls in a height direction. As such, for both the cooling channel walls and supporting elements to contact the covering member in modified Kopp, it will necessarily be the case that the supporting elements have the same height as the cooling channel wall in the height direction starting from the cooling channel bottom.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kopp discloses the battery housing part as set forth above. Kopp further discloses wherein the cooling channel, including the cooling channel bottom, the cooling channel wall (note that [0084] and FIG. 2B and 6 disclose that the receiving element 7 forms the cooling channel along with the covering member, i.e. receiving element 7 is both the cooling channel bottom and cooling channel wall, as also set forth above), and also the flow-disturbing elements ([0086], [0115]), is formed in one piece and/or monolithically.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kopp discloses a battery module (see battery module 1, [0071], FIG. 1) having a battery housing part according to Claim 1, a plurality of battery cells (see lithium ion battery cells 20 and battery cells 2, [0072]–[0073], FIG. 1) arranged in the battery housing part, and a covering member (see cover plate 8, [0082], FIG. 2 and 6) for covering the cooling channel, wherein the covering member is welded to the cooling channel wall ([0129]) and is distanced from the normal elements ([0032]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp et al. (US 2020/0176838 A1), in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2020/0106144 A1), as evidenced by Zhu et al. (CN 110635193 A1; see attached machine translation), as applied to Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–9 above, as further evidenced by Palanchon et al. (US 2017/0176108 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kopp discloses the battery housing part as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the flow-disturbing elements taper conically or concavely away from the cooling channel bottom.
However, it is a well-known practice in the field of battery temperature control to alter the size, shape, pattern, and/or spacing of flow-disturbing elements in order to change the surface area of the heat transfer surface and achieve improved temperature uniformity, as evidenced by Palanchon ([0122]). Furthermore, it is a well-known practice in the same field to form flow-disturbing elements as dimples which taper conically away from the cooling channel bottom, as also evidenced by Palanchon ([0071], FIG. 3, 4, 5).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery housing part of modified Kopp such that the flow-disturbing elements taper conically away from the cooling channel bottom, as Palanchon evidences that it is a well-known practice in the field to alter the e.g. shape of flow-disturbing elements in order to change the surface area of the heat transfer surface and improve temperature uniformity, as well as to form the flow-disturbing elements in the shape of dimples which taper conically away from the cooling channel bottom.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp et al. (US 2020/0176838 A1), in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2020/0106144 A1), as evidenced by Zhu et al. (CN 110635193 A1; see attached machine translation), as applied to Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–9 above, as further evidenced by Pöhn (WO 2021/072466 A1; see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kopp discloses the battery housing part as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the supporting elements are higher than the normal elements in the height direction in a range between 0.2 mm and 1 mm.
However, it is well-known in the field of battery temperature control that increasing the height of flow-disturbing elements improves the mixing of fluid layers, as evidenced by Pöhn ([0016]).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the height of the normal elements is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the mixing level of fluid layers, as evidenced by Pöhn, thus making the height of the normal elements a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery housing part of modified Kopp such that the normal elements are lower than the supporting elements (which have a height appropriate for contacting and supporting a covering member) in the height direction in a range between 0.2 mm and 1 mm, i.e. such that the supporting elements are higher than the normal elements in the height direction in a range between 0.2 mm and 1 mm, for the purpose of achieving a suitable mixing level of fluid layers. Note that generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed. The reasons for indicating Claim 10 as allowable were previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 27 January 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues on p. 6 of Remarks that the assertion that Schmitt discloses that the supporting elements are higher than normal elements is merely a conclusory statement, as the Examiner does not point to any normal elements in Schmitt, and therefore it is unclear how Schmitt discloses that the alleged supporting elements 30, are “higher than the normal elements,” as claimed in Claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive. It is indeed the case that teaching reference Schmitt does not teach any flow-disturbing elements in the form of normal elements, i.e. elements which are not tall enough to touch and thus do not support the covering member, and instead teaches only flow-disturbing elements in the form of supporting elements, i.e. elements which are tall enough to touch and support the covering member, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. However, it is also the case that primary reference Kopp teaches flow-disturbing elements in the form of normal elements as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. One of ordinary skill in the art can thus understand that while neither Schmitt nor Kopp teach flow-disturbing elements of differing heights, i.e. normal and supporting elements together, modifying Kopp such that a part of the flow-disturbing elements (which in unmodified Kopp, are all normal elements) are in the form of supporting elements as taught by Schmitt to reap the benefit of having flow-disturbing elements which support the covering member will necessarily result in the battery housing part of modified Kopp having both normal elements which are not tall enough to touch and thus do not support the covering member (i.e. the flow-disturbing elements of unmodified Kopp) as well as supporting elements which are tall enough to touch and support the covering member (i.e. the flow-disturbing elements of Schmitt).
Applicant argues on p. 6–7 of Remarks that the combination of Kopp and Schmitt is improper, because Kopp, as the primary reference, discloses coupling a rigid cover plate 8 to the receiving element 7, while Schmitt discloses a flexible cover 14 coupled to the elements 30, wherein the cover 14 “is inflated by an internal pressure which is produced by the coolant flowing through the flow chamber 16” (Schmitt [0054]), with the Examiner failing to identify any motivation or reason in Kopp or Schmitt for turning to the supporting elements 30 of Schmitt, which are intended to anchor the flexible cover 14, when looking to modify the rigid structure of Kopp.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, it is first noted that the Examiner, in the rejection of Claim 1 above, has indeed set forth a motivation for modifying Kopp and turning to the supporting elements 30 of Schmitt, namely that the supporting elements serve to support the flexible cover 14 (see Schmitt [0016], claim 1, and the descriptor of “supporting” used throughout to refer to the elements 30). Regarding Applicant’s argument that application of such a motivation would not be obvious because Schmitt highlights the flexible design of the cover 14 while the cover plate 8 of Kopp is “rigid”, it is noted by the Examiner that Kopp does not appear to make any mention of the rigidity (or lack thereof) of cover plate 8. Furthermore, regardless of the rigidity of the cover plate 8 of Kopp, one of ordinary skill in the art can appreciate that even a rigid covering member will have some susceptibility to bending and deformation when supporting a load, and therefore could be reasonably expected to reap the above described benefit of support via the supporting elements of Schmitt. Finally, while it is the case that Schmitt teaching that the flow of coolant through the flow chamber 16 inflates the flexible cover 14, as already set forth above, Schmitt also clearly states that the supporting elements 30 indeed support the flexible cover 14 in e.g. [0016], claim 1 of Kopp, and simply by referring to the elements 30 as “supporting” elements. It can therefore be understood that the supporting elements 30 of Schmitt do indeed serve this purpose and offer this benefit.
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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights