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 .
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/033139 A1, a copy of which was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 27, 2023.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 9, WO ‘139 discloses a cooling device for cooling a battery cell stack having a plurality of battery cells of a battery system (abstract; paragraphs [0027]-[0046]; and Figures 1-7), in which the cooling device comprises the following structural features (also refer to annotated Figures 4 and 5 below):
a cooling inlet port (6) for inflow of a cooling medium into the cooling device (see Figure 1; and annotated Figure 4 below);
a cooling outlet port (7) for outflow of the cooling medium from the cooling device (see Figure 1; and annotated Figure 4 below); and
a cooling channel arranged in a coolant flow path (3) of the cooling medium between the inlet port (6) and the outlet port (7) (see Figure 2; and annotated Figure 4 below), wherein the cooling channel has a channel length, and the flow inserts (10) each have an insert length that corresponds to an integer multiple of the cooling channel length (see annotated Figure 5 below), and
wherein flow inserts (10) are arranged in the cooling channel, in which the flow inserts (10) are modular and planar (see annotated Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WO ‘139 fails to explicitly teach the new limitation “the at least two flow inserts (50) each have a same insert length (L2) extending in the longitudinal direction”.
However, since WO ‘139 discloses that one longitudinal insert (10a) in annotated Figure 4 above would have the same length as channel length (L1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have evenly separated inserts with (L2) lengths instead of one whole insert (10a). In this instance, providing separate inserts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for easier replacement in a case where one insert would fail, rather than replacing the entire insert (10a).
Regarding claim 2, the flow inserts (10) can be shaped by sheet metal rolling or stamping methods (see paragraph [0037]; and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, as well as claims 16 and 17, each of the flow inserts (10) have a plurality of flow disturbance devices as well as upper and lower contact surfaces that are parallel to one another (see annotated Figure 5 above, as well as paragraphs [0037] and [0041]-[0043]; and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, the cooling channel includes positioning devices (4) for positioning the flow inserts (10) in the cooling channel (see Figures 2 and 7; and annotated Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 5, the cooling device has a main body, wherein the flow inserts (10) are connected to the main body in a form-fitting and integrally bonded manner (see annotated Figures 4 and 5 above; and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, as well as claims 18 and 19, the cooling channel is designed in a manner integrally bonded in the main body and is closed with a cover element (2) (see annotated Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 7, the cooling device comprises at least one deflection channel (18,19) to deflect the coolant flow path (3) of the cooling medium by 180° (see annotated Figure 4 above).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 15, WO ‘139 does not explicitly disclose the claimed central separating web that separates a portion of the cooling channel in the flow path upstream of the deflection channel (of claim 8) and that the inlet port and the outlet port are arranged opposite each other (of claim 15). However, as based on Figure 2 of WO ‘139, it can be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that a separating web could be provided in order to further control a degree of turbulent flow of the cooling medium between the inlet port (6) and the outlet port (7) (see Figure 1; and annotated Figure 4 above). Furthermore, there are deflection channels (18,19) that are operable for the coolant flow path (3) to move in the configuration as shown. As to providing the inlet port and the outlet port at opposite sides of the cooling device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the arrangement of the inlet port (6) and the outlet port (7) to be as readily provided on opposite sides (rather than the same side illustrated in Figure 1 and in annotated Figure 4 above), since arrangement of said inlet and outlet ports relative to one another is merely a design expediency, and a reasonable expectation of success in cooling efficiency would be obtained with a limited number of finite predictable solutions based on locating the ports on the same side or the opposite side.
With regard to at least one relay being arranged in a region of the deflection channel and the battery stack being arranged in a region of the cooling channel (of claim 10), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least one relay in the battery system and providing these features adjacent to portions of the cooling device that require sufficient cooling to heat generating components, since such component(s) is/are part of a battery pack to be cooled during operation.
Regarding claim 11, the plurality of flow disturbance devices includes undulating strips offset relative to one another on each of the flow inserts (10), as shown in Figure 3 (see paragraphs [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 12, the upper and lower contact surfaces are parallel to one another (see annotated Figure 5 above, as well as paragraph [0037] and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, the main body is a housing (see annotated Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 14, the cover element (2) can be connected by a form-fitting or and integrally bonded manner to the main body or the flow inserts (10) (see annotated Figures 4 and 5 above; and Figure 6).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s after final response received by the USPTO on December 1, 2025. In referring to the newly underlined portions of the 35 USC 103 rejection above, the examiner has provided another interpretation of the same ground of rejection that differs from what was discussed in the telephone interview of October 8, 2025. Since the applicant did not amend independent claim 1 in the after final response (but instead amended claim 1 in the amendment dated July 1, 2025 that was addressed as a final rejection mailed September 8, 2025), this Office Action is again made final. Claims 1-19 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments have been addressed in the newly underlined portions applied above in the 35 USC 103 rejection in view of the different interpretation of independent claim 1.
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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 December 11, 2025
Prosecution Insights