DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (i) in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
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, 3-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 3100928. Regarding claim 1, the reference teaches in the Figures and abstract a battery module comprising a sub module (18, 20) including a cell stack assembly and a flow path spacer (66) interposed between adjacent cells such that an insulating cooling liquid is configured to flow in direct contact with the cells (Fig. 4, [0005], [0027]), a module housing (12), a front sealing plate (44) configured to cover an opening at a first longitudinal (long) side and having an inlet (50, 48) for introducing the cooling liquid, and a rear sealing plate (34) configured to cover an opening at a second longitudinal side and having an outlet (38, 54) for discharging the cooling liquid. Regarding claims 3-5, the spacer has a corrugated (alternating) shape and contacts a first battery cell on a first side of the spacer and a second battery cell on a second side of the spacer along a height direction of the spacer, and forms first and second flow paths on opposite sides of the spacer (Figure 4). Regarding claim 14, the structure is a battery pack. Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘928.
The reference is applied to claims 1, 3-5 and 14 for the reasons stated above. However the reference does not expressly teach that the cooling liquid flow path extends along a longitudinal direction of the flow path spacer (claim 2), or that the battery module is used in a vehicle (claim 15).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because regarding claim 15, it is well-known to use storage batteries in electric or hybrid vehicles. It would have involved only routine skill in the art to use the battery of FR ‘928 in a vehicle as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, this claim recites that the flow path extends along a longitudinal direction of the flow path spacer. Although the drawings of FR ‘928 appear to show approximately equal dimensions of the flow path spacer in plan view (see e.g., Fig. 3), the vertical direction of the spacers being the “longitudinal” direction represents a mere change in shape from what is shown in the reference. Absent some indication of criticality or unexpected results, such changes in shape have been held to be obvious over a prior art reference. See MPEP 2144.07. Accordingly, claim 2 would be rendered obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 14 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12545125. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘125 patent anticipate the instant claims.
Claims 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12545125 in view of FR ‘928. The claims of the ‘125 patent are silent as to the details of the spacer and channels as recited in instant claims 3-5. However, FR ‘928 teaches a corrugated spacer that provides two coolant channels on adjacent batteries. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the corrugated spacer of FR ‘928 in the battery module of the ‘125 patent claims because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
February 21, 2026