DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on December 22, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are currently amended. Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 13-17 are newly added. Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 13-17 are pending review in this action. The previous objection to claim 6 is withdrawn in light of the cancelation of claim 6. The previous objection to claim 2 is maintained and repeated below.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 43 (see Figure 8).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the air cooling structure” (line 2).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Clam 1 defines “an air-cooling structure” (line 3).
For the purposes of consistency, the limitation of claim 2 should be edited to the hyphenated form “the air-cooling structure”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the air let" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation “the body box” on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitations "the second end portion of the body" (line 2) and “the body box” (line 3).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 2, 5, 7-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0181718, hereinafter Jiao.
Regarding claim 1, Jiao teaches a battery. The battery comprises a plurality of cylindrical battery cells (1) (paragraphs [0072, 0078] and figures 3 and 4).
The battery further comprises a support (2). The support (2) comprises a body and a cooling path (22) penetrating the body (paragraph [0085] and figure 6). The cooling path (22) conducts cooling air (paragraph [0085]), therefore it is an “air duct” and the support (2) is an “air-cooling structure”.
The cooling path (22, “air duct”) penetrates the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) and extends in a direction parallel to the axial direction of the battery cells (1) (paragraph [0045] and figure 6). The axial direction of the battery cells (1) is the first direction (X). Air flows in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the battery cells (1) (paragraph [0114]). Therefore, there is both an air inlet and an air outlet at each end of the cooling path (22, “air duct”) in the first direction (X). The body of support (2, “air-cooling structure”) has a first end portion at one end of the cooling path (22, “air duct”) in the first direction (X).
The cooling path (22, “air duct”) includes heat dissipation fins (241) extending in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the battery cells (1) (paragraph [0049] and figure 2). Therefore, a cross-section of the cooling path (22, “air duct”) in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the battery cells (1) has a “fin shape”.
Jiao teaches a pressing member (5, “box body”) comprising two portions buckled together to form a cavity for accommodating the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) and the plurality of battery cells (1) (paragraphs [0105, 0106] and figure 4). Both portions have an opening (51) in a plane parallel to the axial direction of the battery cells (1) (paragraph [0108] and figure 4).
Jiao also teaches a housing (4, “box body”) comprising an upper cover (42) and lower cover (43) secured (“buckled”) together to form a cavity for accommodating the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) and the plurality of battery cells (1) (paragraph [0076] and figures 1-3). Upper cover (42) has an upper opening (420) and lower cover (43) has a lower opening (430). Each opening is in a plane parallel to the axial direction of the battery cells (1) (paragraph [0077] and figure 3).
Jiao teaches an end cover (8, “cover plate”) (paragraph [0098] and figure 4). The end cover (8, “plate”) is attached to the first end portion of the body of support (2, “air-cooling structure”) by a connecting member (paragraph [0115]). Elsewhere in the disclosure, Jiao teaches bolts as suitable connecting members (paragraph [0107]). Jiao further shows four pairs of matching holes in the end cover (8, “cover plate”) and the body of support (2) (figure 4). It is thus understood that the connecting members fixing the end cover (8, “plate”) to the first end portion of the body of support (2) are “first bolts”.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “first bolts” as the connecting members fixing the end cover (8, “plate”) to the first end portion of the body of support (2) without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Jiao teaches that the plurality of battery cells (1) are arranged around the cooling path (22, “air duct”) and the walls (“body”) defining the cooling path (22, “air duct”) (paragraph [0085] and figures 5 and 6). Thus, the battery cells (1) are arranged around the “air-cooling structure”.
Regarding claim 5, Jiao teaches a fan configured to ventilate the cooling path (22, “air duct”) so as to discharge heat generated by the plurality of battery cells (1) (paragraph [0095]). In operation, the fan is positioned at an air inlet of the cooling path (22, “air duct”).
Regarding claim 7, Jiao teaches a heat storage member (3, “heat dissipation portion”) arranged on a bottom wall of either first box portion (5) or upper cover (42). The heat storage member (3, “heat dissipation portion”) is in thermal contact with the plurality of battery cells (1) and has a contour shape that matches contour surfaces of the plurality of battery cells (1) (paragraphs [0105, 0111] and figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Jiao teaches a heat storage member (3, “heat dissipation portion”) arranged on a bottom wall of either first box portion (5) or lower cover (43). The heat storage member (3, “heat dissipation portion”) is in thermal contact with the plurality of battery cells (1) and has a contour shape that matches contour surfaces of the plurality of battery cells (1) (paragraphs [0105, 0111] and figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Jiao teaches a support (2, “air-cooling structure”).
The examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, claim 9 recites that the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) is formed by die-casting. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the present case, the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) is capable of being formed by a die-casting process.
Regarding claim 10, Jiao teaches a device powered with electrical energy supplied by the battery (paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 13, Jiao teaches a sealing member (7) arranged between the end cover (8, “cover plate”) and the first portion of the body of support (2) and configured to seal the end cover (8, “cover plate”) and the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) (paragraph [0098] and figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Jiao teaches that the pressing member (5) and two end covers (8) enclose the support (2) (paragraph [0098] and figure 4). One end cover (8) is the instantly claimed “cover plate”. The pressing member (5) and the other end cover (8) together may be considered to make up the “box body”.
The plurality of battery cells (1) are arranged around the cooling path (22, “air duct”) and the walls (“body”) defining the cooling path (22, “air duct”) (paragraph [0085] and figures 5 and 6). Thus, the battery cells (1) are arranged around the “air-cooling structure”.
A sealing member (7) is positioned between the end cover (8, “cover plate”) and the “box body” (paragraph [0098] and figure 4). The sealing member (7) seals the end cover (8, “cover plate”) so that the plurality of battery cells (1) are located in a closed space partially formed by the “box body” after being arranged around the “air-cooling structure”.
Regarding claim 15, Jiao teaches a gap between the end cover (8, “cover plate”) and end faces of the battery cells (1). The gap accommodates conductive sheets (11) (paragraph [0073] and figures 4 and 7-9). The conductive sheets (11) are capable of being assembled through an automatic process.
Regarding claim 16, Jiao teaches that the two portions of the pressing member (5, “box body”) are fixed together by “second” bolts (paragraph [0107]). The two portions of the pressing body (5, “box body”) clamp the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) between them (paragraph [0105] and figure 4). Therefore, the “second” bolts fix the pressing body (5, “box body”) and the second end portion of the support (2, “air-cooling structure”).
Regarding claim 17, Jiao teaches that the pressing member (5) and the end covers (8) enclose the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) (paragraph [0098] and figure 4). The pressing member (5) and the covers (8) together may be considered to make up the “box body”. A sealing member (7) is arranged between the “box body” and a second end portion of the body of the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) (paragraph [0098] and figure 4). The sealing member (7) seals at least cover (8) of the “box body” and support (2, “air-cooling structure”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0181718, hereinafter Jiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Korean Patent Publication No. 2021-070105, hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding claim 3, Jiao teaches that the battery cells (1) are arranged on a first surface of the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) away from the cooling path (22, “air duct”) (paragraph [0083] and figure 5).
Jiao discussed the need for avoiding any air pockets between the battery cells (1) and the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) for the purpose of ensuring sufficient heat transfer from the battery cells (1) to the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) (paragraphs [0086, 0089, 0091]).
Jiao fails to teach a thermally conductive structural adhesive.
The use of thermally conductive glue for the purpose of ensuring sufficient contact between battery cells and a heat-conductive holder is well-known in the art – see, e.g. Hwang (paragraphs [0038-0041]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to paste Jiao’s battery cells (1) to the first surface of the support (2, “air-cooling structure”) using thermally conductive glue for the purpose of improving the heat transfer between the battery cells (1) and the support (2, “air-cooling structure”).
Regarding claim 4, Jiao as modified by Hwang teaches that a contour shape of a region on the first surface to which the plurality of battery cells (1) are pasted matches a contour shape of surfaces of the plurality of battery cells (1) (paragraph [0083] and figure 6).
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, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,494,524 in view of Korean Patent Publication No. 2021-070105, hereinafter Hwang.
Claims 1 and 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,494,524 include all of the claimed limitations except for requiring that a cross section of the air duct perpendicular to the first direction is in a fin shape.
Hwang teaches an analogous assembly with a cross section of the air duct perpendicular to the first direction being in a fin shape. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist to include a fin shape in the air duct for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer with the cooling air.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,494,524 in view of Korean Patent Publication No. 2021-070105, hereinafter Hwang and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0272517, hereinafter Glasgow.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,494,524 include all of the claimed limitations except for requiring that a cross section of the air duct perpendicular to the first direction is in a fin shape and a box body.
Hwang teaches an analogous assembly with a cross section of the air duct perpendicular to the first direction being in a fin shape. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist to include a fin shape in the air duct for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer with the cooling air.
It is well-known in the art to secure a battery pack within a case – see, e.g. Glasgow, who teaches a case (112, “box body”) housing a battery pack comprising cylindrical batteries (paragraph [0036] and figure 1A). The case (112, “box body”) includes two portions (114 and 116) buckled together to form an accommodating cavity (paragraphs [0032, 0036]). The second portion (116) includes an opening located in a plane parallel to the axial direction of the battery cells (figures 3 and 22).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist to provide a box body having two portions buckled together and one of them including an opening parallel to the axial direction of the battery cells for the purpose of providing a self-contained unit capable of interfacing with a powered device and for protecting the battery pack from the environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the previously presented Jiao reference was found to address the amended claims as detailed above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights