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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received 11/24//2025:
Claims 1-13 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been overcome in light of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…wherein adjacent connectors are connected to each other at a position between the cooling tub and the battery cell” should be corrected to recite “wherein adjacent connectors are connected to each other at a position between the cooling tube and the battery cell”. Claims 2-13 are objected to for depending on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “…connectors each provided to connect a respective one of the battery cell to a corresponding one of the plurality of cooling tubes so as to cool the respective battery cell through the corresponding cooling tube… wherein each connector seals the respective battery cell and is connected to the corresponding cooling tube in a configuration that surrounds the cooling tube so as to allow the respective battery cell to be cooled through the corresponding cooling tube, and wherein adjacent connectors are connected to each other at a position between the cooling tub[e] and the battery cell”, claim 3 recites “…each connector is a pouch surrounding one of the battery cells”, and claim 4 recites “…each connector has a shape in which either an upper end portion or a lower end portion thereof, or both the upper end portion and the lower end portion thereof are connected to the corresponding cooling tube”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in light of Applicant arguments (for which support cannot be found), “a connector” will be interpreted as any combination of connected parts. For example, when a battery cell, comprising an electrode assembly and pouch housing, is mounted to the internal structure of a frame, “a connector” can be interpreted as the combination of the pouch housing and the frame, or the internal structure of the frame (wherein the cartridge is the external portion of the frame). This interpretation is supported by the amended claims and the Applicants arguments.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein adjacent connectors are connected to each other at a position between the cooling tub[e] and the battery cell”. Applicant argues that Fig. 1 shows the “unique connector structure in which the connector seals each battery cell while wrapping around and being connected to the cooling tube, thereby allowing heat from the cell to be directly discharged through the tube is claimed”.
While under proper circumstances, drawings alone may provide a written description of an invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, Examiner notes the drawings do not provide substantial evidence of the new limitation. The portion Applicant annotated as the connector in Fig. 1 is not taught to be the connector, nor does the disclosure teach or suggest where “adjacent connectors are connected to each other at a position between the cooling tub[e] and the battery cell”. One could just as easily interpret above dashed line section of Examiner annotated Fig. 1 as the connector:
PNG
media_image1.png
185
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret this part as the connector, as the instant disclosure teaches the cartridge is used to fix the cells where a battery cell is surrounded by and located inside of the cartridge (P47-48) and that the connector may be in the form of a pouch sealing the cell and surrounding the tube (P45). What Applicant indicates as the connector in Fig. 1 cannot be the connector, as it does not form a pouch sealing around the individual cells, nor would one know how to create this configuration. Furthermore, in light of Fig. 4 and 5, showing the tube within the pouch (Fig. 4), and the cartridges formed around the cells (Fig. 5), a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that inventor invented what is now claimed. Is each connector multiple parts? What material is used to connect adjacent connectors? What structure is provided to seal a cell, surround a tube, and provide connection between cells in light of Fig. 4? How are they connected in light of the cartridges taught to surround the cells as shown in Fig. 5? "[T]here cannot be a reduction to practice of the invention ... without a physical embodiment which includes all limitations of the claim.". When an explicit limitation in a claim is not present in the written description, it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the description requires that limitation. Therefore, the evidence provided in the specification is not reasonably commensurate in scope with independent claim 1.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190379094) in view of Lee et al. (US 20200343604).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a vehicle battery module comprising: battery cells (P6); a plurality of cooling tubes 200, each provided to correspond to one of the battery cells, or electrode assembly inside pouch 600 and disposed either above or below, or both above and below the corresponding one of the battery cells (P6-8.25; Fig. 2-3);
connectors, or frame 100 including battery cell 600 (inside of frame 100/130; Fig. 5) each provided to connect a respective one of the battery cell 600 to a corresponding one of the plurality of cooling tubes 200 so as to cool the respective battery cell through the corresponding cooling tube (Fig. 5-6);
a cartridge, or frame 100/140 (outside portions i.e., surrounding internal mounting structure of 100/130/600 and pipe 300 and connecting frames together; Fig. 3.7) and is configured to fix positions of the plurality of cooling tubes 200 relative to one another (P28-30; Fig. 2-3), as shown in annotated Fig. 5, below wherein the connector is highlighted and the cartridge is surrounded by dashed line;
a cooling pipe 300 connected to the plurality of cooling tubes 200 so as to supply a cooling medium to each of the plurality of cooling tubes 200 (P25-28; Fig. 3-6); wherein the cooling tube 200 is disposed directly on a pouch terrace portion of the battery cell 600 and is positioned in a region of the terrace portion that does not overlap with a terminal of the battery cell (Fig. 3-6),
wherein each connector, or internal frame 100/130 and cell 600, seals the respective battery cell and is connected to the corresponding cooling tube in a configuration that surrounds the cooling tube so as to allow the respective battery cell to be cooled through the corresponding cooling tube (P25; Fig. 5), and
wherein adjacent connectors are thermally connected to each other at a position between the cooling tube and the battery cell via TIM 700 placed on side of frame below cell and above tube 200 and injected once frames are laminated, thus formed a thermal interface material between assemblies (P31-32; Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
241
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim is silent in teaching a case coupled to outer sides of the battery cells in a state in which the battery cells, the connectors, and the cartridge are assembled; however, Lee, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a case 30 coupled to outer sides of the battery cells to protect the battery cells from external environment (P71; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the case of Lee, coupled to outer sides of the battery cells in a state in which the battery cells, the connectors, and the cartridge of Kim are assembled, to protect the cells from the environment and vibration. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the battery cells are pressed against each other in a surface-to-surface direction, and wherein each of the plurality of cooling tubes 200 is disposed to be spaced apart either upwards or downwards from a corresponding one of the battery cells 600, corresponding to the central part of the structure, so as to form a space between the cooling tube and the corresponding battery cell (P32; Fig. 3-6).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches each connector is a pouch surrounding one of the battery cells, wherein the connector includes frame and cell pouch mounted thereto, as shown in annotated Fig. 5, above (P25; Fig. 2-6). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the battery cell, or electrode assembly, is inside the pouch, or cell 600 of modified Kim.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches each connector, or frame + cell 100/600 has a shape in which lower end portion thereof, or aperture 130 connects to corresponding cooling tube (P25-26; annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches each of the plurality of cooling tubes 200 is supported by a cartridge adjacent thereto 100/110 (Fig. 3-6).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the cartridge 100 comprises a plurality of segments comprising outer segments 140 and inner segments 100, wherein the outer segments cover outermost battery cells (P28), and wherein the inner segments cover inner battery cells excluding the outermost battery cells (P28; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the outer segments 140 and the inner segments 100 form a rim so that the battery cells 600 are disposed inside the cartridge (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches a space is provided between the outer segment 140 and the inner segment 100, wherein Fig. 3 shows outer and inner segments of different sizes with at least terminals interposed between thus amounting to a space or gap (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches a space is provided between the connectors 110 (Fig. 3) and the case (in view of Lee providing the case).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim in view of Lee teaches the case covers all of the plurality of cooling tubes, the battery cells, the connectors, and the cartridge, wherein the case covers the entire module (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim teaches cooling holes, or apertures 130 are respectively formed above and below a corresponding one of the battery cells 600, and each of the plurality of cooling tubes is inserted through a corresponding one of the cooling holes (P25-26; Fig. 3-5).
Alternatively, claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim in view of Lee as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Dudley et al. (US 2016/0351977).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches the connector is a frame with a battery cell shown as a pouch (P25) but is silent in explicitly teaching each connector is a pouch surrounding one of the battery cells; however, Dudley, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a cooling system for a pouch cell (P22).
Pouches 252 form the connectors to connect a respective battery cell to a corresponding one of the plurality of cooling tubes 232/234 so as to cool the respective battery cell through the corresponding cooling tube to regulate temperature, reduce parts, and minimize leakage (P35-36; Fig. 1.9.11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the pouch exterior as the connector of modified Kim, to require less components and control potential leakage, as taught by Dudley.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim is silent in teaching each connector seals the respective battery cell and has a shape in which either an upper end portion or a lower end portion thereof, or both the upper end portion and the lower end portion thereof are connected to the corresponding cooling tube and surround the corresponding cooling tube so as to allow the respective battery cell to be cooled through the corresponding cooling tube; however, Dudley, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a cooling system for a pouch cell (P22).
Pouches 252 form the connectors to connect a respective battery cell to a corresponding one of the plurality of cooling tubes 232/234 so as to cool the respective battery cell through the corresponding cooling tube. Each connector 252 seals the respective battery cell and has a shape in which either an upper end portion or a lower end portion thereof, or both the upper end portion and the lower end portion thereof are connected to the corresponding cooling tube 232/234 and surround the corresponding cooling tube so as to allow the respective battery cell to be cooled through the corresponding cooling tube to regulate temperature, reduce parts, and minimize leakage (P35-36.44-46; Fig. 1.9.11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the pouch exterior as the connector of modified Kim, sealing the cell and tubes within to require less components and control potential leakage, as taught by Dudley. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim in view of Lee as applied to at least claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0067656).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim is silent in teaching absorption pads configured to absorb swelling of the battery cells are respectively disposed between an outermost battery cell and an inner battery cell adjacent thereto and between an adjacent pair of inner battery cells; however, Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches absorption pads, or elastic buffering pads 141 configured to absorb swelling, or limit the position of the battery cells are respectively disposed between an outermost battery cell and an inner battery cell adjacent thereto and between an adjacent pair of inner battery cells to provide stability from external impact and vibration (P78.81; Fig. 6.10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have absorption pads configured to absorb swelling of the battery cells of modified Kim respectively disposed between an outermost battery cell and an inner battery cell adjacent thereto and between an adjacent pair of inner battery cells, to maintain stability as taught by Zhang.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim in view of Lee as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee’18 (US 20180138561).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim is silent in teaching an end of the plurality of cooling tubes and the cooling pipe are connected by a rubber tube; however, Lee’18, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches using a rubber tube, or rubber O-ring 400 to prevent leakage of coolant and securing a coupling force between coolant pipes 354/240 (P81-83; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have an end of the plurality of cooling tubes of modified Kim and the cooling pipe connected by a rubber tube to prevent leakage of coolant and securing a coupling force, as taught by Lee’18. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed 11/24/2025:
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
115
723
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
152
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes new claim interpretation in light of Applicants arguments and new claim limitation. Examiner could not find the support for the unique connector structure in the instant disclosure and thus they amount to mere attorney arguments. As such, any overlapping, or combination of structures can be interpreted as the connector, or the connector can be interpreted as multiple parts in combination.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., connector comprises multiple separate parts, wherein one seals the cell and another surrounds the tube) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or in the disclosure.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The connector of Dudley both encloses the cell and surrounds the tube and when a plurality are together will have thermal contact (P23-26). The connector of Kim is interpreted as the combination of the pouch laminate exterior of cell 600 and the internal part of frame 100.
Above set forth modified grounds of rejection establish prima facie obviousness of the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752