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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7–10 are pending.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are canceled.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2023/0318085 A1.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicants' amendments have overcome the rejections of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US 8,717,761 B2, hereinafter Aoki) in view of Harada (EP 3782835 A1), Houchin-Miller (US 2011/0269008 A1, hereinafter Houchin), and Yamamoto (WO 2015/045526 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a battery unit (10, Fig. 1) mounted on a vehicle (9, Fig. 4, see C3:L43-47), the battery unit comprising:
a case (60, Fig. 1-4) having an intake port (46, Fig. 1-3);
a battery module (20, Fig. 1-3) which is disposed inside the case (60) and in which a plurality of battery cells (22, Fig, 3) are stacked (see C3:L64-C4:L1);
a fan (90, Fig. 1-3) disposed inside the case (60) and cooling air (see C4:L35-39); and
an intake duct (cooling structure comprising 47, 65, 70, and 80, Fig. 3, see C4:L49-59) connecting the intake port (46) and the fan (90), wherein
the intake duct includes a first flow path (66 Fig. 3) extending along a first surface (top wall of 21, Fig. 3) of the battery module (20); and a second flow path (73, Fig. 3) extending along a second surface (76, Fig. 3) different from the first surface of the battery module (20);
the second surface (76, Fig. 3) is a side surface (left side of 20, Fig. 3) of the battery module in a vehicle width direction (left in Fig. 3).
an electrical component (41, Fig. 3, see C4:L9-23) electrically connected (via wiring 42, Fig. 2) to the battery module (20, Fig. 3), wherein the second flow path (73, Fig. 3) is disposed to be sandwiched between the electrical component (41 to the left, Annotated Fig. 3, below) and the battery module (20 to the right, Annotated Fig. 3, below) in the vehicle width direction of the vehicle;
an electrical component is mounted (41, Fig. 3, see C4:L9-15), wherein: the intake duct has a third flow path (81, Fig. 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
400
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aoki does not teach
a fan blowing cooling air to the battery module.
However, Harada teaches a fan (12, Figs. 1 and 5-6) disposed inside a case (30, Figs. 1 and 5-6) and blowing cooling air to the battery module (20, Figs. 5-6, see [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the case of Aoki by adding the cooling fan disposed prior to the battery module along the flow path, as taught by Harada, because it allows air to be blown off of inclined surfaces to increase flow velocity and cooling efficiency (see [0054]).
Aoki does not teach
a bracket over which the electrical component is mounted,
wherein: the third flow path is disposed above the fan; and
the bracket is disposed above the fan and the third flow path, and presses the intake duct against the fan.
Harada teaches an intake duct (intake duct, Annotated Fig. 5, above) comprising a flow path, disposed above a fan (12, Annotated Fig. 5, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the third flow path of Aoki, in view of Harada, to be disposed above the fan, as taught by Harada, to maximize space in the luggage compartment of the vehicle (see [0004]). Further, it has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art.
Aoki, in view of Harada, still does not teach
a bracket over which the electrical component is mounted, and the bracket is disposed above the fan and the third flow path, and presses the intake duct against the fan.
Further, Houchin teaches a bracket (9000, Fig. 57) over which an electrical component (9020, Fig. 57) is mounted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrical component of Aoki, in view of Harada, by mounting the electrical component on a bracket, as taught by Houchin, to maintain a temperature sensor in contact with a battery cell (see [0244]).
Yamamoto teaches a bracket (40/41, Fig. 6) is disposed above the fan (31, Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 6, below) and presses the intake duct (33, Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 6, below) against the fan (31).
PNG
media_image2.png
381
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bracket, intake duct, and fan of Aoki, in view of Harada and Houchin, by disposing the bracket to be above the fan and pressing down on the fan and intake duct comprising a third flow path, in order to mount the intake duct and the fan so that they may communicate with each other (see Page3:L39-47 of Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches
the second flow path (second flow path, Annotated Fig. 3, below) extends in a vertical direction (extends down, Annotated Fig. 3, below) along the side surface (left side of 20, Fig. 3) of the battery module in the vehicle width direction (left, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
183
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches
the first surface (top wall of 21, Fig. 3) is an upper surface of the battery module (20, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches
the battery unit (10, Fig. 4) is configured to be disposed below a seat provided in the vehicle.
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that claim 9 recites intended use language, and thereby does not impart any additional structural limitations; any battery unit would be capable of disposition below a seat provided in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches
the first flow path (66, Fig. 3) is connected to the intake port (46, Fig. 3) and extends in a horizontal direction (extends left, see Fig. 3) along an upper surface (top side of 20, Fig. 3) of the battery module;
the second flow path (73, Fig. 3) is connected to the first flow path (66) and extends in a vertical direction (extends down, see Fig. 3) along a side surface (left side of 20, Fig. 3) of the battery module; and
the intake duct (cooling structure comprising 47, 65, 70, and 80, Fig. 3, see C4:L49-59) further includes a third flow path (81, Fig. 3) which connects the second flow path and the fan (90, Fig. 3), the third flow path extending in the horizontal direction (extends left, see Fig. 3),
Aoki does not teach
the third flow path extending above the fan.
However, Harada teaches a flow path (arrow pointing into intake duct, Annotated Fig. 5, below) extending above a fan (12, Annotated Fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
290
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the third flow path of Aoki, in view of Harada, to be disposed above the fan, as taught by Harada, to maximize space in the luggage compartment of the vehicle (see [0004]). It has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 8,717,761 B2) in view of Harada (EP 3782835 A1), Houchin (US 2011/0269008 A1), and Yamamoto (WO 2015/045526 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2016/0243919 A1, hereinafter Yamanaka).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches
the case (60, Fig. 3) includes a base plate (60b, Fig. 3) on which the fan (12, Fig. 1 of Harada) is mounted;
Aoki does not teach
the intake duct is disposed above the fan: and the intake duct includes a fixing portion fixed to the base plate by a clip.
However, Harada teaches an intake duct (intake duct, Annotated Fig. 5, above) disposed above a fan (12, Annotated Fig. 5, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intake duct of Aoki, in view of Harada, to be disposed above the fan, as taught by Harada, to maximize space in the luggage compartment of the vehicle (see [0004]). It has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art.
Aoki, in view of Harada, still does not teach
the intake duct includes a fixing portion fixed to the base plate by a clip.
However, Yamanaka teaches a cooling unit for a vehicle battery pack (40, Figs. 1-3, [0003]) comprising an intake duct (60, Fig. 3-4) including a fixing portion (64B, Fig. 3-4) fixed to the base plate (bracket 95 of 90, Fig. 4) by a clip (clip B, Fig. 4, see [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intake duct of Aoki, in view of Harada, by adding a fixing portion fixed to the base plate by a clip, as taught by Yamanaka, to provide rigidity that prevents the transmission of vibrations from the cooling blower ([0036 and 0062).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 8,717,761 B2) in view of Harada (EP 3782835 A1), Houchin (US 2011/0269008 A1), and Yamamoto (WO 2015/045526 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Oono et al. (US 2020/0006821 A1, hereinafter Oono).
Regarding claim 8, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches
an inter-cell flow path (inter-cell flow path, Annotated Fig. 3, below) through which the cooling air sent out from the fan (12, Fig. 1 of Harada) flows from a lower side (lower side, Annotated Fig. 3, below) to an upper side (upper side, Annotated Fig. 3, below) is formed between the battery cells (cell portions of batteries 22, Fig. 3, see C5:L11-14);
PNG
media_image5.png
337
310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Aoki does not teach
a control device configured to control charging and discharging of the battery module,
wherein: the control device is disposed between the first flow path and the battery module.
However, Oono teaches a control device (7, Fig. 4) configured to control charging and discharging (see [0024]) of the battery module (1, Fig. 4), wherein: the control device is disposed between a flow path (path of air out fan 35, Fig. 4) and the battery module (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first flow path of Aoki, in view of Harada, by adding a control device configured to control charging and discharging disposed above it, as taught by Oono, so that the power supply controller can be cooled by passing air (see [0088]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Houchin does not disclose a configuration in which temperature sensor 9020 is mounted on bracket 9000 (P9/¶1). It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the electrical component is mounted on the bracket) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites the limitation "a bracket over which the electrical component is mounted." The pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111. The plain meaning of the term "on" is so as to be supported or held by (see on, New Oxford American Dictionary); and the plain meaning of the term "over" is at a higher level or layer than (see over, New Oxford American Dictionary). The term "on" is patentably distinguishably from the term "over." Houchin discloses a configuration in which temperature sensor 9020 is over bracket 9000 (FIG. 57, [0243]). Therefore, Houchin discloses a configuration in which temperature sensor 9020 is mounted over bracket 9000.
Applicants argue none of Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto teach or suggest a bracket over which the electrical component is mounted … the second surface is a side surface of the battery module in a vehicle width direction, the second flow path is disposed to be sandwiched between the electrical component and the battery module in the vehicle width direction, the intake duct has a third flow path disposed above the fan, and the bracket is disposed above the fan and the third flow path, and presses the intake duct against the fan (P10/¶2). Aoki discloses an electrical component (41, Fig. 3, see C4:L9-23) electrically connected (via wiring 42, Fig. 2) to the battery module (20, Fig. 3), wherein the second flow path (73, Fig. 3) is disposed to be sandwiched between the electrical component (41 to the left, Annotated Fig. 3, below) and the battery module (20 to the right, Annotated Fig. 3, below) in the vehicle width direction of the vehicle; an electrical component is mounted (41, Fig. 3, see C4:L9-15), wherein: the intake duct has a third flow path (81, Fig. 3), Harada teaches an intake duct (intake duct, Annotated Fig. 5, above) comprising a flow path, disposed above a fan (12, Annotated Fig. 5, above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the third flow path of Aoki, in view of Harada, to be disposed above the fan, as taught by Harada, to maximize space in the luggage compartment of the vehicle (see [0004]). Further, it has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art. Further, Houchin teaches a bracket (9000, Fig. 57) over which an electrical component (9020, Fig. 57) is mounted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrical component of Aoki, in view of Harada, by mounting the electrical component on a bracket, as taught by Houchin, to maintain a temperature sensor in contact with a battery cell (see [0244]). Yamamoto teaches a bracket (40/41, Fig. 6) is disposed above the fan (31, Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 6, below) and presses the intake duct (33, Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 6, below) against the fan (31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bracket, intake duct, and fan of Aoki, in view of Harada and Houchin, by disposing the bracket to be above the fan and pressing down on the fan and intake duct comprising a third flow path, in order to mount the intake duct and the fan so that they may communicate with each other (see Page3:L39-47 of Machine Translation). Therefore, Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto suggest a bracket over which the electrical component is mounted, the second surface is a side surface of the battery module in a vehicle width direction, the second flow path is disposed to be sandwiched between the electrical component and the battery module in the vehicle width direction, the intake duct has a third flow path disposed above the fan, and the bracket is disposed above the fan and the third flow path, and presses the intake duct against the fan.
Applicants argue claims 4, 5, and 7–10 are patentably distinguished over the combination of Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto and Yamanaka and Oono at least in view of their respective dependencies as well as for their additionally recited elements (P11/¶1, P12/¶1, P13/¶1). Claim 1 does not patentably distinguish over the combination of Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto as detailed above. The additionally recited elements are also taught by the combination of Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto and Yamanaka and Oono as detailed above.
Applicants argue Yamanaka fails to remedy the deficiencies of Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto (P11/¶6). Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto are not deficient as detailed above.
Applicants argue Oono fails to remedy the deficiencies of Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto (P12/¶6). Aoki and Harada and Houchin and Yamamoto are not deficient 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 Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights