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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office action addresses claims 1-15 and newly added claim 16. Claims 6-13 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-5 and 14-16 contain allowable subject matter but remain rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-2, and 14-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12545125. The claims of the ‘125 patent anticipate all of the claim limitations except for “each” spacer being interposed between adjacent battery cells, and the cooling liquid holes each disposed at a position correspond to a respective one of the plurality of flow path spacers (instant claim 1), and the position of the bus bar assembly between the coolant inlet and the plurality of flow path spacers (claim 16). However, these limitations would be obvious to one skilled in the art. The limitations reciting “each,” although not explicit, are implied in the ‘125 claims. Further, a skilled person would understand the bus bar assembly would be between the coolant inlet (in the sealing plate) and the coolant flow channels as claimed.
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 14-16 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection was obviated.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Jo et al (US 20200076025) is considered the closet prior art to amended claim 1. The reference teaches a battery module having front and rear sealing plates (230), a sub module comprising a flow path spacer (130) associated with each battery cell (110), the spacers creating flow paths (132) for coolant directly along the edges of the battery cells (Fig. 4). The module further comprises a bus bar assembly (220) having coolant holes (H1, [0089]) each disposed at a position corresponding to a respective one of the spacers. However, the reference does not teach or suggest “a plurality of flow path spacers each interposed between adjacent battery cells” as claimed. The spacers create flow paths around the edges of the battery cells, not between the battery cells, and as a result each of the spacers is not interposed between adjacent battery cells (Fig. 2, right side element [spacer] 130 is not between two cells). It would not have been an obvious modification to reconfigure the channels/spacers because the purpose of the invention of Jo is to reduce space taken up by cooling channels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicants state that the office action did not establish that the newly claimed features (bus bar assembly, cooling holes) were taught or suggested by the ‘125 patent or FR ‘928. However, claims 7-10 of the ‘125 patent in fact recite these features. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
August 18, 2026