CTNF 18/021,335 CTNF 100172 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2A (claims 1-5, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-28) in the reply filed on March 10th, 2026 is acknowledged. Drawings 06-36-01 AIA Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because it recites the limitation of “each of the module inlet and the module outlet is installed on one side of the module housing parallel to the longitudinal direction of the plurality of the battery cells”. There are at least two reasonable interpretations of this that result in very different embodiments. One interpretation would place the location of the module inlet and outlet installed on a side of the housing that is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the cells, which would put it on the walls encircled in the figure below (which does not match any of the embodiments depicted in any of the applications figures). Another interpretation would be that the orientation of piping of the module inlet and outlet are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the batteries (the “y” direction), which does align with the Applicant’s figures. For the sake of this Office Action, the latter interpretation will be used. Claims 3-5 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 2. PNG media_image1.png 362 672 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a divider plate disposed in the module housing so that an inner space of the module housing is divided along a longitudinal direction of the plurality of battery cells thereby dividing the inner space into an upper space and a lower space”. The longitudinal direction of the plurality of the battery cells in Fig. 4 below is the “y” direction, or the up/down direction. Dividing the inner space along that direction, i.e., a direction parallel to the “y” direction (see [0075] and [0076] of the Applicant’s specification), would divide the battery in a way that is different from all of the figures in the Applicant’s specification. In order to interpret this claim in a manner that aligns with the content of the Applicant’s specification, the above limitation will be interpreted as “…an inner space of the module housing is divided along a direction that is perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the plurality of battery cells…”. Claims 2-5, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-28 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. PNG media_image2.png 362 672 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests, in view of the specification, that the Applicant amend such that the claim reads “and an other end of the module inlet is extended in…”. See Fig. 3 of the Applicant’s specification. For the sake of this Office Action, that is the interpretation that will be used for examination. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests, in view of the specification, that the Applicant amend such that the claim reads “and an other end of the module inlet is extended in…”. See Fig. 3 of the Applicant’s specification. For the sake of this Office Action, that is the interpretation that will be used for examination. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the other end of the module housing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests, in view of the specification, that the Applicant amend such that the claim reads “and an other end of the module housing opposite to the one end of the module housing ”. See Figures 10 and 11 of the Applicant’s specification. For the sake of this Office Action, that is the interpretation that will be used for examination. Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 13. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the first spaced part and the second space are provided side by side in the longitudinal direction of the plurality of battery cells. As mentioned above, the longitudinal direction of the battery cells corresponds with the “y” direction seen in Figure 4. A reasonable interpretation of that language would be that there is a first spacing in an arbitrary position, and the second spacing would be in a position different from the first only with respect to its position along the longitudinal axis, i.e., the “y” direction. That is not the case in any of the figures. Figure 4 shows that the spacings (circled below) have the same position with respect to the y-axis, but differ in their position with respect to the x-axis. Since this claimed language does not align with any embodiment in the specification, this claim is indefinite. Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 10. PNG media_image3.png 362 672 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim 16 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests, in view of the specification, that the Applicant amend such that the claim reads “the module housing comprises an upper plate and a lower case, and the module inlet and the module outlet are disposed adjacent to a same portion among one end of the upper plate, an other end of the upper plate , and a central part of the upper plate.” For the sake of this Office Action, that is the interpretation that will be used for examination. Claim 19 recites the limitation "while at least one battery cell of the plurality of " in line 2. A row of battery cells requires at least two batteries, so it is not possible for one battery cell alone to comprise a row. There must be at least two battery cells. Claim 20 recites the limitation “at least one battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is arrange to be spaced apart…in a unit of rows.” A row of battery cells requires at least two batteries, so it is not possible for one battery cell alone to comprise a row. There must be at least two battery cells. Claim 25 recites the limitation “at least one battery cell…is arranged in a column” in line 2. A reasonable interpretation in view of the Applicant’s specification (see Fig. 12 below) requires that such a column is defined by at least two battery cells. The batteries are not stacked atop of each other nor does the specification suggest that a column may be defined by a singular battery. Therefore, at least two batteries are required to define such a column. PNG media_image4.png 600 814 media_image4.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 9, 13, 16, 17, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andruskiewicz (US 2023/0246266 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Andruskiewicz discloses a battery module comprising battery cells (Fig. 5, 514), a module housing (Fig. 5, 510), a module inlet (Fig. 5, 518) in which cooling water is introduced (the flow path of the water is indicated by the arrows in Fig. 5) and a module outlet (Fig. 5, 520) through which the cooling water is discharged. The battery module also comprises a divider plate (Fig. 5, 522) that divides the module into an upper space and a lower space (depicted below in the annotated figure). The arrows in the figure below show how water flows from the inlet into the upper space, along the upper side of the divider, around the divider, along the lower side of the divider, into the lower space, along the lower side of the divider and finally through the outlet in the same direction as the longitudinal direction of the plurality of cells (Fig.5, [0071]; also required by claim 3). PNG media_image5.png 758 948 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2 , both the module inlet and module outlet are installed in a way such that they are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the plurality of battery cells (the up/down direction according to the orientation of Fig. 5 above). Regarding claim 9, the encircled area shows the spacing between a divider and one side of the module housing. PNG media_image6.png 758 948 media_image6.png Greyscale Regarding claim 13, Andruskiewicz’s battery has a spaced part in which the divider plate is spaced apart on an opposite side of where the divider plate is connected to one end of the housing. The joint/angle where the divider plate meets the module housing may be interpreted as the claimed “binding part”. PNG media_image7.png 758 948 media_image7.png Greyscale Regarding claim 16, Andruskiewicz discloses an upper plate (Fig. 5, 524) and a lower case (the area in which the battery cells 514 are located). The module inlet and outlet are disposed directly adjacent to each other. PNG media_image8.png 758 948 media_image8.png Greyscale Regarding claim 17 , Andruskiewicz discloses that sensors may be placed in the battery pack used to detect temperatures, and depending on these temperatures, the flow rate of coolant through the battery module may be adjusted [0057]. If such a control loop exists, the temperatures of various places within the battery, including positions above and below the divider plate. Furthermore, the limitation “within a range preset” allows for an extremely broad interpretation, including a range such as -20 °C – 300 °C. Regarding claim 27, Andruskiewicz discloses that the battery module of their disclosure may be contained in a power source and that larger power source may be interpreted as a battery pack [0060]. Regarding claim 28, Andruskiewicz discloses that a vehicle may comprise the battery module described in their disclosure [0060] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andruskiewicz. Andruskiewicz’s module inlet has an end that is exposed to the outside of the module housing (see the annotated figure below), but does not explicitly have a portion that extends into the upper space. However, absent an objective showing to the contrary, having a portion that extends into the upper space is a design choice that does not distinguish itself over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to extend Andruskiewicz’s module inlet into the upper space of the battery module . PNG media_image9.png 758 948 media_image9.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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. /R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/021,335 Page 2 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/021,335 Page 3 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/021,335 Page 4 Art Unit: 1722
Prosecution Insights