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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments filed 05/26/2026:
Claims 1-6 and 10-11 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 7-9 are canceled. Claim 11 is new.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 recites “…the passage has a first end and a second end, and wherein the heat exchanger comprises a surface closing a second end of the passage”. The disclosure teaches “The vaporized coolant 410 moves to the heat exchanger 400 and is cooled in the heat exchanger 400 by contacting the heat exchanger 400. In this case, the heat exchanger 400 itself is in the form of a flow path containing a refrigerant inside, or may be formed of a cooling fin, and is not particularly limited as long as it can be liquefied in contact with vaporized coolant 410” (P44). Therefore, the limitation of a heat exchanger comprising a surface closing the second end will be met when the coolant does not exist the system, or is closed and circulates the coolant, forming a closed system within the heat exchanger.
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 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacher et al. (DE 102017119467 B4) in view of Hirano et al. (JP 2013062023 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zacher teaches a battery pack 4 comprising a battery pack frame, or floor structure 22 including a plurality of accommodating portions (Fig. 1);
a plurality of battery cell laminates, or cells laminated together such as rectangular or pouch cells 13/23 accommodated in a respective one of the plurality of accommodating portions (P36.44-46; Fig. 1-2), and an upper plate, or cover, wherein the base has a U-profile and is paired with a lid that covers the plurality of accommodating portions (P28-29; Fig. 2-3), wherein the plurality of accommodating portions are separated by at least one partitioning wall, or pre-tensioning device 4, and a separation space exists between the at least one partitioning wall and the upper plate, the separation space is not partitioned by the partitioning wall and disposed to form one space, wherein the partition only need support from the base, saving weight and installation space (P29.40-44; Fig. 1).
Zacher is silent in teaching a coolant filled in the plurality of accommodating portions; and a heat exchanger liquifies the coolant that is vaporized by communicating with the plurality of accommodating portions, wherein the one space is not filled with the coolant, wherein a passage extends between the heat exchanger and the separation space, and wherein vaporized coolant flows in a first direction in the passage and liquified coolant flows in a second direction in the passage opposite the first direction; however, Hirano, in a similar field of endeavor teaches a battery pack comprising plurality of battery cells (P29).
Hirano teaches a coolant 4 filled in accommodating portion of a plurality of cells 3 and an upper plate, or top plate of condenser 6 and heat exchanger, or heat sink plate with fins 5/5a (or capacitor/cooler/evaporator 6/14/15) that liquifies the coolant that is vaporized by communicating with the accommodating portion of the cells to improve health, lifetime, and safety of a battery (P20-30; Fig. 2-5). A separation space 10, without partition walls and forming on space is not filled with the liquid coolant, i.e., leaving 30% to 20% of the area unfilled to account for pressure change and thermal exchange (P15-16.25; Fig. 1-3.6-8).
A passage, such as cooling pipe 14 extends between the heat exchanger, i.e., 15 and the separation space, and wherein vaporized coolant 12 flows in a first direction in the passage and liquified coolant 13 flows in a second direction in the passage opposite the first direction, wherein the passage, or cooling pipe has two open ends communicating with separation space/non-filled space (space filled with the gas that is vaporized coolant), where the vaporized coolant fills the inside of the passage 14, is liquified at the heat exchanger 15, and then the liquified coolant is returned to the space (P24-30; Fig. 4), as shown in annotated Fig. 4, below (dashed arrows showing counter flowing directions of coolant):
PNG
media_image1.png
527
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 heat exchanger of Hirano with the battery pack of Zacher, and have a coolant filled in the plurality of accommodating portions, while having the top at least 20-30% of the space below the exchanger not filled with coolant forming a separation space, such space existing in the not portioned space of Zacher, wherein a passage extends between the heat exchanger and the separation space, and wherein vaporized coolant flows in a first direction in the passage and liquified coolant flows in a second direction in the passage opposite the first direction, to improve health, lifetime, and safety of a battery. 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 2, modified Zacher in view of Hirano teaches the coolant is a liquid with insulating characteristics (P24).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zacher in view of Hirano teaches the plurality of battery cell laminates directly contacts the coolant (P9.24-25.28; Fig. 1-8)
Regarding claim 4, modified Zacher in view of Hirano teaches the coolant that is vaporized directly contacts the heat exchanger 15 wherein the pipe of the cooling passage within the heat exchanger is interpreted as a part of the heat exchanger (P20-30.39; Fig. 1-8)
Regarding claim 5, modified Zacher in view of Hirano teaches the coolant that is liquified is returned to the plurality of accommodating portions (P20-30; Fig. 1-8).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zacher teaches a device comprising the battery pack of claim 1 (P9).
Claim(s) 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zacher in view of Hirano as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kokubo et al. (US 6106972 A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zacher in view of Hirano is silent in teaching the passage extends from the upper plate covering the plurality of accommodating portions.
However, Kubuko, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a passage extending between an accommodation space and heat exchanger where the vaporized coolant flows in a first direction and liquified coolant flows in a second direction. The passage extends from the upper plate covering a plurality of accommodation portions configured to save space (Col 5 [14-37]; Col 7 [10-35]; Col. 10-1130 [48-]; Fig. 1.5.17).
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 the passage of modified Zacher in view of Hirano extend from the upper plate covering the plurality of accommodating portions, based on design needs and spatial limitations. Such arrangement is known and taught by Kubuko. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
The results are not unexpected because merely moving the passage to extend from the upper plate covering the accommodating portions as oppose to a side wall does not change the function of the module, heat exchanger, or passage and is a known arrangement while providing the exact functionality taught by Hirano.
Regarding claim 11, modified Zacher in view of Hirano teaches a passage with a first end (comprising the outlet/inlet into the housing) and a second end (forming the apex of passage in the heat exchanger) and therefore the heat exchanger comprises a surface closing a second end of the passage (Fig. 4).
Furthermore, Kubuko, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a passage extending between an accommodation space and heat exchanger where the vaporized coolant flows in a first direction and liquified coolant flows in a second direction. The passage extends from the upper plate covering a plurality of accommodation portions configured to save space (Col 5 [14-37]; Col 7 [10-35]; Col. 10-1130 [48-]; Fig. 1.5.17). The heat exchanger of Kubuko comprises a surface closing the second end of the passage (wherein the coolant is vaporized and condensed within pipe 26).
Therefore, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the passage of modified Zacher in view of Hirano such that the passage has a first end and a second end, and wherein the heat exchanger comprises a surface closing a second end of the passage, as taught by Kubuko, as a simple closed system for thermal control of a battery pack. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. 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 An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. MPEP 2144.06 II
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Claim 1 now recites that a passage extends between the heat exchanger and the separation space, and wherein vaporized coolant flows in a first direction in the passage and liquified coolant flows in a second direction in the passage opposite the first direction. The passage 310 is seen below with arrow depicting the flow of vaporized coolant and liquified coolant in opposite directions in the passage. The heat exchanger of Hirano has a single conduit forming a loop with the separation space. Hirano does not disclose vaporized coolant flows in a first direction in a passage and liquified coolant flows in a second direction in the passage opposite the first direction. Therefore, the combination of Zacher and Hirano does not result in the subject matter of claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When coolant is gasified from heat the density decreases and due to natural convection it will rise in the casing. Likewise, condensed coolant will fall. This natural process is what appears to create the claimed passage between the heat exchanger and separation space where vaporized coolant flows in a first direction and liquified coolant flows in the opposite direction.
Similarly, this process will occur in Hirano. For example, in Fig. 3 Hirano teaches the cooling fluid is gasified and the gasified cooling fluid 12 (traveling through open connection/filling open space) rises to the heat exchanger unit/cooling fins where it is condensed/liquified 13 again, flowing back down as droplets (P24-25; Fig. 3). This process is identical to that of Fig. 4 of the application. The natural convection of vaporized coolant rising and liquified coolant dropping will also occur in the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Hirano, wherein the pipe 14 is interpreted as the passage extending between the heat exchanger and has two open ends communicating with separation space/non-filled space (space filled with the gas that is vaporized coolant), where the vaporized coolant fills the inside of the passage 14 (and via convection will fill both ends), is liquified at the heat exchanger 15, and then the liquified coolant is returned to the space (P24-30; Fig. 4), and as shown in annotated Fig. 4 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao et al. (US 20210066768) teaches a coolant 3 filled in accommodating portion of a plurality of cells 2 and a heat exchanger, or condenser 5 liquified the coolant that is vaporized by communicating with the plurality of accommodating portions to improve health, lifetime, and safety of a battery (P23-31; Fig. 1-4).
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
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights