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 .
2. The Applicant's amendments filed on December 24, 2025, were received. Claims 1, 7 and 8 have been amended. Claims 3-6, 9-11 and 13-16 have been cancelled. None of the Claims have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 17-19 have been added as new. Therefore, Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12 and 17-19 are pending in this office action.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on October 1, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted April 14, 2026, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Newly added Claims 17-18 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 17: 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
272
364
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 18: There does not appear to be written support in the application as filed for, "…wherein when the battery pack is viewed from a third direction that is orthogonal to the first direction and a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction, the sheet member is not covered by the plurality of battery cells…" 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 (as noted above).
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.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claim 12 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 12 recites the limitation "the plate-shaped portion" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting “the plate-shaped portion” as “the cooling plate” in following the amendments made to Claim 1, from which this Claim depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The rejection of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (US 2022/0013856 A1), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 6-7 of the Remarks dated December 24, 2025.
10. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Wang et al. discloses in Figures 2-3 and 5-6, a battery pack (P) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (5) arranged side by side along a first direction; and a case, called a first box body (1), provided with an inner space for accommodating the plurality of battery cells (5) (paragraphs 0080, 0092), wherein the case (1) includes a structural member, called a base plate (11), for securing strength of the case (1), and the structural member is a cooling plate (11) having a thickness, wherein the cooling plate (11) constitutes a bottom portion of the case (1), and the cooling plate (11) includes a discharging path (112), through which a gas in the inner space is dischargeable, formed within the thickness of the cooling plate (11) so as to extend in an extending direction of the cooling plate (11), the battery pack (P) further comprises a sheet member, called a cross beam (13), facing the inner space and having gas permeability, and the sheet member (13) is disposed at a different position from the plurality of battery cells (5) in the extending direction of the cooling plate (11), and is provided over the discharging path (112) so as to close the discharging path (112) (paragraphs 0108-0111).
With regard to Claim 2, Wang et al. disclose in Figures 5-6, wherein the structural member (13) includes an extrusion material, and the discharging path (112) includes a groove or hole (paragraphs 0108-0109).
The recitations, “formed by extrusion molding” and “formed by the extrusion molding”, are considered product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “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).
With regard to Claim 7, Wang et al. discloses in Figures 5-6, wherein the cooling plate (11) has a substantially quadrangular shape including a long side and a short side, and the discharging path (112) includes a portion extending in a direction along the long side (paragraphs 0108-0111; See Figures).
With regard to Claim 8, Wang et al. discloses in Figures 5-6, wherein a coolant path, called a water cooling passage (111), is formed inside the cooling plate (11), and the discharging path (112) includes a portion extending in a direction along the coolant path (111) (paragraphs 0108-0111; See Figures).
With regard to Claim 12, Wang et al. disclose in Figures 7-10, wherein a trap portion, including a protective plate (16) and cavity (18), that communicates with the discharging path (112) and that has a closed tip, formed by top plate (131), is formed within the thickness of the cooling plate (11) so as to extend in the extending direction of the cooling plate (11) (paragraphs 0089-0107).
With regard to Claim 17, Wang et al. disclose in Figures 3 and 11, wherein the sheet member (13) is arranged side by side with a stack of the plurality of battery cells (5) in a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (paragraphs 0077-0084).
With regard to Claim 18, Wang et al. disclose in Figures 3 and 11, wherein when the battery pack (P) is viewed from a third direction that is orthogonal to the first direction and a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction, the sheet member (13) is not covered by the plurality of battery cells (5) (paragraphs 0077-0084).
With regard to Claim 19, Wang et al. disclose in Figures 2-3 and 8-9, wherein each of the plurality of battery cells (5) inherently has a housing that accommodates an electrode assembly, the housing includes a bottom surface and an upper surface, the bottom surface being located on a side of the bottom portion (11) of the case (1), and the upper surface being located on a side of the case opposite from the bottom portion (11) of the case (1), a gas-discharge valve, called an explosion-proof valve (51), is provided in the upper surface of the housing, the gas-discharge valve (51) is opened to discharge the gas in the housing when pressure in the housing is increased (paragraphs 0091-0096).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (US 2022/0013856 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0123423 A1).
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights