7, 1DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/4/2026 has been entered.
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 Analysis
2. The claims as amended recites the newly added limitation of (adding the corresponding reference numerals from the disclosure):
“…the sheet member 233 is provided inside the through hole 220A to close the entrance portion 232A.”
This finds support at P43 of the PGPUB with reference to Fig. 6 (P42-43):
PNG
media_image1.png
211
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MPEP § 2111: During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “inside” as including the definitions of “on the inner side of” or “on or near the inside” (screenshot below) which is what is shown in Fig. 6 when describing the sheet member 233 as being “inside the through-hole.” The sheet member is never illustrated or further described as being within the through-hole 220A – it is always illustrated as being entirely above or entirely below the through-hole 220A (see Figs. 6-9). Accordingly, the claim limitation of “…the sheet member 233 is provided inside the through-hole 220A to close the entrance portion 232A” is interpreted as “…the sheet member 233 is provided [on the inner side of or on the inside of or near the inside of] the through-hole 220A to close the entrance portion 232A.”
PNG
media_image2.png
779
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The rejections of 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 are withdrawn in view of either the cancellation of the subject matter or the claim amendments filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, and 13 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.
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 “a bottom portion of the main body” (annotated below) integrated with the cooling plate (22, 27) (it is noted that “a bottom portion of the case” could be reasonably interpreted as anything below the halfway mark of the case 10 and/or a bottom-facing portion),
the second membrane 26 (“sheet member”) is provided to face the interior 11 (“inner space”) (Fig. 1),
a discharging path (annotated below) through which a gas in the interior 11 (“inner space”) is dischargeable3 is formed within a thickness of the cooling plate (22, 27) (Fig. 1),
a through hole (annotated below) is formed at the bottom portion of the main body (i.e., the through hole through which device 20 exists),
the cooling plate (22, 27) is provided with an entrance portion (one non-limiting interpretation annotated below) communicating with4 the through hole and the discharging path; and
the second membrane 26 (“sheet member”) is provided inside5 the through-hole to close the entrance portion (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 of Reitzle is annotated twice below for clarity:
PNG
media_image3.png
401
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
540
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Reitzle teaches wherein the discharging path through which a gas in the interior 11 (“inner space”) is dischargeable is formed within the 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).
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 opens on a rear surface side of the cooling plate (22, 27), the rear surface side of the cooling plate (22, 27) being opposite to the main body of case (Fig. 1).
5. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, and 12-14 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 withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
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. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 12-14 are rejected 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) in view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0351219).
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 direction6 (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), and
the sheet member 13 is provided to face the inner space (Figs. 4-5).
The first box body 1 (“main body”) including frame 12 components does not include a bottom portion integrated with the cooling plate 11; instead, the cooling plate 11 constitutes a bottom portion of the case within Wang. These two options for the bottom configuration of the case, namely, 1) there is a separate bottom portion of the main body integrated with the cooling plate, or 2) there is no separate bottom portion of the main body and the cooling plate constitutes a bottom portion of the case were presented as separate, functionally equivalent alternatives in the claims and the instant application disclosure, and considered prima facie obvious alternatives purely based on design choice. Accordingly, whether a bottom portion of the main body is present or not is considered an obvious design choice, absent new or unexpected results commensurate in scope with the subject matter, and would be a matter of deconstructing formerly integral cooling plate 11 into a first bottom portion layer 11A integrated with a cooling plate section 11B having the water cooling passages 111, the courts holding that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art (see Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct formerly integral cooling plate 11 with water cooling passages into a bottom plate layer integrated with a cooling plate section having the water cooling passages 111 versus the integral construct known on the basis of design choice, the courts holding that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art (see Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179). The proposed modification to Wang is annotated below in Fig. 5 of Wang with formerly integral cooling plate 11 shown as a deconstructed first bottom portion layer 11A integrated with a cooling plate section 11B having the water cooling passages 111 for clarity, wherein first bottom portion 11A would thus have opening 112A, and cooling plate section 11B having the water cooling passages 111 would have opening 112B to maintain the desired gas venting effect through the cooling plate taught by Wang:
PNG
media_image5.png
445
507
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Such a proposal provides for the sheet member 13 to be provided at a bottom portion 11A of the main body integrated with cooling plate 11B having cooling channels 111, wherein a through-hole (that in 112A) is formed at the bottom portion 11A of the main body, and the sheet member 13 is provided inside the through-hole 112A (see Fig. 9).
Wang is deficient in teaching is a discharging path through which a gas in the inner space is dischargeable is formed within a thickness of cooling plate 11B, the cooling plate 11B is provided with an entrance portion communicating with the through hole and the discharging path, and the sheet member 13 closes the entrance portion.
The embodiment of Wang is one in which the vented gases are discharged directly through the opening 112 (now deconstructed openings 112A, 112B based on deconstructed 11A/11B) to the outside of the pack. In the same field of endeavor, Smith teaches analogous art of a battery cell cooling plate with gas venting capabilities (abstract; entire disclosure relied upon), wherein the cooling plate (all embodiments) is provided with a hollow chamber 236, coolant inlet port 204, and coolant outlet port 208 to allow flow of a cooling fluid within the hollow chamber (P49). Smith teaches an embodiment in which the gases are vented directly completely through the cooling plate via openings 504a-504c to the outside (see Figs. 2A-2B, 5A-5F; P56) of the cooling plate 500 as in Wang’s cooling/venting plate 11, as well as an alternative embodiment in which the cooling plate is provided with a vent chamber 316 that pairs with the surface openings 304a-304c and allows the gas to travel through an internal vent chamber 316 within the cooling plate 300 to opening 308 (Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-4H; P47-50, 52-55). The vent chamber 316 of Smith within cooling plate 300 is such that there is a discharging path (annotated below) through which gas is discharged that is formed within a thickness of the cooling plate 300, the cooling plate is provided with an entrance portion (annotated below) communicating with the openings 304a-c and the discharging path (Fig 3D):
PNG
media_image6.png
235
743
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cooling plate 11B of Wang in which the gases are vented completely through the cooling plate via openings 112A/112B to instead be constructed with a vent chamber 316 that pairs with opening 112A and allows the gas to travel through an internal vent chamber 316 within the cooling plate 300 to a side opening, the vent chamber 316 including a discharging path through which a gas in the inner space is dischargeable formed within a thickness of cooling plate and provided with an entrance portion communicating with the through hole 112A and the discharging path given Smith teaches such a construct is known in the field of endeavor of a combined cooling/venting plate (Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-4H; P47-50, 52-55) and is an alternative embodiment to venting the gases completely through the cooling plate via openings 504a-504c to the outside (see Figs. 2A-2B, 5A-5F; P56), the alteration providing the predictable results of allowing the vented gases to be directed outward at a given location including ends, sides, or the bottom of the cooling plate (P54), as well as allowing the vented gases to cool while traveling through the vent chamber 316 versus the gases being immediately vented to the outside to improve safety of persons or entities nearby to the battery pack.
It is noted that the combination of elements of Wang as modified by Smith provides for the sheet member 13 to “close the entrance portion” (i.e., relative to cover 12: the top portion 131 of sheet member 13 (see Fig. 9) closes the entrance portion from communicating with cover 12; alternatively, relative to the cells: sheet member 13 includes embodiments in which 15 does not allow gas passage until thermal runaway destroys 15 – P82, 110).
Regarding claim 5, Wang as modified by Smith teaches the discharging path is formed within the thickness of the cooling plate so as to extend in an extending direction of the cooling plate (see Fig. 3D annotated above), wherein Wang as modified by Smith is such that sheet member 13 is provided over the discharging path so as to close the discharging path (see rejection of claim 1 explaining combination of elements), wherein the “closing of the discharging path” is similar to the closing of the entrance portion. Specifically, relative to cover 12: the top portion 131 of sheet member 13 (see Fig. 9) closes the discharging path from communicating with cover 12; alternatively, relative to the cells: sheet member 13 includes embodiments in which 15 does not allow gas passage until thermal runaway destroys 15 (P82, 110) such that the discharging path is closed until this occurs.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches wherein the cooling plate 11 has a substantially quadrangular shape (Fig. 5) as does Smith (see Figs. 2A, 3A-3F) including a long side and a short side, and modified Wang teaches the discharging path includes a portion extending in a direction along the long side (see Fig. 3D of Smith).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches wherein the cooling plate 11 has a rectangular shape including a long-side direction and a short-side direction7 (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). Smith also teaches the same (see Figs. 2A, 3A-3F) including multiple interpretations.
Regarding claim 13, Wang as modified by Smith teaches a vent opening 308 (“an exit portion”) of the discharging path that opens on a selected end/side/bottom (P54), wherein the exit portion 308 may be in bottom 224 of cooling plate 200 (P54) (i.e., “a rear surface side” of the cooling plate), the rear surface side 224 of the cooling plate being opposite to the main body 1 (12) of the case in modified Wang/Smith.
Regarding claim 14, Wang as modified by Smith teaches a vent opening 308 (“an exit portion”) of the discharging path may be formed at an end portion of the cooling plate in the first direction (P54). Smith teaches that the shape of the vent chamber 312 is not limited and can take on other shapes or volumes necessary to vent the battery cells while still allowing cooling of the cells (P53).
Wang as modified by Smith fails to disclose the use of two vent openings 308 (“exit portions”) formed at both end portions of the cooling plate in the first direction as claimed; however, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the vent opening 308 (“an exit portion”) of the discharging path such that there are two vent openings 308, 308' formed at both end portions8 of the cooling plate in the first direction given the court has held that the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, the duplication of openings 308 providing the predictable results of allowing increased ventilation capability when different shapes or volumes of vent chambers 316 are utilized (P53-54).
8. Claim 6 is rejected 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) in view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0351219) as applied to at least claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wünsche et al. (US 2021/0119282).
Regarding claim 6, Wang nor Smith teaches the italicized portions of, “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 italicized above 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 the discharging path including a groove or hole. Smith teaches the discharging path includes a groove or hole (see Fig. 3D), and also teaches that the cooling plate may be formed of a thermally conductive material including aluminum or aluminum alloys (P48), and the vent chamber may be made of the same or similar material as the cooling plate (P53). Accordingly, the use of aluminum or aluminum alloy is prima facie obvious within modified Wang (MPEP 2144.07).
Smith does not explicitly teach the aluminum/aluminum alloy is extrudable or “an extrusion material.” 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 of modified Wang/Smith 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).
9. Claim 14 is alternatively rejected 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) in view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0351219) as applied to at least claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Iwatsuki et al. (US 2021/0305654).
Regarding claim 14, Wang as modified by Smith teaches a vent opening 308 (“an exit portion”) of the discharging path may be formed at an end portion of the cooling plate in the first direction (P54). Smith teaches that the shape of the vent chamber 312 is not limited and can take on other shapes or volumes necessary to vent the battery cells while still allowing cooling of the cells (P53).
Wang as modified by Smith fails to disclose the use of two vent openings 308 (“exit portions”) formed at both end portions of the cooling plate in the first direction as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Iwatsuki teaches analogous art of a battery pack including an exhaust duct 30 for venting gases of battery cells to the outside of the pack, wherein Iwatsuki teaches it is a known technique to provide the exhaust duct 30 with openings at both ends of the battery 4 in stacking direction X (“the first direction”) (P45; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the discharging path of modified Wang/Smith with vent openings 308 (“exit portions”) at both ends of the battery pack such that the y are formed at both end portions of the cooling plate in the first direction given Iwatsuki teaches it is a known technique to provide an exhaust duct 30 for venting gases of battery cells to the outside of the pack such that there are openings at both ends thereof, the provided technique of Iwatsuki to the construct of modified Wang/Smith providing the predictable results of allowing increased ventilation capability when different shapes or volumes of vent chambers 316 are utilized (P53-54).
Double Patenting
10. The provisional rejection of claims 1, 5-7 and 11-14 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) is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant amends the claims and argues the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
671
644
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In response: Applicant is not incorrect in terms of the description of where second membrane 26 (“sheet member”) is located relative to the device 20 and its intermidate walls 22; however, this does not negate the second membrane 26 (“sheet membrane”) from also being described as being provided “at” (a very broad term defined as “in, on, or near” as previously pointed out) a bottom portion of the main body integrated with the cooling plate. Accordingly, the location of the sheet member within the claims of “at a bottom portion of the main body integrated with the cooling plate…” is met by Reitzle, and the claims do not further define the location of the second membrane 26 such that Reitzle is not applicable. Accordingly, the above argument is not persuasive. Retizle meets the remaining added limtations of the claim as outlined in the updated rejection record above and not repeated here. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image8.png
471
638
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In response: It is noted that the entirety of 13 is relied upon to teach the claimed sheet member, and as shown in Fig. 9, the bottom ends thereof are inside through-hole 112. The language of “a sheet member with air permeability” is reasonably interpreted as an entity including a sheet, made up of sheets, etc. with holes/openings allowing air permeation. In general, the Examiner suggests that the independent claim further defines the “air permeability” feature of the sheet member as detailed in the instant application (i.e., see P44: “a breather valve that reduces a pressure difference between the inside and outside of case 200 during a normal state” and/or that it is made of Gore-Tex).
The Examiner agrees that Wang does not disclose a cooling plate provided with an entrance portion communicating with a through-hole and a discharging path as defined in the claims, and as such, the anticipation rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0351219) as outlined above and not repeated here.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image9.png
357
654
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
175
650
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In response: The use of “at” within the claims remains interpreted as “in, on, or near” as is the standard definition of the preposition. While there are further structural requirements and limitations added by way of the amendments to the claims, they do not only describe the Fig. 6 embodiment of the present application as evidenced by the maintained Reitzle anticipatory rejection, wherein the Fig. 1 configuration of Reitzle, while meeting the claim, looks vastly different from the Fig. 6 embodiment of the instant application, largely in part due to the use of “at” within the claims. It is highly recommended that if this interpretation does not wish to be applicable, that the claims use further clarifying language by defining the specific entity that includes a feature, and/or language such as “directly on” where supported to describe the location of a given feature versus the broad manner of defining something “at” a given location/entity.
All comments are respectfully submitted.
Conclusion
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 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(made of the same material as 26), 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.
4 The cooling plate (22, 27) entrance portion thermally communicates with the through-hole; the cooling plate (22, 27) entrance portion physically communicates with the through-hole given they may be considered to coincide with one another depending on the defined length of the “entrance portion” relative to its internal end within inner space 11; the same analysis is applied to how the cooling plate entrance portion “communicates with” the discharging path”
5 See Claim Analysis section above, with “inside” being interpreted as ““on the inner side of” or “on the inside of” or “near the inside of”
6 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.
7 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).
8 It is noted that “both end portions of the cooling plate” could be located on a single planar surface (e.g., first end 216 of Smith’s cooling plate – see Fig. 2A), with one exit portion 308 on the far right side end of said surface (close to where 216 mates with 220), and the other exit portion 308 on the far left side end of said surface (close to where 216 mates with 232). These exit portions 308, 308 would be formed at both end portions (left and right side end portions on first end surface 216) in the first direction
Prosecution Insights