DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/127,370, “BATTERY UNIT”, was filed with the USPTO on 3/28/2023 and has a foreign priority document of JP2022-057579 filed on 3/30/2022.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 3/16/2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/127,370, filed on 3/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2023 and on 11/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement (IDS) is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed on 3/16/2026 are sufficient to cure the previous specification and drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 12/16/2025. Examiner withdraws the objection to the drawings set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 12/16/2025.
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) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Misu et al. (US 2001/0030069 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Misu et al. teaches a battery unit (10, Fig. 1) mounted (see Abstract) on a vehicle (12, Fig. 1), the battery unit (10, Fig. 4) comprising:
a base plate (26, Fig. 2,4); and
a battery module (24, Fig. 2,4) which is fixed (each 22 fixed to 26, see [0064]) to the base plate (26, Fig. 2,4) and in which a plurality of battery cells (22, Fig. 2,4) are stacked (see [0072]), wherein:
a flow path (32/36/S, Figs 2 and 4) of cooling air (cooling air, [0010]) is formed between the base plate (26, Figs 3,4) and the battery module (24, Figs 2,4); and
the base plate (26, Fig. 2) is provided with:
a first suspension member (26b, Fig. 2) which crosses the flow path (32/36/S, Figs 2 and 4)in a flow direction (flow direction, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 2-1 and see [0068] and Fig. 4) of the cooling air and forms a part of an upper wall (26b is a relative upper wall of 26a in 32, see Figs 2 and 4) of the flow path (32/36/S, Figs 2 and 4); and
a second suspension member (26c, Fig. 2) which extends above the first suspension member (26c extends above 26b, Fig. 2, see [0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
3256
2040
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Misu et al. teaches wherein:
a first end (first end, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 2) and a second end (second end, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 2) of the second suspension member (26c, Fig. 2) are fixed to the base plate (26, Fig. 2, see [0064]); and
the first suspension member (26b, Fig. 2) and the second suspension member (26c, Fig. 2) are fixed to each other between the first end (first end, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 2) and the second end (second end, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
2826
2222
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Misu et al. teaches further comprising:
a battery module fixing member (64, Fig. 3) which supports the battery module (see [0064]) and is fixed (by 68 through 69, see [0064]) to the second suspension member (26c, Fig. 2), wherein
the battery module is fixed (each 22 fixed to 26 via 64 seats on 26c, see [0064]) to the base plate (26, Fig. 3) via the battery module fixing member (64, Fig. 3) and the second suspension member (26c, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Misu et al. teaches wherein:
the second suspension member (26c, Fig. 2) includes a first fixing portion (60, Fig. 2) by which the battery module fixing member (64, Fig. 3) is fixed (64 fixed to 60 via 68 through 69, see [0064]); and
the first suspension member (26b, Fig. 2) is fixed (26b fixed to 24/22 by 60 and 64, see [0058] and [0064]) by the first fixing portion (60, Fig. 2) together with the battery module fixing member (64, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Misu et al. teaches wherein the flow path (32/36/S, Figs 2 and 4) communicates with an inter-cell flow path (S, Figs 2 and 3) formed between the battery cells (22, Figs 2 and 3).
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 Misu et al. (US 2001/0030069 A1) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 2016/0261011 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Misu et al. is silent in the first embodiment on teaching 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 suspension member; and a seal member is provided between the upper surface of the first suspension member and a lower surface of the air feeding duct, but in the second embodiment, Misu et al. teaches further comprising:
a fan (31, Fig. 11) which is mounted (31 mounted on 26 via 108, see [0079]) 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 (32/36/S, Figs 2 and 4), 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) of the base plate (26, Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image3.png
1708
2764
media_image3.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 add the blower fan and the air intake duct taught in the second embodiment of Misu et al. to the first embodiment of Misu et al. to prevent comparatively hot air outside the battery casing entering the battery casing (see Misu et al. [0087]).
Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. When the air feeding duct covers an upper surface of the base plate, it also covers an upper surface of the first suspension member.
However, Misu et al. fails to teach a seal member is provided between the upper surface of the first suspension 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 side wall and a lower surface of the air intake duct taught by 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, Misu et al. in view of Tsuchiya et al. teach wherein the air feeding duct (108, Misu Fig. 11) is fixed to the second suspension member (26, see Misu Fig. 11 where 108 is fixed to 26 thus fixed to 26c in the modification of Misu Fig. 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misu et al. (US 2001/0030069 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2013/0220713 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Misu et al. teaches wherein:
the base plate (26, Fig. 2) includes a vehicle fixing portion (26a, Fig. 2); and
the second suspension member (26c, Fig. 2) includes a second fixing portion (second fixing portion, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 2) fixed to the vehicle fixing portion (26a, Fig. 2).
Misu et al. fails to teach that vehicle fixing portion is fixed to the vehicle.
However, Watanabe et al. teaches a vehicle fixing portion (126, Fig. 3) fixed to the vehicle (126 fixed to the floor panel by a bolt through 126a, see [0050]).
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 bolt taught by Watanabe et al. and apply it to the horizontal bottom wall taught by Misu et al. because a bolt can fix the battery pack to the floor panel through the opening portion (see Watanabe et al. [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Misu, applicant states that “In contrast, "side walls 26 b" of Misu extends parallel to the flow direction, as indicated by the red arrow in annotated FIG. 2 of Misu reproduced below”. Applicant further states that “whereas "side walls 26 b" of Misu form side walls”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Misu teaches the “flow direction” as shown in the arrows in Fig. 4 and the Examiner annotated it as “flow direction” in Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 2-1. Both show that side wall 26b crosses the flow path of 32/S/36. In addition, paragraph [0068] further teaches “the air flow through the air intake chamber 32, gaps S and air exhaust chamber 36” that side wall 26b is not parallel to the flow direction but instead 26b crosses the flow path of 32/S/36.
Second, Fig. 2 of Misu shows that the side wall 26b is an upper wall relative to 26a of the flow path.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3-4 and 7 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection based on Misu (see rejection above).
Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons a new rejection of the claims in view of the amendments is made under Misu (see rejection 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 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