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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn as per election dated 08/18/2025.
Claims 1-8, 11-15 are rejected.
Claims 16-17 are cancelled.
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 1-4, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günther (US 20190252741 A1, “Günther”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200321669 A1, “Kim”) and in further view of Lee et al. (US 10326158 B2, “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11: Günther discloses a battery cooling device for an electric vehicle (see abstract “a temperature control device for a battery housing of a vehicle driven by electric motor”), comprising: a cooling block comprising accommodating units (see abstract “temperature control device is divided into a plurality of temperature control cells” & see [0030] “temperature control device designed as a temperature control panel 1”), each accommodating unit being configured to accommodate an end part of one or more battery cells (see FIG. 5 & [0038] describes “temperature control cell” & “a total of 12 battery modules 16 are accommodated in the battery housing 11. Each battery module 16 includes a plurality of individual battery cells combined together. The battery modules 16 are arranged at a distance from one another and are each situated in a temperature control cell”; see [0037] describes “battery housing 11 comprises a frame 12 made up of a plurality of hollow chamber profiles 13” & FIG. 5 describes “13” accommodates “16 battery modules”; see [0031] describes “instead of the battery module 2 shown in each temperature control cell TZ in the figures, a plurality of smaller battery modules may also be arranged there”). Günther discloses rectangular shape batteries (see FIG. 5 describes “16” with rectangular shape).
Regarding the limitation wherein each accommodating unit comprises a slot configured to receive one or more battery cells such that lateral circumferences of the battery cells are in thermal contact with inner surfaces of the slot, Günther discloses in [0037] “battery housing 11 comprises a frame 12 made up of a plurality of hollow chamber profiles 13” & FIG. 5 describes the frame 12 comprises slots “13” which receive “16 battery modules”.
Regarding the limitation the cooling block being configured to cool the sides of the battery cells, Günther discloses (see abstract & see [0030] describes temperature control & see [0031] describes “hydraulic pathway of the temperature control” & see FIG. 5 describes “temperature control cell TZ” & see FIG. 1 describes “TZ” is around “2 battery module”). Günther does not explicitly disclose cooling lateral circumferences of the battery cell.
Kim teaches cooling lateral circumferences of battery cells (see FIG. 5 “155B lower pad” & “151B upper pad” describes cooling circumferences of the battery cells “cylindrical battery cells 110” & see FIG. 2 describes “lower case 125” & “upper case 121” which reads on accommodating unit). Kim teaches “since the heat transfer pad made of a thermally conductive material is interposed between the plurality of cylindrical battery cells and the heat dissipation plate, the heat generated from the plurality of cylindrical battery cells accommodated inside of the secondary battery pack may be effectively transferred to the heat dissipation plate through the heat transfer pad. Accordingly, the cooling effect of the secondary battery pack may be maximized” (see [0036]).
Günther and Kim are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely heat dissipation (see title) & cooling efficiency (see [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate cooling battery cells by the cooling block as suggested by Kim (see FIG. 5 “155B” & “151B” & see [0036]) into the battery cooling device of Günther because Kim teaches doing so allows for effective heat transfer & “cooling effect of the secondary battery pack may be maximized”, as suggested by Kim (see [0036]).
Regarding the limitations wherein the cooling block comprises: an inlet nipple configured to introduce coolant into the cooling block; an inlet chamber configured to communicate with the inlet nipple; an outlet chamber; and an outlet nipple configured to discharge the coolant to the outside, Günther discloses in [0014] “inlet side” & “outlet side” & “supply of coolant through the first or central temperature control agent collector” & see FIG. 1 describes “3”, “4” & “4.1” & [0031] describes “inflow connections and return connections on the collectors 3, 4, 4.1, with which the temperature control panel 1 is connected to the other components of a temperature control agent circulation”; see [0013] “coolant collector”; see abstract “first temperature control agent collector” & see [0031] “inflow collector 3” reads on inlet chamber; see [0031] “temperature control agent channels 5 are connected at the inlet end to the inflow collector 3 and at the outlet end to the corresponding return collector 4 or 4.1”; see FIG. 1 “4.1” describes outlet configured to discharge the coolant to the outside & see [0031] “4.1, each representing a return collector”.
Regarding the limitation branch channels individually connected to the inlet chamber, Günther does not explicitly disclose.
Lee teaches coolant channels (see P11 col 5 par 4 “in order to improve heat dissipation efficiency, at least one coolant channel 160 may be formed so as to be located between each battery holder 150 and the outer circumference of the battery holder 150”).
Günther and Lee are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely effectively discharging heat from batteries to prevent fire and explosion (see P9 col 1 par 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee to include “at least one coolant channel 160 may be formed so as to be located between each battery holder 150 and the outer circumference of the battery holder 150” into the battery cooling device of Günther because doing so improves the heat dissipation efficiency, as suggested by Lee (see P11 col 5 par 4).
Regarding claim 11, Günther discloses a battery module (see abstract “battery module”) comprising: battery cells (see [0038] describes “each battery module 16 includes a plurality of individual battery cells combined together”).
Regarding claim 2, Günther the battery cooling device of claim 1 and further discloses in [0018] “temperature control device comprising the available heat exchanger surface is made of a material, such as a metal, that conducts heat well” which reads on thermally conductive material. Günther does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooling block is composed of a thermally conductive material.
Lee teaches cooling plate made of a thermally conductive material (see P11 col 5 par 10 “first cooling plate 140-1 and the second cooling plate 140-2, is made of a thermally conductive metal material” & see col 6 par 3 “upper plate 110 and the lower plate 120, each of which is made of an insulative thermoplastic resin”; see col 6 par 4 “consequently, it is possible to provide a battery module that is light while exhibiting excellent heat dissipation efficiency”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cooling block as suggested by Lee (see col 6 par 3 “upper plate 110 and lower plate 120, each of which is made of an insulative thermoplastic resin”) into the battery cooling device of Günther because doing so provides “a battery module that is light weight while exhibiting excellent heat dissipation efficiency” as suggested by Lee (see P11 col 6 par 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Günther discloses the battery cooling device of claim 1, the battery module of claim 11 and further discloses and the inlet and outlet nipples are disposed along a second direction (see FIG. 1 describes “5 temperature control agent channels” & see [0031] “temperature control agent channels 5 are connected at the inlet end to the inflow collector 3 and the outlet end to the corresponding return collector 4 or 4.1”). Günther does not explicitly disclose wherein the branch channels are disposed along a first direction, nor intersecting the first direction.
Lee teaches branch channels (see P11 col 5 par 4 “in order to improve heat dissipation efficiency, at least one coolant channel 160 may be formed so as to be located between each battery holder 150 and the outer circumference of the battery holder 150”; see FIG. 1 describes “160 coolant channel” & see P11 col 5 par 3 “at least one coolant channel 160 for discharging the heat generated from the battery cells during the charge and discharge of the battery cells to the outside is formed o as to be adjacent to the battery holders 150”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate branch channels as suggested by Lee (see P11 col 5 par 4 “at least one coolant channel 160”) into the battery cooling device of Günther because doing so improves the “heat dissipation efficiency” as suggested by Lee (see P11 col 5 par 4) and upon incorporating “160” into the battery cooling device of Günther, doing so would intersect the directions of the channels (see FIG. 1 of Günther; FIG. 1 & P11 col 5 par 3 of Lee “160 coolant channel”).
Regarding claim 4, Günther discloses the battery cooling device of claim 1 and wherein the accommodating units are slots (see [0037] describes “battery housing 11 comprises a frame 12 made up of a plurality of hollow chamber profiles 13”; see FIG. 5 describes the frame 12 comprises slots “13” which receive “16 battery modules”). Günther does not explicitly disclose and a heat transfer interface material is disposed on an inner surface of each of the slots nor and the heat transfer interface material is in close contact with a side surface of each of the battery cells.
Kim teaches heat transfer interface material (see FIG. 5 “155B lower pad” & “151B upper pad” describes heat transfer interface material and “cylindrical battery cells 110” & FIG. 2 describes “lower case 125” & “upper case 121” reads on accommodating unit). Kim teaches “since the heat transfer pad made of a thermally conductive material is interposed between the plurality of cylindrical battery cells and the heat dissipation plate, the heat generated from the plurality of cylindrical battery cells accommodated inside of the secondary battery pack may be effectively transferred to the heat dissipation plate through the heat transfer pad. Accordingly, the cooling effect of the secondary battery pack may be maximized” (see [0036]). Kim teaches “115B” & “151B” are in close contact with a side surface of “110” in FIG. 5.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate heat transfer interface material (see Kim “155B” & “151B” & FIG. 5 “110”) into the battery cooling device of Günther because Kim teaches doing so improves the cooling effect (see Kim [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Günther discloses the battery module of claim 12. Günther does not explicitly disclose wherein the inlet nipple is spaced apart from a first side of the cooling block at a reference interval along a longitudinal direction of the inlet chamber, and the outlet nipple is spaced apart from a second side of the cooling block, which faces the first side of the cooling block, at the reference interval.
Lee teaches coolant channel 160 (see FIG. 1 & P11 col 5 par 3 “at least one coolant channel 160 for discharging the heat generated from the battery cells during the charge and discharge of the battery cells to the outside is formed so as to be adjacent to the battery holders 150”). Lee teaches in P11 col 5 par 4 “in order to improve heat dissipation efficiency, at least one coolant channel 160 may be formed so as to be located between each battery holder 150 and the outer circumference of the battery holder 150”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “coolant channel 160” as suggested by Lee (see FIG. 1 & P11 col 5 par 4) & “160 may be formed so as to be located between each battery holder 150 and the outer circumference of the battery holder 150” into the battery module of claim 12 because doing so improves the heat dissipation efficiency (see P11 col 5 par 4).
Regarding claim 14, Günther discloses the battery module of claim 12. Günther does not explicitly disclose wherein the inlet nipple is spaced apart from a first side of the cooling block at a first interval, and the outlet nipple is spaced apart from a second side of the cooling block, which faces the first side of the cooling block, at a second interval different from the first interval.
Lee teaches “160” (see P11 col 5 par 3 “at least one coolant channel 160 for discharging the heat generated from the battery cells during the charge and discharge of the battery cells to the outside is formed so as to be adjacent to the battery holders 150”; see FIG. 1 describes “160” at different intervals (160 at the top & bottom vs. 160 in the middle which reads on first interval and second interval different from the first as required by the claim limitation). Lee teaches in P11 col 5 par 4 “in order to improve heat dissipation efficiency, at least one coolant channel 160 may be formed so as to be located between each battery holder 150 and the outer circumference of the battery holder 150”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “160” spaced at different intervals as suggested by Lee (see FIG. 1 & P11 col 5 par 3) into the battery module of Günther because doing so improves the heat dissipation efficiency, as suggested by Lee (see P11 col 5 par 4).
Regarding claim 15, Günther discloses the battery module of claim 11 and further discloses exchange heat with the battery cells and the cooling block (see [0031] “heat exchanger parts 6” & see FIG. 1 describes “battery module 2” & temperature control cells TZ”). Günther does not explicitly disclose further comprising heat exchange members interposed between the battery cells and the accommodating units.
Kim teaches heat exchange members (see FIG. 5 “155B lower pad” & “151B upper pad” describes heat exchange members) & see FIG. 2 describes battery cells “cylindrical battery cells 110” & in FIG. 2 describes “lower case 125” & “upper case 121” which reads on accommodating units. Kim teaches “since the heat transfer pad made of a thermally conductive material is interposed between the plurality of cylindrical battery cells and the heat dissipation plate, the heat generated from the plurality of cylindrical battery cells accommodated inside of the secondary battery pack may be effectively transferred to the heat dissipation plate through the heat transfer pad. Accordingly, the cooling effect of the secondary battery pack may be maximized” (see [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate heat exchange members (see FIG. 5 “155B” & “151B”) as suggested by Kim into the battery module of Günther because doing so maximizes the cooling effect as suggested by Kim (see [0036]).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günther (US 20190252741 A1, “Günther”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200321669 A1, “Kim”) and Lee et al. (US 10326158 B2, “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pekarsky et al. (US 20140216693 A1, “Pekarsky”).
Regarding claim 5, Günther discloses the battery cooling device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the inlet nipple includes a plurality of inlet nipples (see FIG. 2 & [0035] describes “second inflow collector 10”; see abstract “temperature control device”; see [0035] “temperature control panel 7”) and the plurality of inlet nipples are disposed upward from a first end of the cooling block (see annotated FIG. 2 describes inlets are disposed upward from a first end of the cooling block (annotated “in” describes inlet nipples upward from annotated “1e” which describes the first end).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation and the cooling block comprises an inlet nipple cover configured to close all of the inlet nipples except for one specific inlet nipple, Günther does not explicitly disclose.
Pekarsky teaches inlet cover (see [0066] “inlet cover 154” & “outlet cover 156” & “inlet port 158 may include a barbed opening 160 for connecting to the battery thermal loop 110” see FIG. 3) and in [0067] describes “liquid coolant enters the inlet port 158 and can flow around the lateral sides 176 of the filtration media 170 where fluid passes through the filtration media 170 and then exits the outlet port 162. The filtration media 170 captures any debris along the lateral sides 176 thereby preventing the debris from exiting the outlet port 162.” Pekarsky teaches cooling system (see FIG. 5 & [0071]).
Günther and Pekarsky are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely thermal management for electric vehicles (see Pekarsky Title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate inlet cover, as suggested by Pekarsky (see [0066]) into the battery cooling device of Günther because doing so allows for the connection to the “battery thermal loop”, as suggested by Pekarsky (see [0066]) and doing so allows for coolant to flow through the inlet port and out the outlet port, as suggested by Pekarsky (see [0067]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to close all of the inlets except for one to control the rate of cooling.
Regarding claim 6, Günther discloses the battery cooling device of claim 5 and further discloses wherein the outlet nipple includes a plurality of outlet nipples disposed at a second end of the cooling block (see FIG. 2 describes outlets “9” & “9.1” & see [0035] “return collectors 9, 9.1”; see annotated FIG. 2 describes annotated “out” which describes outlets at the second end of the cooling block (annotated “2e”) & see [0035] “temperature control panel 7” reads on cooling block).
PNG
media_image2.png
686
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation and the cooling block comprises an outlet nipple cover configured to close all of the outlet nipples except for one specific outlet nipple, Günther does not explicitly disclose.
Pekarsky teaches inlet cover (see [0066] “inlet cover 154” & “outlet cover 156” & “inlet port 158 may include a barbed opening 160 for connecting to the battery thermal loop 110” see FIG. 3) and in [0067] describes “liquid coolant enters the inlet port 158 and can flow around the lateral sides 176 of the filtration media 170 where fluid passes through the filtration media 170 and then exits the outlet port 162. The filtration media 170 captures any debris along the lateral sides 176 thereby preventing the debris from exiting the outlet port 162.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate closing the outlet covers except for one because a skilled artisan would find it obvious to close all of the outlets except for one specific outlet in order to control the rate of cooling and doing so captures debris, as suggested by Pekarsky (see [0067]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Günther discloses the battery cooling device of claim 6. Günther does not explicitly disclose wherein the inlet nipple cover is configured to be closed through bolt coupling from each of the inlet nipples nor wherein the outlet nipple cover is configured to be closed through bolt coupling from each of the outlet nipples.
Pekarsky teaches “inlet cover 154 and outlet cover 156 may also include attachment features 164 which are adapted to receive fastener or be mounted to a component” (see [0066]). Pekarsky teaches cooling system (see FIG. 5 & [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “fasteners” as suggested by Pekarsky into the battery cooling device of Günther because doing so allows for attachment of the covers as suggested by Pekarsky (see [0066]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P8, “Günther does not disclose “slots configured to receive one or more battery cells such that the lateral circumferences of the battery cells are in thermal contact with inner surfaces of the slot” & “Kim’s structure does not teach the claimed slot-based thermal contact”, & “Lee, similarly, teaches coolant channels 160 formed adjacent to external battery holders 150 on a separate cooling plate…again, not inner slot surfaces of a monolithic cooling block in thermal contact with cell lateral circumferences”, & “such a reconstruction goes beyond ordinary skill and constitutes impermissible hindsight” & regarding Applicant’s arguments on P9-P10 regarding Günther & “no direct thermal contact between the later circumferences of individual battery cells”, are unpersuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Günther discloses in [0037] “battery housing 11 comprises a frame 12 made up of a plurality of hollow chamber profiles 13” & FIG. 5 describes the frame 12 comprises slots “13” which receive “16 battery modules”. Günther discloses (see abstract & see [0030] describes temperature control & see [0031] describes “hydraulic pathway of the temperature control” & see FIG. 5 describes “temperature control cell TZ” & see FIG. 1 describes “TZ” is around “2 battery module”). Günther does not explicitly disclose cooling lateral circumferences of the battery cell.
Kim teaches cooling lateral circumferences of battery cells (see FIG. 5 “155B lower pad” & “151B upper pad” describes cooling circumferences of the battery cells “cylindrical battery cells 110” & see FIG. 2 describes “lower case 125” & “upper case 121” which reads on accommodating unit). Kim teaches “since the heat transfer pad made of a thermally conductive material is interposed between the plurality of cylindrical battery cells and the heat dissipation plate, the heat generated from the plurality of cylindrical battery cells accommodated inside of the secondary battery pack may be effectively transferred to the heat dissipation plate through the heat transfer pad. Accordingly, the cooling effect of the secondary battery pack may be maximized” (see [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate cooling battery cells by the cooling block as suggested by Kim (see FIG. 5 “155B” & “151B” & see [0036]) into the battery cooling device of Günther because Kim teaches doing so allows for effective heat transfer & “cooling effect of the secondary battery pack may be maximized”, as suggested by Kim (see [0036]).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P9, “combination must be supported by articulated reasoning” & in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Günther and Kim are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely heat dissipation (see title) & cooling efficiency (see [0001]). Günther and Lee are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely effectively discharging heat from batteries to prevent fire and explosion (see P9 col 1 par 4).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P10-P11 that Pekarsky “has no rational connection to the claimed nipple cover structure for a multi-nipple cooling block” is unpersuasive because Günther and Pekarsky are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely thermal management for electric vehicles (see Pekarsky Title) & further Pekarsky teaches multiple nipple cooling block (see FIG. 5 & [0071] “322” & “320”).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P11, “no reason to redesign it into the Applicant’s radically different insertion-slot architecture based on Kim’s pack-level pad assembly or Lee’s holder-based cooling plate” is unpersuasive because in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As previously stated, Günther and Kim are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely heat dissipation (see title) & cooling efficiency (see [0001]). Günther and Lee are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely effectively discharging heat from batteries to prevent fire and explosion (see P9 col 1 par 4).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P12 that “Lee’s thermally conductive plates are separate components, not the cooling block itself” is unpersuasive because Günther discloses the cooling block and in [0018] describes it is made of a material that conducts heat well which reads on thermally conductive material. Lee teaches heat dissipation efficiency in col 6 par 4; & Günther and Lee are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely effectively discharging heat from batteries to prevent fire and explosion (see P9 col 1 par 4).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P12 “not taught because Günther’s collector and channels run in parallel directions” is unpersuasive because Günther discloses in FIG. 1 “5” is disposed along the first direction & “4.1” is disposed along a second direction intersecting the first direction.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P12 “not spaced inward from a cooling block side” is unpersuasive because Lee teaches inward spacing from a cooling block side (see FIG. 1 describes “160”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/27/2026
Prosecution Insights