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
Claims 11-12 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/23/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2016/0359206 to Eberleh et al.
With respect to claim 1, Eberleh et al. teach an immersion cooling system applied to a battery module 10 including a plurality of battery cells 11, the system comprising: a surface pressure pad 28 interposed between the plurality of the battery cells 11 and including a cooling path 26; and a cooling fluid to flow through the cooling path 26, wherein the cooling path 26 passes through one end and the other end of the surface pressure pad 28.
With respect to claim 2, Eberleh et al. teach the immersion cooling system, wherein the cooling path 26 passes through one end and the other end of the surface pressure pad 28 in a straight line.
With respect to claim 5, Eberleh et al. teach the immersion cooling system, wherein the surface pressure pad 28 includes a center portion (a core region) in contact with a core of the battery cell 11 and two edge regions respectively in contact with two edge portions (upper and lower portions) of the battery cell 11, the center portion (the core region) does not include the cooling path 26, and each of the two edge portions (the two outer regions) includes at least one cooling path 26.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Eberleh et al. teach the immersion cooling system, wherein the cooling path 26 includes a first cooling path 26 and a second cooling path 26, and inlets from which the cooling fluid flows into the first cooling path 26 and the second cooling path 26 are respectively disposed at one end and the other end of the surface pressure pad 28 in a length direction of the surface pressure pad 28 for the cooling fluid to flow in a predetermined first direction in the first cooling path 26 and for the cooling fluid to flow in a second direction opposite to the first direction in the second cooling path 26.
With respect to claim 8, Eberleh et al. do not specifically teach the immersion cooling system, wherein at least a portion 21 of the cooling path includes a pipe 21 covering therein for the cooling fluid to be separated from the surface pressure pad 28 and the battery cell 11 without being in contact therewith.
With respect to claim 9, Eberleh et al. teach the immersion cooling system, further comprising a distribution plate 40 stacked between the surface pressure pad 28 and the battery cell 11.
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 3, 4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2016/0359206 to Eberleh et al.
With respect to claim 3, Eberleh et al. do not specifically teach the immersion cooling system, wherein the cooling path has a curved shape to include at least one curve of the surface pressure pad. Changes in shape of the cooling path have been held to be obvious. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 4, Eberleh et al. do not specifically teach the immersion cooling system, wherein the cooling path 26 includes two or more cooling paths, the cooling paths 26 are adjacent to (stacked above) each other at a predetermined interval in a width direction of the surface pressure pad 28, and a sum of inner diameters of the cooling paths is 1% or more and less than 10% of a total width of the surface pressure pad.
However, the size of the cooling paths with respect a total width of the surface pressure pad is result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have a sum of inner diameters of the cooling paths is 1% or more and less than 10% of a total width of the surface pressure pad, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 6, Eberleh et al. teach the immersion cooling system, wherein at least one of the two side portions (the two outer regions) includes two or more cooling paths 26, and the closer to a top or bottom of the battery cell, the shorter a separation distance between the cooling paths.
Changes in size of the separation distance between the cooling paths with respect to the distance away from top or bottom of the battery cell have been held to be obvious. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 10, Eberleh et al. do not specifically teach the immersion cooling system, wherein the cooling path 26 includes two or more cooling paths 26, the cooling paths 26 are adjacent to (stacked above) each other at a predetermined interval in a width direction of the surface pressure pad 28, and a sum of inner diameters of the cooling paths is 10% or more and less than 30% of a total width of the surface pressure pad.
However, the size of the cooling paths with respect a total width of the surface pressure pad is result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the cooling paths 26 are adjacent to (stacked above) each other at a predetermined interval in a width direction of the surface pressure pad 28, and a sum of inner diameters of the cooling paths is 10% or more and less than 30% of a total width of the surface pressure pad, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights