DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/24/2025 was received. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Newly added claims 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11: There does not appear to be written support in the application as filed for, “…wherein the sheet member is arranged side by side with the stack of the plurality of battery cells in a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction…” as claimed. The Examiner has reviewed the entire disclosure and cannot find support for the limitation; the cited portions for support by Applicant in the response filed 12/24/2025 do not include the language recited in the claim; and there is no further explanation provided by Applicant for the newly added limitation. The battery cells relative to the sheet member are never shown in the figures, and the feature is not found in the written description. A text search of the PGPUB of the instant application for the newly added language produces zero hits:
PNG
media_image1.png
315
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the above is sufficient to make such a rejection:
Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.")
Claim 13: There does not appear to be written support in the application as filed for, “wherein an exit portion of the discharging path faces to an outside of the case…”
Claim 14: There does not appear to be written support in the application as filed for, “wherein exit portions of the discharging path face an outside of the case…”
Pertaining to claims 13 and 14, the Examiner has reviewed the entire disclosure and cannot find support for the features; the cited portions for support by Applicant in the response filed 12/24/2025 do not include the language recited in the claim; and there is no further explanation provided by Applicant for the newly added limitations. A text search of the PGPUB of the instant application for the newly added language produces zero hits:
PNG
media_image2.png
261
421
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As best understood by the Examiner, the exit portion(s) 232B are simply holes (P49; 51, Figs. 13-15); it is not clear how a hole would “face” or “face to” a given direction. Accordingly, the quoted case law to Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) is again applicable to the instant scenario.
Future claim amendments should be accompanied with comments that specifically point out support for any claim amendments. See MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required. For compact prosecution purposes, the claims will be examined as best as possible for prior art application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reitzle et al. (US 2012/0312161) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made. Newly added claim 13 is also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claim 1, Reitzle teaches a battery pack (P2; entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (P2) arranged side by side along a first direction1;
a housing 10 (“case”) provided with an interior 11 (“an inner space”) for accommodating the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1; P5, 24);
a second membrane 26 (“sheet member”) provided in the case 10 (Fig. 1) and having gas permeability (P5; 14, 26), wherein
the case 10 includes a cover (annotated below, top cover portion thereof shown in Fig. 1), a main body (the remainder), and a cooling plate (22, 27),
the second membrane 26 (“sheet member”) is provided at2 the cooling plate that constitutes a bottom portion of the case or at2 a bottom portion of the main body (annotated below) integrated with the cooling plate (22, 27) (it is noted that both hold true as “a bottom portion of the case” could be reasonably interpreted as anything below the halfway mark of the case 10), and
the second membrane 26 (“sheet member”) is provided to face the interior (“inner space”) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 of Reitzle is annotated below for clarity:
PNG
media_image3.png
401
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Reitzle teaches wherein a discharging path through which a gas in the interior 11 (“inner space”) is dischargeable is formed within a thickness of the cooling plate (22, 27) so as to extend in an extending direction of the cooling plate (22, 27), and the second membrane 26 (“sheet member”) is provided over the discharging path so as to close the discharging path (Fig. 1).
The second membrane 26 (“sheet member”) is a gas permeable sheet (P5, 24) made of the same material as disclosed by the instant application (Gortex, P14). There is no reason the air could not flow from 25, through the second membrane 26 (“sheet member”), the first membrane 24, and out 23 in the instance there was a positive pressure existing within interior 11 (“inner space”) relative to the outside. Accordingly, the path of the air may be a “discharging path” through which a gas in the interior 11 (“inner space”) is dischargeable” as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Reitzle teaches wherein the cooling plate (22, 27) has a substantially quadrangular shape (see Fig. 1) including a long side and a short side, and the discharging path includes a portion extending in a direction along the long side (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Reitzle teaches wherein an exit portion of the discharging path faces to an outside of the case 10 and is disposed in the cooling plate (22, 27) and opened on a side of the cooling plate (22, 27) that is opposite to the main body the case 10 (Fig. 1).
5. The rejection of claims 1, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (EP 3926747 – published date 12-22-2021) (using US family member 2022/0123423 as a copy thereof with citation thereto) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made. Newly added claims 11-14 are also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a battery pack (P76; Figs. 2-11; entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells 5 arranged side by side along a first direction3 (P80, 92; Figs. 2-3, 8-11);
a case (1, 2) (Fig. 2) provided with an inner space for accommodating the plurality of battery cells 5 (Figs. 2-6); and
a sheet member 13 (Fig. 7) provided in the case (1, 2) and having gas permeability (i.e., at all times, gas may flow in first and second passageways 133, 134 to exhaust passage 112 (P84, 109-110, Fig. 5); alternatively, gas may flow in the manner shown in Figs. 10-11 under thermal runaway conditions), wherein
the case (1, 2) includes an upper box cover 2 (Fig. 2; P65), a first box body 1 (“a main body”) including frame 12 components (P77; Figs. 2, 5), and a base plate 11 with water cooling passages 111 (“a cooling plate”) (P48-49, 108, Figs. 5-6),
the sheet member 13 is provided at4 the cooling plate 11 (P78-79, 108) that constitutes a bottom portion of the case (1, 2) (Figs. 4-6) or at3 a bottom portion of the main body 1 (12) integrated with the cooling plate 11 (i.e., both are met), and
the sheet member 13 is provided to face the inner space (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches wherein a discharging path (i.e., first passage 133 in conjunction with exhaust passage 112, and/or second passage 134 in conjunction with exhaust passage 112; alternatively, just the path through exhaust passage 112) through which a gas in the inner space is dischargeable is formed within a thickness of the cooling plate 11 (Figs. 5-6) so as to extend in an extending direction of the cooling plate 11, and the sheet member 13 is provided over the discharging path so as to close the discharging path (i.e., sheet member 13 closes the exhaust passage 112 from the inner space until thermal runaway occurs) (Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches wherein the cooling plate 11 has a substantially quadrangular shape (Fig. 5) including a long side and a short side, and the exhaust passage discharging path (133 + 112 and/or 134 + 112; or just 112) includes a portion extending in a direction along the long side (Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches wherein the plurality of cells 5 define a stack of the plurality of battery cells, and wherein the sheet member 13 is arranged side by side with the stack of the plurality of cells in a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (Figs. 2, 3, and 8). As one non-limiting interpretation, the second direction could be the x-direction and the first direction could be the y-direction or z-direction (these directions are labeled in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches wherein the cooling plate 11 has a rectangular shape including a long-side direction and a short-side direction5 (see Figs. 3-4, 11) in which the first direction is parallel with the long-side direction and the short-side direction is orthogonal to the first direction (multiple interpretations applicable).
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches wherein an exit portion (112) of the discharging path faces to an outside of the case (1, 2) and is disposed in the cooling plate 11 and opened on a side of the cooling plate 11 that is opposite to the main body of the case 1 (12) (see Figs. 5 & 10).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches wherein exit portions (best shown in Fig. 10) of the discharging path (see interpretations applicable in claim 5) face an outside of the case (1, 2) and are disposed at both end portions of the cooling plate 11 in the first direction (see Figs. 5 and 9-10). As one non-limiting example of the claimed subject matter, Wang teaches “exit portions” (i.e., the bottommost “exit portion” of 133 + the “exit portion” that is the discharge passage 112) of the discharging path face an outside of the case (1, 2) and are disposed at both end portions of the cooling plate 11 in the first direction (y-direction) (see Figs. 5, 9-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitzle et al. (US 2012/0312161) as applied to at least claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of
Wünsche et al. (US 2021/0119282) is maintained.
Regarding claim 6, Reitzle fails to explicitly teach, “wherein the cooling plate (22, 27) includes an extrusion material formed by extrusion molding, and the discharging path includes a groove or hole formed by the extrusion molding.
The claim is a product-by-process claim (MPEP § 2113):
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, the claim includes the explicit/implicit structural characteristics and/or limitation of including an extrusion material, and including a groove or hole. The latter is met by Reitzle with Figure 1 illustrating the hole formed through the center of the cooling plate (22, 27).
Reitzle is silent on the material of walls 22 of cooling plate (22, 27). Wünsche teaches analogous art of a battery pack including a cooling plate, and teaches it may be made of an extruded aluminum material (P61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select extruded aluminum material for the cooling plate material given Wünsche teaches analogous art of a battery pack including a cooling plate, and teaches it may be made of an extruded aluminum material (P61), the court holding that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP § 2144.07; see also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
7. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (EP 3926747 – published date 12-22-2021) (using US family member 2022/0123423 as a copy thereof with citation thereto) as applied to at least claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of
Wünsche et al. (US 2021/0119282) is maintained.
Regarding claim 6, Wang fails to explicitly teach, “wherein the cooling plate 11 includes an extrusion material formed by extrusion molding, and the discharging path includes a groove or hole formed by the extrusion molding.
The claim is a product-by-process claim (MPEP § 2113):
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, the claim includes the explicit/implicit structural characteristics and/or limitation of including an extrusion material, and including a groove or hole. The latter is met by Wang with Figures 5-6 illustrating the exhaust passage (“discharging path”) includes a 112 hole formed through cooling plate 11.
Wang is silent on the material of the cooling plate 11. Wünsche teaches analogous art of a battery pack including a cooling plate, and teaches it may be made of an extruded aluminum material (P61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select extruded aluminum material for the cooling plate 11 material given Wünsche teaches analogous art of a battery pack including a cooling plate, and teaches it may be made of an extruded aluminum material (P61), the court holding that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.); MPEP § 2144.07; see also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Double Patenting
The provisional rejection of claims 1-10 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/168,727 (=US 2023/0275318) is withdrawn and updated in view of the claim amendments and cancellations filed. Thus:
Claims 1, 5-7 and 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-8, 12, and 17-19 of copending Application No. 18/168,727 (=US 2023/0275318) in view of Wang et al. (EP 3926747 – published date 12-22-2021) (using US family member 2022/0123423 as a copy thereof with citation thereto).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the subject matter found in the instant independent claim is set forth in claim 1 with the '727 independent claim setting forth additional limitations in at least claim 1. The only deficiency is that the ‘727 application does not define that the case includes a cover and a main body. The feature is met by Wang, and is routine in the state of the prior art such that providing the case with a cover and main body is prima facie obvious in order to provide the predictable results of providing an appropriate casing to house the plurality of battery cells therein from external elements. The remainder of the claimed subject matter is also set forth in the claims of the '727 application and/or met by Wang.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amends the claims and argues the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
229
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
335
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
59
562
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In response: The Examiner has annotated how Reitzle meets the limitation in the updated rejection of record with one interpretation of “a bottom portion of the main body.”
As to Wang, there is a sheet member 13 (Fig. 7) provided in the case (1, 2) and having gas permeability (i.e., at all times, gas may flow in first and second passageways 133, 134 to exhaust passage 112 (P84, 109-110, Fig. 5); alternatively, gas may flow in the manner shown in Figs. 10-11 under thermal runaway conditions), wherein
the sheet member 13 is provided at6 the cooling plate 11 (P78-79, 108) that constitutes a bottom portion of the case (1, 2) (Figs. 4-6) or at3 a bottom portion of the main body 1 (12) integrated with the cooling plate 11 (i.e., both are met).
Accordingly, the subject matter is remains fully anticipated by Wang and the argument is not persuasive. All comments are submitted respectfully.
Conclusion
10. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsuruta et al. (US 2020/0343576) teaches a battery pack including a cooling member 40 and a sheet member 60 made of a resin film having low gas permeability (“having gas permeability”) (P51, 58) that are all part of a temperature regulating mechanism 100 included in a case accommodating a plurality of battery cells.
Motohashi et al. (US 2021/0036270) teaches a battery pack including a heat sink 70 and a gas discharge portion including a gas cover 442 and breather 444:
PNG
media_image7.png
655
473
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yasuhiro et al. (WO 2012/133709) (abstract & copy of drawings provided) teaches the following construct:
“Further, in the above waterproof structure, an opening is provided in part and the opening can be closed with the moisture permeable waterproof sheet 46. The moisture-permeable waterproof sheet 46 is made of a material that has air permeability and does not transmit moisture, such as Gore-Tex (trademark).” Component 61 is a cooling plate:
PNG
media_image8.png
555
527
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Akutsu et al. (WO 2011/061931) (copy provided) teaches a batter pack and the following (Claims):
“Each of the power storage cells is sandwiched between a pair of heat radiating plates, a curable resin material is disposed between the heat radiating plates, and other portions except for a part of the peripheral portion of the film material are held, and a part of the peripheral portion A power storage device characterized in that a part of the peripheral edge is held by interposing a foamed elastic body having air permeability between the heat radiating plates corresponding to.”
Kim et al. (US 2018/0108892); Bryla (US 2019/0006650); Nakamura et al. (2018/0241017);
The following non-prior document will be monitored for double patenting:
Watanabe et al. (US 2025/0118843) (see P51).
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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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 Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 It is noted that regardless of how the described battery cells are arranged to connect to one another in series or in parallel (P2), they are intrinsically arranged “side by side” and “along a first direction” which do not require any specific sides relative to any other entity, or any specific direction such that the feature is intrinsically met by the plurality of battery cells held inside housing 10.
2 It is noted the preposition “at” is broad in its meaning, and defined as “in, on, or near”
3 Multiple interpretations applicable to what is defined as “a first direction” given the plurality of cells 5 are arranged in the configuration illustrated in Figs. 2-3, and are “side by side” in all three of the annotated x, y, and z directions (Figs. 2-3) with Fig. 4 labeling these directions.
4 It is noted the preposition “at” is broad in its meaning, and defined as “in, on, or near”
5 Multiple interpretations applicable. The “short-side direction” could be the z-direction or the y-direction (shown in Fig. 4); the “long-side direction” could be the x-direction or y-direction (in the instant the z-direction is selected for the short-side direction).
6 It is noted the preposition “at” is broad in its meaning, and defined as “in, on, or near”