DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/28/2025 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 11/28/2025, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claim 5 has been canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to require “wherein the tray forms a bottom of the pipe receiver.” Claim 1, also, however, requires that the “a pipe receiver” be “coupled to the tray.” Claim 4, meanwhile, requires that “the pipe receiver is configured in at least one of the pair of side covers and extends inward from an inner wall of the main body portion.” Claim 7 further complicates matters, requiring “the pipe receiver is coupled to the mount plate and the main body portion of the at least one of the pair of side covers.”
The amendment introduces interpretation problems that cannot be resolved without speculation, rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of the claim. There is an implied logical inconsistency under the normal meaning of the terms—if the tray forms a part of the pipe receiver, and if it is coupled to the pipe receiver, then that implies that it is coupled to itself. Normally, however, coupling denotes the joining of two separate things. Does this imply that the tray and the pipe receiver are all integrally formed? This violates the ordinary meaning of “coupling.” Moreover, claim 4 suggests that the pipe receiver is part of the pair of side covers, which are different from the tray. Or is the whole thing integrally formed? Claim 7 suggests instead that coupling might mean either.
The claims appear to conflate the “pipe receiver” as a positive structural feature with the accommodating space that it forms, and in which the pipe is positioned. That is, the tray forms a bottom of an accommodation space, not of the “pipe receiver” per se. The claim language—i.e., use of the term “pipe receiver” to mean a set of walls extending in space—lends itself to this ambiguity because it does not clearly specify a conformational configuration of walls formed to protrude from the side wall, as shown in the instant figures. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1. The claims have been interpreted broadly to read on either separate or integral formations.
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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowley (US 2018/0154754 to Rowley et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Rowley teaches:
a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules (Fig. 2)
a cooling pipe 63 configured to supply a cooling liquid to the plurality of battery modules (Fig. 6, ¶ 0054)
PNG
media_image1.png
756
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a tray 5 comprising a cooling liquid receiver 41 into which a cooling liquid flowing out, or “leaking out” from the cooling pipe flows, the plurality of battery modules being seated on the tray (Fig. 6, ¶ 0058)
a “pipe receiver” including at least two integral walls that are part of side member 7 forming a receiving space for the pipes 63, the pipe receiver coupled to the tray, and wherein the tray “forms a bottom of the pipe receiver” insofar as it is structurally underneath the pipe receiver and forms a fluidly connected space in conjunction with the pipe (Fig. 6)
wherein the cooling liquid receiver comprising a cooling liquid inlet 61/65 formed in the pipe receiver and through the which the cooling liquid flows from the cooling pipe 63 into the cooling liquid receiver 41 (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 2, Rowley teaches:
a pair of side covers 7 covering opposite end portions in a width direction of the tray (Figs. 2 and 6)
Regarding Claim 3, Rowley teaches:
wherein the pair of side covers comprise main body portions extending in a longitudinal direction of the tray and located on opposite sides (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 4, Rowley teaches:
wherein the pipe receiver is configured in a side cover and extends inwards from an inner wall of the main body portion (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 6, Rowley teaches:
the tray comprising a mount plate 13 underneath the battery modules and a cooling liquid inlet spaced apart from a main body portion of the side cover (Fig. 6)
a base plate 45 spaced apart from a lower portion of the mount plate forming the cooling liquid receiver in which the cooling liquid flows (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 7, Rowley teaches:
wherein the pipe receiver is coupled to the mount plate and the main body portion of the side covers (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 8, Rowley teaches:
battery modules having a side portion that is fixed to brackets 9 (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 9, Rowley teaches:
the battery modules being fixed to the side covers (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 10, Rowley teaches:
a vehicle (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 11, Rowley teaches:
the tray comprising a mount plate 13 underneath the battery modules and having a liquid inlet spaced inward from the main body of the side covers forming the cooling liquid inlet, through which liquid flows or “leaks” (Fig. 6)
a base plate 45 spaced apart from a lower portion of the mount plate forming the cooling liquid receiver in which the cooling liquid flows (Fig. 6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowley (US 2018/0154754 to Rowley et al.) in view of He (US 2021/0175572 to He et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Rowley does not teach:
a gas discharge portion above the pipe receiver
He, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery pack with a plurality of battery modules, positioned between side portions in a width directions, teaches a gas discharge portion 221 positioned in an upper part of the side wall structure (Figs. 9-10, ¶ 0084-0088).
PNG
media_image2.png
282
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
558
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modules of Rowley to provide for gas discharge portions in the upper part of the sidewall in order to safely vent gases and improve module safety, as taught in He.
Regarding Claim 13, Rowley does not teach:
each of the battery modules having a discharge portion, the gas discharge portion having a plurality of inlets, and each discharge port communicates with a respective one of the inlets
He, however, teaches each battery module having a discharge port that communicates with a respective one of a plurality of inlets along the side wall (Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modules of Rowley to provide for gas discharge portions in the upper part of the sidewall in order to safely vent gases and improve module safety, as taught in He.
Regarding Claim 14, Rowley does not teach:
a front frame connected to the tray (Fig. 1)
Rowley do not teach an outlet in the front frame that communicates with the gas discharge portion. He, however, teaches an outlet for the gas discharge portion that safely allows venting of gases. It would have been obvious to provide a vent in the gas discharge vent at an edge of the battery pack, such as a front frame, with the motivation to safely vent gases to the environment. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 11/28/2025 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the claim amendments, the rejections over Wuensche have been withdrawn, and new rejections over Rowley have been issued.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2017/0104252
US 2021/0119282
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723