DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/16/25. The applicant has overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection and the 102 rejection over Kobayashi et al’708 as set forth in the previous office action. However, applicant’s amendment has not yet satisfactorily overcome the remaining prior art rejection. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. Therefore, the present claims (including new claims 19-27) are now finally rejected over remaining ground of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions and Claim Disposition
With respect to Species I-B-1/2/3, upon further consideration, the election of species concerning Species I-B-1/2/3 is hereby withdrawn, and all related claims (i.e., claims 7-9) are being examined for patentability. In this respect, during the 12/15/25 interview, applicant stated and explained that all the features identified in respective Species I-B-1/2/3 including the fan, the heater and the chiller can be all included in one single embodiment per se. In light of applicant’s statement and explanation, such election of species has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 and 19-27 are pending; of which claims 1-11 are original, claims 19-27 are new; and claims 12-18 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-11 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoshida et al 2020/0406784.
As to claims 1, 10-11, 19-24 and 26-27:
Yoshida et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a traction battery pack/module (0010; 0036) including a cell stack including a plurality of battery cells and a plurality of thermal energy transfer assemblies along an axis including a shielding/cooling plate assisting in defining coolant channels, passageway, pathway between respective first and second battery cells within the plurality of battery cells for increasing the flow rate of the cooling air (Abstract; 0007-0010; 0031-0036; 0038; 0038-0050; 0064-0066; 0070; see Exemplary Embodiment 1; Figures 1-4 & 11-12). Yoshida et al disclose cooling plate 3 including cooling passage 8 to circulate/convey liquid coolant through the battery module (Abstract; 0007-0009; 0011-0012; 0029-0034; 0002-0003; 0044-0053). Figures 1-4 and 11-12, infra, illustrate the structure of the battery pack/module:
PNG
media_image1.png
434
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
462
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
452
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
614
410
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
442
692
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claims 7-9, 25:
Yoshida et al disclose the use of a cooling fan 24 as an air mover (Abstract; 0066; 0092). In addition, Yoshida et al disclose heat exchanger 23, and radiator 26 (which can be taken to represent applicant’s structurally undefined heater and chiller).
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the battery pack assembly comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claim 2.
Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Note that claims 3-6 are allowable by virtue of their dependency upon claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/25, with respect to the 102 rejection over Kobayashi et al’708 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, such prior art rejection been withdrawn, and there is no need to address applicant’s argument concerning the same.
However, applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25, with respect to the 102 rejection over Yoshida et al’784 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this regard, applicant has made the allegation that Yoshida et al fails to teach the limitation “thermal energy transfer assembly providing a channel configured to communicate a flow of air between the first battery cell and the second battery cell”. With respect to independent claim 1, it is noted that the limitation “configured to communicate a flow of air between the first/second battery cell” does not positively recite or require that a flow of air is, indeed, actually, flowing or passing through that channel, as it merely calls for “a channel” which can be any passage, passageway, path or pathway capable of connecting two battery cells but it does not stipulate that air is flowing or passing through that channel. As such, it is the posture of the examiner that any passage, passageway, path or pathway or conduit between two battery cells is sufficient to satisfy such broadly claimed requirement of being a channel/passage. Further, applicant has not yet demonstrated on the written record that Yoshida et al’s battery pack/module system operates in vacuum or that air is not present - at all - within the battery pack/module system so as to flow from one side of a first battery cell to another side of a second battery cell. Note also that applicant has failed to define the specific structure of such channel, as well as to recite the presence of airflow in the channel in a positive manner. Still further, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Moreover, 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.
With respect to independent claims 20 and 23, 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., “thermal energy transfer assembly providing a channel configured to communicate a flow of air between the first battery cell and the second battery cell”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicant’s argument are not commensurate in scope with the subject matter recited in independent claims 20 and 23.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (for new claims 19-27). 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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752