DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office action addresses claims 11-13 and 15-20. The claims are newly rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as necessitated by amendment, but contain allowable subject matter. Accordingly, this action is made final.
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.
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.
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 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 11 recites “a plurality of battery cells contained in a housing” and further recites “where the battery cells of the plurality of battery cells are arranged in a stacked arrangement; […] the respective lowermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells in the stacked arrangement rests [..] on a cooling device.” It is unclear how many lowermost cells there are in the stacked arrangement. The claim language reciting “cells….rests” does not have proper subject-verb agreement. It is presumed that there are at least two lowermost cells (therefore, at least two stacks each having a lowermost cell) because the language recites “the respective lowermost battery cells.” It appears “rests” should be changed to “rest” for subject-verb agreement and to make clear there are multiple lowermost cells.
Additionally, it is submitted that “the battery cells of” in line 3 is redundant, because the next limitation (“the plurality of battery cells are arranged in a stacked arrangement”) recites all the necessary structure and the phrase “the battery cells of” does not add anything meaningful to this limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the subject matter of amended claim 11 (even in light of the 112b problem noted above). The references, for the reasons noted by applicant, do not fairly suggest a plurality of cells resting on a thermally conductive potting compound or pad, which rests on a structural component of the battery device, and a stacked arrangement wherein the lowermost cell (or cells) of the plurality of cells in the stacked arrangement rest via a thermally conductive element on a cooling device different than the structural component. CN 112072008 is newly cited herein as teaching a stacked arrangement of cells (seven stacks of two cells, Fig. 1), the respective lowermost cells resting on a thermally conductive member (3) which rests on a lower box body 22 (“cooling device”). However, the reference does not teach or suggest the plurality of cells resting on a thermally conductive potting compound or pad, which rests on a structural component of the battery device, the structural component being different than the cooling device as claimed. There appears to be no other contact between the cells and any other housing components (e.g., 21).
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 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights