DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 6/26/2026 was received. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 Interpretation
2. This section was previously provided and is repeated here for convenience. It is noted that the claims and written description of the instant application utilize the following nomenclature which is more commonly termed differently than what is utilized in the instant application. Specifically, what is claimed and labeled a “battery module” 1000 is more commonly referred to as a battery pack 1000 in the state of the prior art, and what are labeled “battery cell assembl(ies)” defined as a stacked plurality of battery cells are more commonly referred to as battery modules. There is nothing wrong with the language of the instant application and claims; the comment is made for clarity of the record given the prior art normally utilizes the more commonly utilized terminology of battery pack and modules for what is claimed as a module and assemblies, respectively.
Specification
3. The prior objection to the amendment filed 2/22/2023 is withdrawn in view of the removal of the subject matter.
4. The amendment filed 6/26/2026 is objected to for the following reasons:
· Applicant amended the specification on 2/22/2024 to recite “the heat sing” which is carried through in the 6/26/2026 amendment. This should be corrected to “the heat sink”
· The meaning of the added, underlined portion on page 13, line 7 is unclear, grammatically incorrect (improper-subject verb agreement with respect to “the coolant… flow”), and is also considered new matter. Accordingly, the amendment filed 6/26/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The coolant does not flow in the venting flow path (i.e., …the coolant flowing in the cooling passage 419 and the venting flow path flow..”)
It is not clear how the coolant (and/or venting gas) flow[s] in parallel directions to the front surface and the rear surface of the module frame. The meaning of this feature is entirely unclear.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification & Drawings
5. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103.
Correction of the following newly added feature is required if adequately and fully supported by the drawings alone, wherein per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph below, this would appear to be new matter issue if introduced into the specification:
“…wherein the plurality of cooling flow paths and the venting flow path extend in the first direction to [a]1 front surface and [a]1 rear surface of the module frame.”
Specifically, the specification needs to be amended to include proper antecedent basis and reference numerals in each of the specification and drawings for:
a front surface of the module frame, and
a rear surface of the module frame
This terminology does not not exist in the instant application specification:
PNG
media_image1.png
312
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, an adequate explanation is required as to how the plurality of cooling flow paths extend in the first direction to the front surface [of the module frame] and the rear surface of the module frame. Based on the figures (see at least Figs. 1 & 5), the plurality of cooling flow paths do not appear to extend to the front surface or the rear surface of the module frame (in any direction(s) selected). For example, in the D2 direction of Fig. 5, the plurality of coolant flow paths stop short and have a gap between the respective ends thereof and the front and rear surfaces of the module frame 210. Moreover, the venting flow path 519 is defined as extending between the heat sink 400 and the venting cover 500 between the cooling flow paths 429 (P75-81 of the PGPUB) such that is it also not clear how the venting flow path is considered to extend to the the front surface [of the module frame] and the rear surface of the module frame.
Appropriate correction and explanation is provided.
6. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature and structural parts relied upon for:
“…wherein the plurality of cooling flow paths and the venting flow path extend in the first direction to [a]2 front surface and [a]2 rear surface of the module frame”
must be adequately annotated with an appropriate reference numerals if it can be adequately explained how the feature is shown in the drawings or the feature(s) should be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See MPEP 608.01(o)):
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-15; claim 5, and thus dependent claims 3, 5-12; claim 7, and thus dependent claim 8; claim 8; and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed or cancellation of the claim(s).
The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-15; claim 5, and thus dependent claims 7-8; claim 6, and thus dependent claims 9-10 and 11-12; claim 7, and thus dependent claim 8; claim 8; claim 13, and thus dependent claims 14-15; and claim 16 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 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed or cancellation of the claim(s).
8. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-4, 6-15, 17, and 18; and claim 16 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 16 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1 and is thus addressed concurrently.
A) Claim 1 as amended recites:
“…wherein the plurality of cooling flow paths and the venting flow path extend in the first direction to the front surface and the rear surface of the module frame.”
There is insufficent antecedent basis for “the front surface” or “the rear surface” as recited. Additionally, for clarity, this should be corrected to “a front surface of the module frame” and “a rear surface of the module frame” versus lumping them together as presently done.
B) The language quoted above and newly added is considered highly indefinite. It is not clear how a given path is considered to extend in a first direction to the front surface and the rear surface of the module frame. For example, if one measures the start point of the venting flow path from the middle of the heat sink, then the venting flow path would extend in a first direction toward [a] front surface of the of the module frame, and would extend in a second direction (opposite to the first direction) toward [a] rear surface of the module frame (see the opposite arrows D1 in Fig. 5). If one measured the starting path of the venting flow path from an end of the heat sink or module frame, it would not extend to [a] front surface and [a] rear surface of the module frame. The meaning of the claim language is highly unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
9. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-4, 6-15, 17, and 18; claim 16; and (newly added) claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1 and is thus addressed concurrently.
A) Claim 1 was amended to recite:
“…wherein the plurality of cooling flow paths and the venting flow path extend in the first direction to [a]3 front surface and [a]1 rear surface of the module frame.”
This terminology does not not exist in the instant application specification:
PNG
media_image1.png
312
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The portions pointed out by Applicant (see page 10 of the response filed) do not include support for the feature or an explanation as to how Figs. 1 & 5 illustrate the feature. Based on the figures (see at least Figs. 1 & 5), the plurality of cooling flow paths do not appear to extend to the front surface or the rear surface of the module frame (in any direction(s) selected). For example, in the D2 direction of Fig. 5, the plurality of coolant flow paths stop short and have a gap between the respective ends thereof and the front and rear surfaces of the module frame 210. Moreover, the venting flow path 519 is defined as extending between the heat sink 400 and the venting cover 500 between the cooling flow paths 429 (P75-81 of the PGPUB) such that is it also not clear how the venting flow path is considered to extend to the the front surface [of the module frame] and the rear surface of the module frame. Accordingly, the language violates the written description requirement, is not supported by the relied upon portions by Applicant, and is not shown in the drawings such that it does not appear Applicant was in posession of the feature newly added to the claim.
B) Claim 18 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
85
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant cites the specification at page 11, lines 14-21 and page 12, lines 17-22. Neither of these sections or the disclosur as a whole teaches there is a blocking part that extends from the venting cover.
Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ § 103
10. All prior art rejections from the prior Office Action are withdrawn at the present time due to the indefinite issues outlined above and what would be considerable speculation or assumptions that would have to be made to apply prior art to these claims [see MPEP § 2173.06; In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962): a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims].
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed 6/26/2026 with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of the claims have been fully considered; however, the rejections are presently withdrawn due to the indefinite issues outlined above such that the arguments are presently moot [see MPEP § 2173.06; In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)].
Conclusion
12. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Prior art pertaining to multiple battery assemblies arranged separately so as to face each other:
Fujiwara et al. (US 2012/0312614) teaches analogous art of a power supply apparatus (“battery module”) including a plurality of battery modules (“battery cell assemblies”) that each include a plurality of cells, the plurality of battery modules (“battery cell assemblies”) 12 including at least a first battery cell assembly 12 and a second battery cell assembly 12, the construct also implementing cooling flow paths 18B and a lower plate 14a acting as a heat sink (P6, 25; see Fig. 8), wherein the first battery cell assembly 12 and the second battery cell assembly 12 are arranged separately in a direction facing each other (many options):
PNG
media_image3.png
464
619
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yang et al. (US 2014/0356662):
PNG
media_image4.png
420
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Furusawa et al. (US 2019/0103594);
Kim et al. (US 2019/0074562);
Kim et al. (US 2018/0151930);
Lee et al. (US 2019/0173064); and.
Fujii et al. (US 2014/0220391).
Prior art teaching a module frame having two U-shaped frame members opened on front and rear surfaces is taught by:
Andre et al. (US 2015/0249238) and Okada (US 2010/0000816).
Prior art references teaching a combined venting and cooling construct for a battery module/pack is taught by:
Park et al. (US 2024/0332668) teaches a battery module having a cooling and venting unit 300 that includes a plurality of cooling flow paths 301 protruding toward a venting cover 320 w/r/t to a bottom surface of the heat sink 310, a space 312 between two cooling flow paths adjacent to each other among the plurality of cooling flow paths 301 forms a venting flow path:
PNG
media_image5.png
649
519
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
394
555
media_image6.png
Greyscale
See also Proll et al. (US 2023/0216106); Jang et al. (US 2024/0204346); and Tasiopoulous et al. (US 2019/0229384) for additional constructs combining venting and cooling within a battery module.
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BILLIET whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula C Tavares-Crockett can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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 J BILLIET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph below for insufficient antecedent basis issues.
2 See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph below for insufficient antecedent basis issues.
3 See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph below for insufficient antecedent basis issues.
Prosecution Insights