DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 and Sub-Species I-A-1 and I-B-1 (i.e., clams 1-3, 7 and 11) in the reply filed on 12/03/25 and 11/03/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “There is no serious search burden”; that “There is no indication…that Species 1, 2 and 3 would require a different field of search”; and that [the election of species] “does not set forth required criteria”; that “examiners must provide reasons and/or examples to support conclusion” and/or that “an appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status, or a different field of search”). This is not found persuasive because as set forth in the respective election of species dated 09/04/25 and 11/14/25, Species 1 encompasses structural/mechanical features different from that of Species 2-3 (as delineated in the office action dated 09/04/25), similarly, Sub-Species I-A-1 and I-B-1 also encompass structural/mechanical features different from that of Sub-Species I-A-2 and I-B-2, respectively (as delineated in the office action dated 11/14/25, respectively). In this regard, applicant has not yet provided any specific technical reason(s) or objective explanation to clearly support that Species 1-3 and Sub-Species I-A-1/2 and I-B-1/2, respectively, are not mutually exclusive in terms of either their structures, functional aspects, cooperative relationship, material-compositions, chemical properties and/or mechanical features and the likes within the context of the claimed invention. Further, applicant has not yet admitted on the written record that, or submitted or identified evidence to show, Species 1-3 and Sub-Species I-A-1/2 and I-B-1/2, respectively, are obvious variants. Therefore, the embodiments of Species 1 and Sub-Species I-A-1 and I-B-1 represent distinct and mutually exclusive species which do not overlap in scope. Moreover, applicant's attention is particularly directed to MPEP 809.02(a) which indicates how to identify species by illustrative figures, examples, mechanical means, particular materials, or other distinguishing characteristics. Accordingly, serious burden would be raised if the search of such different species was made as required for the separate, distinct and mutually exclusive species or embodiments. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/24 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/02/23.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: all upper case letters (i.e., “Thermal Interface Material” and “Wherein”) within the body of the claim must be changed to lower case letters. Appropriate correction is required. Note: applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication CN 109980144 (hereinafter referred to as CN’144).
As to claims 1, 3:
CN’144 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery outer packaging structure with cooling system (applicant’s dual-function structure) comprising, inter alia, first/second cooling plates/sections for cooling including coolant channels, first/second plate/sections joined/attached to respective opposite ends the first/second cooling plates/sections (i.e., applicant’s proximal/distal ends) and disposed/located at 90 degrees relative to first/second cooling plates/sections, respectively; and battery cell units including opposite ends placed within the chambers formed by the first/second cooling plates/sections and the first/second plate/sections (Abstract; see Figures 1-3). Figures 1-3, infra, of CN’144 illustrate the battery outer packaging structure including
PNG
media_image1.png
432
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
412
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
390
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2:
CN’144 discloses the placing separators between respective first/second cooling plates/sections and front/back sides of the battery cell units (see Abstract). Examiner’s note: in this case, the foregoing separators are taken to represent applicant’s structurally and materially undefined thermal interface material which can any material placed between respective first/second cooling plates/sections and front/back sides of the battery cell units (Abstract; see Figures 1-3).
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication CN 109980144 (hereinafter referred to as CN’144) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pucher 2017/0110773.
CN’144 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra.
As to claim 7:
In CN’144, respective first/second cooling plates/sections include coolant channels placed parallel to one another and having a rectangular-like shape (Abstract; see Figures 1-3)
However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the first/second cooling plates being made of aluminum.
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Pucher discloses that it is known in the art to use cooling plates made of aluminum-based alloy materials for a battery module/assembly (Abstract; 0039).
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specifically disclose aluminum cooling plates of Pucher as part of the battery cooling system of CN’144 as Pucher teaches that the specifically disclosed aluminum cooling plates provides outstanding thermal conductivity to ensure even temperature distribution within the cooling plate, reduces the manufacturing costs and total weight significantly and improves the mechanical rigidity while simplifying the manufacturing process. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the dual-function structure comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claim 11.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752