DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 2/2/2026:
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended, Claim 20 is cancelled, Claims 11-19 stand withdrawn, and Claim 21 is newly added.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US PG Publication 2022/0311075 in view of Kokorich US PG Publication 2024/0229746, Gao US PG Publication 2021/0066767, and Yatskov WO2011/149868.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Matsumoto discloses an aircraft 10 comprising a plurality of battery modules 30, each battery module 30 of the plurality of battery modules 30 including a housing (module case) 72 and a battery thermal management system including a coolant (first cooling medium) 62, a conduit (circulation supply pipe) 66 fluidly coupling pump and heat exchanger to an interior of the housing 72 of each of the plurality of battery modules 30 (since the coolant 80 is sprayed into the casing 34 and onto the module housings 72 while the sides of each housing 72 have been left open at sides 74, para 0035), a valve controlling the flow rate of the coolant from the storage vessel to the battery modules (para 0055) and a venting system including a vent duct 35 (para 0051) (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-3 and paras 0019-0021, 0026-0027, 0036-0039, 0049-0056). Matsumoto fails to specifically disclose wherein coolant is a cooling propellant, the vessel valve controls a flow rate of the cooling propellant from the storage vessel to the conduit, and wherein the venting system includes one or more nozzles extend to an exterior of the aircraft and in fluid communication with the interior of the housing of each of the plurality of battery modules, the one or more nozzles directing the cooling propellant to the exterior of the aircraft. However, in the same field of endeavor of aircraft cooling system design, Kokorich discloses an aircraft having an active cooling system wherein a propellant such as liquid hydrogen can be used as a cooling fluid (inert liquefied gas, meeting Claim 5), and rather than storing the now-heated hydrogen in a hot hydrogen tank, the heated hydrogen can be used as a propellant to create thrust via a nozzle 2 at the rear to propel the aircraft, or it can be used as reaction masses in nozzles 13/14 at the front of the vehicle to decelerate or otherwise control the vehicle’s movement (see e.g Fig 1 and paras 0061-0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the system and aircraft of Matsumoto such that the coolant is a cooling propellant, the vessel valve controls a flow rate of the cooling propellant from the storage vessel to the conduit, and wherein the venting system includes one or more nozzles extend to an exterior of the aircraft and in fluid communication with the interior of the housing of each of the plurality of battery modules, the one or more nozzles directing the cooling propellant to the exterior of the aircraft of Matsumoto because Kokorich teaches that incorporating these elements into an aircraft allows one to take advantage of the heat absorbed by the cooling material to provide thrust or deceleration (or the like) for the vehicle.
Matsumoto modified by Kokorich does not specifically disclose wherein a housing includes a plurality of housings, each housing including an inlet port, where the conduit is coupled to the inlet port of each housing of the plurality of housings. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery thermal management systems, Gao discloses a battery thermal management system 50 comprising a battery module 52 including a housing (container) which includes an inlet where supply line 41 connects to housing (Fig. 5a/5b, para 0045), a storage vessel (cooling unit) (this element supplies coolant, para 0032, and so can be considered a storage vessel; this unit is not labeled in Figs 5a-5b but para 0045 and other Figs showing the same element make it clear that this is the storage vessel/cooling unit 4) containing a cooling propellant e.g. pressurized coolant (para 0049), a conduit coupled to the inlet port of the housing (see annotated Fig. 5a below) and fluidly coupling the storage vessel to an interior of the housing (since the coolant is sprayed from the conduit onto the battery cells, para 0045) and Gao further teaches a plurality of modules having the same configuration with inlet and outlets for the pressurized coolant for each housing (Fig. 10, paras 0063-0064) and Gao teaches that this configuration provides good cooling that responds fast enough to avoid thermal overshoot and evenly cools cells in the modules (see entire disclosure and especially all figs and e.g. 0004, 0019-0023, 0032-0036, 0041-0051, 0063-0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the system and aircraft of Matsumoto modified by Kokorich such that a housing includes a plurality of housings, each housing including an inlet, where the conduit is coupled to the inlet of each housing of the plurality of housings because Gao teaches that this design is part of a system having good cooling that responds quickly to avoid thermal overshoot and evenly cools cells in the modules.
Matsumoto modified by Kokorich and Gao does not disclose wherein the cooling fluid inlets of the housings are inlet ports. However, in the same field of endeavor of cooling systems for electrochemical cell modules, Yatskov teaches that cooling fluid enters a battery module via inlet port and exits via an outlet port (para 0025, Figs 2-5) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the aircraft and battery thermal management system of Matsumoto modified by Kokorich and Gao such that the cooling fluid inlets and outlets of the housings are inlet ports and outlet ports because Yatskov teaches that ports provide effective inlets and outlets for coolant flowing in and out of electrochemical cell modules and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 3, Matsumoto uses fluoroketone (para 0038), known as a fire suppressant, in the first storage tank as explained above. Matsumoto fails to specifically disclose wherein a second storage vessel contains a fire suppressant. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use e.g. a backup storage tank to store fluoroketone for secondary use to e.g. flood the battery system since the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov fails to specifically disclose wherein the storage vessel contains a mixture of a fire suppressant and the cooling propellant. However, Matsumoto uses fluoroketone (para 0038), known as a fire suppressant, and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use both the fluoroketone fire suppressant of Matsumoto and the hydrogen of Kokorich to take advantage of both of the benefits afforded by the coolants since a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that 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 nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
6. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US PG Publication 2022/0311075 in view of Kokorich US PG Publication 2024/0229746, Gao US PG Publication 2021/0066767, and Yatskov WO2011/149868, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Newman US PG Publication 2018/0281617.
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov discloses the claimed aircraft as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Matsumoto further discloses a temperature sensor 90 (comprising a plurality of sensors 90) configured to sense cell temperatures in the plurality of battery modules and a controller (control part) 92 configured to receive, from the temperature sensor, a signal indicative of a cell temperature in a first battery module of the plurality of battery modules 30 and adjusting, in response to the cell temperature exceeding a predetermined temperature, a position of a valve controlled to cool the plurality of battery modules via nozzles 88 (paras 0046-0048). Matsumoto fails to specifically disclose wherein the controller’s configuration includes adjusting a first module valve associated with first battery module, the first module valve independently controllable from a second module valve associated with a second battery module of the plurality of battery modules or a plurality of module valves, each one associated with a different one of the plurality of battery modules. However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle battery cooling system design, Newman discloses wherein a cooling system can beneficially control the temperature of battery modules individually using valves 515A-515D designed to direct coolant to individual battery modules that are experiencing high heat conditions (para 0039, Fig. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the system and aircraft of Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov such that the controller’s configuration includes adjusting a first module valve associated with first battery module, the first module valve independently controllable from a second module valve associated with a second battery module of the plurality of battery modules, and a plurality of module valves, each one associated with a different one of the plurality of battery modules, because Newman teaches that a cooling system can beneficially control the temperature of battery modules individually using valves designed to direct coolant to individual battery modules that are experiencing high heat conditions.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US PG Publication 2022/0311075 in view of Kokorich US PG Publication 2024/0229746, Gao US PG Publication 2021/0066767, and Yatskov WO2011/149868, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Bradley US PG Publication 2004/0040316.
Regarding Claim 4, Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov discloses the claimed aircraft as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov discloses wherein each battery module 30 has a spray nozzle above it coupled between the conduit and the housing of each module to deliver/spray the cooling liquid hydrogen (see rejection above) but Matsumoto modified by Kokorich fails to specifically disclose wherein the battery thermal management system further includes an expansion nozzle coupled between the conduit and the housing of each of the plurality of battery modules, wherein the expansion nozzle is configured to reduce a temperature of the cooling propellant. However, in a similar field of endeavor of hydrogen supply, Bradley teaches that hydrogen is supplied as a liquid from storage via an expansion nozzle which inherently cools the hydrogen (understood by the skilled artisan to be adiabatic cooling) (para 0068). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the system and aircraft of Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov such that the battery thermal management system further includes an expansion nozzle coupled between the conduit and the housing of each of the plurality of battery modules, wherein the expansion nozzle is configured to reduce a temperature of the cooling propellant because Bradley teaches the use of an expansion nozzle to deliver hydrogen from storage and the skilled artisan understands that hydrogen that passes through an expansion nozzle necessarily goes through adiabatic expansion to result in cooling, which would provide the cooling propellant conditions required by Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov.
8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US PG Publication 2022/0311075 in view of Kokorich US PG Publication 2024/0229746, Gao US PG Publication 2021/0066767, and Yatskov WO2011/149868, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Higashino US PG Publication 2005/0231158.
Regarding Claim 6, Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov discloses the claimed aircraft as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Matsumoto discloses wherein each of the plurality of battery modules includes a plurality of battery cells 40 but Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov fails to specifically disclose baffles configured to direct cooling propellant through gaps between each of the plurality of battery cells. However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle battery cooling system design, Higashino teaches that notches in members between cells provide a coolant flow passage to improve cooling of the batteries (see e.g. figs and paras 0056-0058). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the system and aircraft of Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov such that baffles are configured to direct cooling propellant through gaps between each of the plurality of battery cells because Higashino teaches that notches in members between cells provide a coolant flow passage to improve cooling of the batteries. The skilled artisan would understand that notched members (such as notched heat absorbing members of Matsumoto) can be considered as baffles, lacking any special definition in the instant disclosure since these elements would direct coolant flow between the cells.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US PG Publication 2022/0311075 in view of Kokorich US PG Publication 2024/0229746, Gao US PG Publication 2021/0066767, and Yatskov WO2011/149868, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Hsu US PG Publication 2013/0071700.
Regarding Claim 7, Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov discloses the claimed aircraft as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Matsumoto discloses wherein each of the plurality of battery modules includes at least one battery cell 40, but fails to specifically disclose that the battery cell has a housing and fails to specifically disclose wherein there is at least one integrated cooling fin provided on the at least one cell casing. However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle battery cooling system design, Hsu teaches that cooling fins place between battery cell casings beneficially cool battery cells (see Fig 1 and at least e.g. paras 0003-0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the system and aircraft of Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov such that the battery cell has a casing that provides at least one integrated cooling fin because Hsu teaches that placing cooling fins between cell housings provides cooling to battery cells. Although Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov and Hsu doesn’t specifically disclose an integrated fin, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the fin such that it is integrated with the cell casing of Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov and Hsu in order to simplify the design since the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US PG Publication 2022/0311075 in view of Kokorich US PG Publication 2024/0229746, Gao US PG Publication 2021/0066767, and Yatskov WO2011/149868, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Svejkovsky US Patent 5,165,229.
Regarding Claim 9, Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov discloses the claimed aircraft as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov fails to specifically disclose wherein the venting system further includes one or more plugs pressure-mounted in one or more holes defined by the one or more nozzles. However, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft system design, Svejkovsky teaches that a thruster nozzle (such as that used by Kokorich and thus by Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov) has a multiple pressure release mechanism to release the plug at different pressures depending on the circumstance so that the venting/thrusting mechanism operates only when the conditions require said action (see e.g. figs; col 2, lines 22-48, col 4, lines 59-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the system and aircraft of Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov such that wherein the venting system further includes one or more plugs pressure-mounted in one or more holes defined by the one or more nozzles because Svejkovsky teaches that a thruster nozzle (such as that used by Kokorich and thus by Matsumoto modified by Kokorich, Gao, and Yatskov) has a multiple pressure release mechanism to release the plug at different pressures depending on the circumstance so that the venting/thrusting mechanism operates only when the conditions require said action.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection above.
Conclusion
11. 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 LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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 Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights