DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 7/17/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 7/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 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 3 is indefinite because of the recitations “an upper surface of the first plate member” and “the upper surface of the first plate member”. It is unclear if the recitation is the same upper surface as “an upper surface of the first plate member” in claim 1 or a different upper surface. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitations have been interpreted as “a second upper surface of the first plate member” and “the second upper surface of the first plate member”, respectively.
Claim 4 is rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oishi et al. (WO 2017104383 A1, citations see machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Oishi et al. teaches a battery unit (10A, Fig. 1) mounted (10A is mounted on 1, see [0051]) on a vehicle (1A, Fig. 1), the battery unit (10A, Fig. 7(a) and 7(b)) comprising:
a base plate (40/32/second plate member, see Fig. 7(a), 7(b) and Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7); and
a battery module (20, Fig. 7(b)) which is fixed (20 fixed to 30, see Fig. 3, therefore 20 fixed to second plate member, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7; 30 fixed to 40/32, see Fig. 7(b)) to the base plate (40/32/second plate member, see Fig. 7(b) and Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) and in which a plurality of battery cells (21, Fig. 3) are stacked (see Fig. 3 and [0026]), wherein:
a flow path (45, Fig. 7(b)) of cooling air (refrigerant (air), see [0060]) is formed between the base plate (40 of 40/32/second plate member, see Fig. 7(b) and Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) and the battery module (20, Fig. 7(b));
the base plate (40/32/second plate member, see Fig. 7(a), 7(b) and Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) is provided with:
a first plate member (40/32, Fig. 7(b)) which extends across the flow path (45, Fig. 7(a)) in a direction (extend direction, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) intersecting a flow direction (flow direction, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7; also see the moving up arrow from 35g to 45 in Fig. 9(a)) of the cooling air (refrigerant (air), see [0060]) and forms a part of a ceiling (32, Fig. 7(b)) of the flow path (45, see Fig. 7(b)); and
a second plate member (second plate member, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7; note: second plate member is a sidewall of 31) which extends above the first plate member (40/32, Fig. 7(b)), and
at least a part of a lower surface (33, Fig. 7(b)) of the first plate member (40/32, Fig. 7(a)) forms the part of the ceiling (32, Fig. 7(b)) of the flow path (45, see Fig. 7(b)), and
an upper surface (upper/interior surface of 32, see 7(b)) of the first plate member (40/32, Fig. 7(b)) comes into contact with (contact when bolt 44 fastens, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) a lower surface (lower surface of first fixing portion, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) of the second plate member (second plate member, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
1074
1273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Oishi et al. teaches wherein:
a first end (first end, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) and a second end (second end, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) of the second plate member (second plate member, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) are fixed (via 44, see Fig. 7(a) and 7(b)) to the base plate (40/32/second plate member, see Fig. 7(a), 7(b) and Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7); and
the first plate member (40/32, Fig. 7(b)) and the second plate member (second plate member, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) are fixed (via 44, see Fig. 7(b)) to each other between the first end (first end, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) and the second end (second end, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Oishi et al. teaches further comprising:
a battery module fixing member (41, Fig. 7(b)) which supports (41 supports 30 therefore supports 20, see Fig. 7(b)) the battery module (20, Fig. 7(b)) and is fixed (via 44, see Fig. 7(b)) to the second plate member (second plate member, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7; note: 41 is fixed to first fixing portion of second plate member, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7), wherein
the battery module (20, Fig. 7(b)) is fixed to the base plate (40/32/second plate member, see Fig. 7(a), 7(b) and Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) via the battery module fixing member (41, Fig. 7(b)) and the second plate member (second plate member, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) (note: 20 fixed to case 30, see Fig. 3, therefore 20 is fixed to second plate member, second plate member is fixed to 41(40) and 32; therefore 20 is fixed to 40/32/second plate member via second plate member and 41, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Oishi et al. teaches wherein:
the second plate member (second plate member, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) includes a first fixing portion (first fixing portion, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) by which the battery module fixing member (41, Fig. 7(b)) is fixed (via 44, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7); and
the first plate member (40/32, Fig. 7(b)) is fixed by the first fixing portion (first fixing portion, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) together with the battery module fixing member (41, Fig. 7(b)) (note: 32 is sandwiched and fixed by first fixing portion and 41, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Oishi et al. teaches wherein the flow path (45, see Fig. 7(b)) communicates (35g connects 45, see Fig. 9(a)) with an inter-cell flow path (35g, Fig. 7(a) and 7(b)) formed between the battery cells (21 in 20, see Fig. 3 and 7(b)).
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 (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 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (WO 2017104383 A1, citations see machine translation) in view of Misu et al. (US 2001/0030069 A1) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 2016/0261011 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Oishi et al. does not teach further comprising:
a fan which is mounted on the base plate; and
an air feeding duct which is connected to an air blow-out port of the fan and communicates the air blow-out port of the fan with the flow path, wherein:
the air feeding duct is open to a lower side and covers an upper surface of the first plate member; and
a seal member is provided between the upper surface of the first plate member and a lower surface of the air feeding duct.
Misu et al. teaches further comprising:
a fan (31, Fig. 11) which is mounted on the base plate (26, Fig. 11); and
an air feeding duct (108, Fig. 11) which is connected to an air blow-out port (air blow-out port, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 11) of the fan (31, Fig. 11) and communicates the air blow-out port (air blow-out port, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 11) of the fan with the flow path (32, Fig. 11), wherein:
the air feeding duct (108, Fig. 11) is open to a lower side (lower side, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 11) and covers an upper surface (upper surface, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 11; interpretation see 112b rejection) of the first plate member (the part of 26 connects 108, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
1708
2764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first refrigerant flow path taught by Oishi et al. by adding the blower fan and the air intake duct covering an upper surface of the first plate member taught by Misu et al. to blow the air into the air intake chamber through the air intake passage by operation of the blower fan and to prevent comparatively hot air outside the battery casing entering the battery casing (see Misu et al. [0087]).
However, Oishi et al. in view of Misu et al. fails to teach
a seal member is provided between the upper surface of the first plate member and a lower surface of the air feeding duct.
Tsuchiya et al. teaches a seal member (a sealant, see [0037]) is provided between a surface (a rear side surface of the supply air flow path, see [0021]) and a lower surface (surface of 26 b, see [0037]) of the supply air duct (26, Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to take the sealant as taught by Tsuchiya et al. and apply it between the upper surface of the heat shield plate and the lower surface of the air intake duct taught by Oishi et al. in view of Misu et al. to achieve an airtight seal so that the air feeding duct connects to the flow path in an airtight manner (see Tsuchiya et al. [0035]).
Regarding Claim 4, Oishi et al. in view of Misu et al. in view of Tsuchiya et al. teaches wherein the air feeding duct (108, Misu Fig. 11) is fixed to the second plate member (second plate member, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 7) (note: after modification (see rejection of claim 3), when air intake duct of Misu is fixed to 45 of Oishi via sealant of Tsuchiya, and 45 is also fixed to the second plate member of Oishi, therefore the air intake duct is fixed to the second plate member).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi et al. (WO 2017104383 A1, citations see machine translation) in view of Watanabe (US 20130220713 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Oishi et al. does not teach wherein:
the base plate includes a vehicle fixing portion fixed to the vehicle; and
the second plate member includes a second fixing portion fixed to the vehicle fixing portion.
Watanabe teaches the base plate (12, Fig. 3) includes a vehicle fixing portion (126, Fig. 3) fixed to the vehicle (126 is fixed to the floor panel via a bolt through 126a, see [0050]); and
the second plate member (12a, Fig. 3) includes a second fixing portion (125, Fig. 3) fixed to the vehicle fixing portion (126, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sidewall of the housing (second plate member) taught by Oishi et al. by adding the opening portion (a hole) and the bolt taught by Watanabe to fix the battery pack to the vehicle via the bolt through the opening portion (see Watanabe [0050]). When the hole is added and fastened to the vehicle via the bolt, the sidewall of the housing has a different portion (other than the portion having the hole and first fixing portion) that is fixed to the portion having the hole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/17/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection of claim 1 is based on Oishi et al. (WO 2017104383 A1), it does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights