DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted September 1, 2023, January 25, 2024, and June 2, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
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 § 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.
5. Claims 9-11 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 9 recites “the first switch” and “the second switch” but these limitations lack antecedent basis since the claims on which Claim 9 depends (Claim 6 and its parent claim) do not recite any switches. In the interest of compact prosecution, this claim is interpreted as being dependent upon Claim 8, which recites first and second switches. Claims 10-11 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 3-7, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song US PG Publication 2016/0285144.
Regarding Claim 1, Song discloses a battery 410 comprising a first battery module (shown in annotated Fig. 4A below) comprising a plurality of first battery cells 420, a second battery module (shown in annotated Fig. 4A below) comprising a plurality of second battery cells 420 being located at peripheries of the first battery cells 420 (since they are disposed in alternating rows as seen in Fig. 4A-4B), and a thermal management structure comprising a first flow channel (first cooling path) 430 and a second flow channel (second cooling path) 440, the first flow channel 430 being configured to accommodate fluid to adjust a temperature of the plurality of the first battery cells 420 and the second flow channel being configured to adjust a temperature of the plurality of the second battery cells 420 (paras 0072-0075, annotated Fig below) (the Office notes that the claim does not require the first channel to only control the temperature of first module), wherein the thermal management structure further comprises a first inlet and a second inlet (inlet to 440 and 430), the first inlet being configured for inputting fluid into the first flow channel 430 and the second inlet being configured for inputting fluid into the second flow channel 440 with the two inlets being isolated from each other (Fig. 4a; inlets and outlets are not connected and different cooling fluids can be used in different channels) (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 4A-6B; paras 0008-0021, 0071-0082, 0111-0115).
Regarding Claim 3, Song teaches wherein the first and second flow channels are isolated from each other since they have different cooling fluids (paras 0111-0115).
Regarding Claim 4, annotated Fig 4A above shows that the second flow channel covers or corresponds with every battery 420 of the cells determined to be part of the plurality of second battery cells.
Regarding Claims 5-7, Song discloses wherein the battery further comprises a first inlet pipeline (first cooling path) 860-1 connected to the first inlet to input the fluid into the first flow channel and a second inlet pipeline (second cooling path) 860-2 connected to the second inlet to input the fluid into the second flow channel (see Fig 8 and paras 0099-0108) wherein these pipelines are isolated from each other in sections of the system (via division of the path, para 0106) or can be connected via main inlet pipeline (before the point of division at 830) where the main inlet pipeline can be connected via an external heat exchanger (para 0106) and the fluid is input into the first and second pipelines via the main inlet pipeline (Fig 8; para 0106). Although Song does not call the heat exchanger an “external heat exchanger”, the heat exchanger would be external to the battery pack structure since the cooling loop structure of Fig. 8 shows the structure outside of battery pack 810.
Regarding Claim 19, Fig. 4A shows wherein the first flow channel is disposed in a bent shape and the second flow channel is disposed in a U-shape (see annotated Fig. below).
Regarding Claim 20, Song teaches that the battery pack is used in an electric vehicle (para 0070), and the skilled artisan understands that a battery in an electric vehicle powers e.g. the motor or other devices in the vehicle, and so Song discloses a device using the battery.
PNG
media_image1.png
791
1101
media_image1.png
Greyscale
7. Claims 1-6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machida US PG Publication 2017/0125861.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 18, and 20, Machida discloses a device (such as a vehicle, meeting Claim 20) having a battery having first battery module 13 comprising a plurality of first battery cells 11 and second battery module 14 comprising a plurality of second battery cells 12 located at peripheries (one end of) the first battery cells 11 and a thermal management structure comprising a first flow channel (first cooling channel) 21 and a second flow channel (second cooling channel) 31 that are isolated from each other (they are totally separate) (meeting Claim 3), each flow channel being configured to accommodate fluid (air, which is a gas, meeting Claim 18) to adjust the temperature of the plurality of respective battery cells by covering each of the plurality of their respective battery cells (meeting Claim 4), wherein the thermal management structure further comprises a first inlet (air inlet, the location where the connecting duct 25 meets the flow channel 21) configured to input fluid (air) into the first flow channel 21 and a second inlet (air inlet, the location where the connecting duct 35 meets the flow channel 31) configured to input fluid (air) into the second flow channel 31, the inlets which are isolated from one another and having respective outlets 26 and 36 that output fluid in their respective flow channels, and which would be in communication with each other (meeting Claim 2) since they discharge cooling air to a common area outside of the battery housing 15 (see entire disclosure and especially annotated Fig 1 and paras 0019-0020).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Machida discloses wherein the battery has a first inlet pipeline (connecting duct) 25 configured to be connected to the first inlet to input the fluid into the first flow channel and a second inlet pipeline (connecting duct) 35 configured to be connected to the second inlet to into the fluid into the second flow channel, both first and second inlet pipelines being isolated from each other (meeting Claim 6) (see annotated Fig).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US PG Publication 2016/0285144, as applied to Claim 5, and further in view of Makino JP2015-082353.
Regarding Claim 8, Song discloses the claimed battery as described in the rejection of Claim 5, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Song discloses the use of a check valve 750 to control connection and disconnection between the second inlet pipeline and the second flow channel and discusses the needs to control the supply of cooling fulid to the first and second cooling paths depend on the load state of the battery (see e.g. Fig. 7 and paras 0022-0025, 0095-0096) but fails to specifically disclose wherein this control is applied to the first inlet pipeline and first flow channel, or that the battery carries out that control via a first switch, disposed on the first inlet pipeline and configured to control connection and disconnection between the first inlet pipeline and the first flow channel and a second switch, disposed on the second inlet pipeline and configured to control connection and disconnection between the second inlet pipeline and the second flow channel. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery cooling system design where multiple cooling flow channels are used, Makino teaches that when multiple coolant channels are used, it is beneficial to use a switch to control the flow of coolant based on which channel/cooling mode is appropriate to use (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0080-0083). 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 use switch in conjunction with the first and second flow channels to enable control of the coolant flow for optimal cooling in the system of Song, such that first switch, disposed on the first inlet pipeline and configured to control connection and disconnection between the first inlet pipeline and the first flow channel and a second switch, disposed on the second inlet pipeline and configured to control connection and disconnection between the second inlet pipeline and the second flow channel because Makino teaches that this approach to flow control is effective/beneficial and the skilled artisan would understand that fluid control would be needed between the first and second flow channels and their respective inlet pipelines. 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 9 (interpreted as being dependent on Claim 8; see 112 rejection), Song teaches wherein the battery comprises sensors (para 0129) and is directed to control of the cooling system of the battery to cool the battery based on temperatures in the battery pack 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 temperature sensors to collect temperature information in the battery of Song because Song teaches that the controller uses battery temperature data for controlling the flow channels and uses sensors and teaches a controller that is necessarily electrically connected to temperature sensors because battery temperature data is used (see e.g. paras 0019-0024, 0051, 0059-0062).
Song modified by Makino does not specifically recite that a first temperature sensor senses the temperature of at least one of the first battery cells, a second temperature sensor is configured to sense the temperature of at least one of the second battery cells, or that the controller is electrically connected to the first and second temperature sensors and the first and second switches, the controller being configured to control on-off of the first and second switches based on temperatures sensed by the first and second temperature sensors, respectively. However, since Song teaches that the controller uses temperature data to control the cooling fluid flow in the first and second channels based on temperatures detected, and since Song modified by Makino teaches that the switches are controlled to optimize coolant flow depending on the temperature of the battery, 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 battery of Song and Makino such that the first temperature sensor is configured to sense the temperature of at least one of the first battery cells, the second temperature sensor is configured to sense the temperature of at least one of the second battery cells, and such that the controller is electrically connected to the first and second temperature sensors and the first and second switches, the controller being configured to control on-off of the first and second switches based on temperatures sensed by the first and second temperature sensors, respectively, because the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements and functions and teaches the need to carry out the functions using said elements, and the specific design claimed herein would simply require rearrangements of the elements of Song modified by Makino to carry out Song’s already stated function. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Song discloses all of the claimed structure and connectivity of Claim 10, such as controller connectivity to the temperature sensors, use of a heat exchanger connected in the system to cool down the fluid, and the use of the switches to input fluid into one of the flow channels to cool down the first or second battery module. Although modified Song does discuss the use of the radiator, Song does not specifically disclose that it is controlled by the controller. 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 the controller to control the radiator because Song teaches that the controller is responsive to temperature for controlling other parts of the temperature control system and so it would be obvious to use the controller to control the radiator for the same purpose. 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.).
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US PG Publication 2016/0285144 in view of Makino JP2015-082353, as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of Zhejiang CN110411261.
Regarding Claim 11, Song modified by Makino discloses the claimed battery as described in the rejection of Claim 9, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Song modified by Makino discloses the use of a heat exchanger and temperature sensors, and is capable of most of the intended uses claimed, but Song modified by Makino does not disclose wherein the controller controls the heat exchanger to heat up the fluid such that the fluid is able to heat the first or second battery module. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module thermal regulation, Zhejiang discloses that a heat exchanger can be used to e.g. preheat the battery that is also cooled by a heat exchanger system, a process that is controlled by a controller to ensure that battery has the appropriate temperature for the needs of the user (see entire disclosure and especially e.g. paras 0099-0102). 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 battery of Song modified by Makino such that the controller controls the heat exchanger to heat up the fluid such that the fluid is able to heat the first or second battery module since Zhejiang discloses that a heat exchanger can be used to e.g. preheat the battery to ensure that battery has the appropriate temperature for the needs of the user.
10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US PG Publication 2016/0285144, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Cheng CN210006865.
Regarding Claim 18, Song discloses the claimed battery as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Song discloses the use of cooling fluids but Song does not specifically disclose what type of fluid is used, e.g. does not recite if it is water, gas, or a mixed liquid of water and glycol. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module thermal regulation, Cheng discloses that water and gaseous refrigerants are both circulated as cooling fluids in cooling pipeline systems in a vehicle to prevent thermal runaway of the battery system (see at least abstract, paras 0011-0013, 0021, 0034-0040). 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 battery of Song such that the cooling fluid accommodated in the flow channels are e.g. water, gas, or a mixed liquid of water and glycol because Cheng discloses that water and gaseous refrigerants are both circulated as cooling fluids in cooling pipeline systems in a vehicle to prevent thermal runaway of the battery system. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 12 recites wherein the thermal management structure further comprises a heat exchange plate configured to perform heat exchange with the first and second battery modules and being provided with the first and second flow channels inside. The closest prior art includes Song and Machida (both cited in the rejections above).
These references do not have a structure that the skilled artisan would find reasonable to modify with a single heat exchange plate that contains both of the flow channels since Song’s channels have structures that extend out of a single plane and Machida’s flow channels are essentially separate air flow ducts through which the cooling air travels past the battery cells. There is simply no reason that the skilled artisan would modify the closest prior art to arrive at the invention encompassed by Claim 12 in combination with Claim 1. Claims 13-17 are objected to (but contain allowable subject matter) because they depend on Claim 12.
Conclusion
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