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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are amended.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on October 21st, 2025 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of July 23rd, 2025
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-12 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 102 rejections of claims 1,5, 10, and 11 over Fujii (US 2008/0026284) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 2 and 3 over Fujii are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejection of claim 4 over Fujii and further in view of Currle (US 5,824,432 B1) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 6 and 7 over Fujii and further in view of Ryosaku (JP 2006-040625) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 8, 9, and 12 over Fujii and further in view of Ryosaku and Naito (US 2015/0194710) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (US 2008/0026284 A1) and further in view of Oda (EP 1178558 A2). The combination of the two will be referred to as modified Fujii.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 11, the recitation of “a battery pack configured to be installed in a vehicle” is an example of intended use, and does not have patentable weight. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP 2111.02 (II).
Fujii teaches a battery pack comprised of a battery stack of a plurality of battery modules stacked in a first direction, a first side of the battery stack, and a second side of the battery stack.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujii continues to teach an air supply member (4B) that is fixed to a first side surface of the battery stack, defines an internal space along the same first side surface of the battery, and extends in a second direction alongside the first side surface of the battery stack. Fujii, however, fails to teach a partition member that divides the internal space 4B into an upper air supply passage and a lower air supply passage. Oda is analogous art to Fujii because both teach apparatuses containing power modules or batteries. Oda teaches that establishing partitions in the apparatus can establish “cooling ducts of uniform width” that ensure that air flow rates do not decrease and batteries can be “efficiently cooled” (Oda, [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to split Fujii’s air supply member into two air supply passages based on the teachings of Oda to ensure that the batteries in the battery stack are efficiently cooled.
Fujii continues to teach a plurality of air passages (28) [0070] provided between adjacent battery modules among the plurality of battery modules. These air passages have openings (25) at the first side of the battery stack and openings (26) at the second side of the battery stack (as required by claim 5 and depicted in Fig. 9 below). The internal space defined by air supply member 4B communicates with said openings 25.
PNG
media_image2.png
840
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The wall enclosed in the large rectangle in the annotated figure below is an exhaust member whose position is fixed with respect to the battery stack. The smaller rectangle encloses the area where the exhaust member is fixed to the outer pack case (3). The duct 5B is an exhaust portion between the exhaust member and the portion of the pack case that is located near the opening (7) at the end of the duct 5B (as required by claim 11).
PNG
media_image3.png
705
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the intended use of the battery pack in the vehicle is not given patentable weight. “During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II).
Furthermore, Fujii fails to teach a specific orientation of the battery pack with respect to its position in the vehicle, but rearranging the spatial orientation of the battery is an obvious modification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to orient Fujii’s battery in a way such that the first direction is an up-down direction of the vehicle and that the second direction is parallel to a width direction of the vehicle. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fujii teaches an air supply member 4B that is split by a partition into an upper air supply passage and a lower air supply passage (as mentioned in the above rejection of claim 1). Modified Fujii only teaches a single blower that would blow air into both supply passages, but it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include a second blower with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B). Naturally, if a person of ordinary skill in the art used two blowers, said person would likely connect one blower to the upper air supply passage and the other blower to the lower air supply passage.
Regarding claim 4, Oda teaches that when cooling ducts (i.e., the upper air supply passage and the lower air supply passage) are uniform in width, power modules (such as batteries) can be efficiently cooled [0012]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would ensure that the air supply passages are uniform in width, including the area of the discharge ports that connect the air supply passages to the blowers in order to achieve efficient cooling.
Regarding claim 10, modified Fujii’s battery case is comprised of a holder case which has an intermediary duct, and these parts are fixed together [0013].
Claims 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Fujii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryosaku (JP 2006040625 A; citations will be drawn to the translation contained in the IDS submitted on 07/22/2022). Modified Fujii does not teach a wire harness that extends through and is supported by the partition that divides the internal space. Ryosaku is analogous art to modified Fujii since both teach cooling systems in a battery pack. Ryosaku, however, teaches a wire harness accommodated within “the structure in which the inside of the inflow duct is divided into the ventilation space and the component space”. The ventilation space and component space correspond with the claimed internal space and accommodation space, respectively. Ryosaku teaches that having the wire harness in the component space (as required by claim 7) prevents “the turbulence of the cooling air flow” that occurs when “irregular unevenness caused by the multiple lead wires”. This hinders uniform flow, reducing the efficiency of cooling the battery [0033].
It is important to cool each battery evenly and uniformly because if the temperature between the batteries becomes uneven, the performance of hotter battery or batteries will deteriorate [0003]. Ryosaku continues to teach that each battery has a temperature sensor that is connected to a lead wire that is a part of the wire harness [0019]. This allows for the monitoring of battery cells to ensure that the batteries are been cooled evenly. Modified Fujii does not explicitly teach attaching temperature sensors to their batteries, but it would be an obvious modification to attach temperature sensors to the batteries connected to a wire harness present inside of the partition to detect differences in temperatures between the batteries (connecting the wire harness to a component, as required by claim 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include a wire harness in the accommodation space of modified Fujii’s partition where said wire harness is connected to temperature sensors on the batteries in order to both minimize turbulence in the air flowing through the battery pack as well as to monitor the temperature of each of the batteries.
Regarding claim 8, modified Fujii’s partition member extends in the second direction and is fixed with respect to battery stack, but is not necessarily comprised of two members that may fit together. However, absent an objective showing that the two-membered partition has an unexpected benefit over a single-bodied partition, it is an obvious design modification to split a hollow partition member into two components rather than a single component. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (C). Therefore, any partition suitable for use in modified Fujii’s modified device and able to support and accommodate a wire harness may be comprised of a single part and still read upon the claimed limitation of a two-membered partition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the usage of a partition member that is comprised of a single, integral member or the usage of a multi-membered partition is obviously a design choice.
Modified Fujii fails to teach a partition member that protrudes towards a face. However, Ryosaku’s partition member’s borders (26, enclosed by a circle) forms a square as seen in the figure below. Using a partition with a square-shaped cross-section and orienting the partition such that a vertex/tip points towards the battery stack would result in a partition member that protrudes to a face of the air supply member. Rearranging the orientation of a part is considered an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
PNG
media_image4.png
260
489
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, fixing the partition member to the pack case to make it an integral, single piece is an obvious modification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to fix the partition member to the pack case in order to integrate the two together. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Fujii and Ryosaku as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Naito (US 2015/0194710 A1). Both modified Fujii and Ryosaku fail to teach an elastic member on the tip of the partition member protruding towards a face of the air supply member. Naito is analogous art to modified Fujii and Ryosaku because they all teach batteries. Naito, however, teaches that an elastic resin material may have a foam-like structure [0027] and may be used as a shock absorber [0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the material of Naito on the partition of modified Fujii and Ryosaku to help absorb the shock from physical collisions that may damage the partition member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722