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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 07/13/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 is/are amended; claim(s) 8 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 3, 6, and 9 remain(s) withdrawn; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/14/26 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 4 and 5 are 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 4 recites “the partition is a plate … having a side surface at least partially corresponding to a side surface of the unidirectional row of the at least one battery cells” (lines 2–4). It is unclear if “the at least one battery cells” is a typographical error meant to recite and further limit claim 1’s “at least one battery cell” (e.g., line 3) or if such is meant to reference parent claim 2’s “unidirectional row of a plurality of battery cells”.
Instant fig. 5 depicts a partition plate 200 with a side surface corresponding to a side surface of a unidirectional row of a plurality of cells. Thus, for this Office Action claim 4 will be interpreted to require “the partition is a plate … having a side surface at least partially corresponding to a side surface of the unidirectional row of a plurality of battery cells”, which appears consistent with fig. 5.
Dependent claim 5 fails to correct this deficiency and is rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raudensky et al. (CZ 2018191 A3).
Regarding claim 1, Raudensky discloses a cylindrical type battery liquid immersion cooling system (battery temp. control system with direct-liquid cooling, Abstract, ¶ 0006, and figs.), the system comprising (per annot. fig. 7 below) a cooling unit (hollow fibers 5 (denoted in traces below) including heat-transfer liquid, ¶ 0028) configured to cool at least one battery cell by being in contact with a surface of the at least one battery cell (¶ 0093, figs. 3 and 5); and a fixing unit (potting matrix 6) configured to support the cooling unit (by bearing the fibers) including a mounting part (denoted) and a partition (denoted), the mounting part being in contact with the cooling unit (via fibers’ superimposition) and configured to attach the cooling unit to the at least one battery cell (Id.), and the partition configured to partition a space including the at least one battery cell (per below), wherein the cooling unit includes a porous absorbent member (the hollow/porous fibers) including a cooling fluid (heat transfer fluid/refrigerant, e.g., ¶ 0050 and Table 1, ¶ 0113).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation requiring the fluid to be “flowing through an inside and an outside thereof and cooling the at least one battery cell” is a functional limitation. Because claim 1 is to a system, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned limitation is that the system, including the porous absorbent, must be capable of allowing the fluid to flow through an inside and outside of the porous absorbent member and cool the at least one cell (see MPEP 2114 (I) and (II)). Nonetheless, Raudensky discloses that the cooling fluid flows through the hollow fibers/porous absorbent and cools the at least one battery cell (e.g., ¶ 0074, 0101, 0103), which would necessitate flowing through “an inside and an outside thereof” via the coolant’s traveling through the hollows.
Regarding claim 2, Raudensky discloses the cylindrical type battery liquid immersion cooling system of claim 1, wherein the partition provides a space including a unidirectional row of a plurality of battery cells (annot. fig. 7), and the plurality of battery cells included in the space partitioned by the partition is cooled by the cooling unit (e.g., ¶ 0101, 0103).
Regarding claim 7, Raudensky discloses the cylindrical type battery liquid immersion cooling system of claim 2, wherein the cooling unit has a shape of an open strip (via alternating winding between cells, figs. 10 and 11 and ¶ 0050/0052) having the same thickness has a height of the plurality of battery cells (because spec.’s ¶ 0044 notes that the “thickness” direction of the cooling unit may be a height direction of the cell, as Raudensky’s “cooling unit” wraps around a given cell corresponding to the cell’s height (e.g., fig. 6), the cooling unit’s “thickness” would be the same as the cell’s height), is attached to one side of a side surface of a first battery cell which is one of the plurality of battery cells, and is attached to an opposite side of a side surface of a second battery cell which is included in the same row as that of the first battery cell and adjacent to the first battery cell (via alternating windings, figs. 10 and 11; compare to substantially similar instant fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudensky et al. (CZ 2018191 A3), as applied to claim 2, in view of Kieran et al. (WO 2022232928 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Raudensky discloses the cylindrical type battery liquid immersion cooling system of claim 2.
Raudensky further discloses that the partition is a plate having a side surface at least partially corresponding to that of the unidirectional row of a plurality of battery cells, (the edges/sides running across the row in annot. fig. 7) and including a curved surface (curved recesses in annot. fig. 7).
Although Raudensky does not appear particularly concerned with the remainder of the mounting structure, Raudensky appears to fail to disclose that the plate has an open top and bottom, wherein the mounting part is a step protruding from the partition to the at least one battery cell.
Kieran teaches an analogous battery pack (Title) with a cell holder spacing cells 212 and allowing a coolant to attach to the cells (e.g., fig. 34). Kieran teaches that the holder includes an opening or aperture extending through the plate’s thickness direction—and, thus, top and bottom—with valleys alternating with protrusions extending from the holder and abutting each cell (fig. 37), which allows the coolant to directly contact the cell along an axial portion of the cell’s outer surface 223 for more uniform heat transfer and temperature control (¶ 0187, 0189).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt Kieran’s holder plate, with open top and bottom as well as protrusions and, thus, “stepped portion protruding from the partition to the at least one battery cell” for the “mounting part” as Raudensky’s partition and mounting with the reasonable expectation of achieving more uniform heat transfer and temperature control, as taught by Kieran.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudensky et al. (CZ 2018191 A3), as applied to claim 1, in view of An et al. (CN 114221060 A, see also machine translation).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Raudensky discloses the cylindrical type battery liquid immersion cooling system of claim 1, further comprising: a case embedding the at least one battery cell, the cooling unit, and the fixing unit inside (case 1, fig. 2).
Although Raudensky, as discussed above, clearly desires adequate heat transfer from the cells and cooling system, in appearing unconcerned with the specifics of the battery case, fails to explicitly articulate a cooling plate attached to an outer surface of the case, and configured to exchange heat with the cooling fluid, wherein the cooling plate is attached to each of two side surfaces of the case, that is the two side surfaces being perpendicular to one direction of the at least one battery cell.
An teaches an analogous battery module including cooling plate 9 attached to each side surface of the case, where the side surfaces extend perpendicular to an axial direction of the batteries (e.g., fig. 3/4, ¶ 0020). An teaches that the cooling plate dissipates heat to maintain cell operating temperature, as well as strengthens the module (¶ 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose cooling plates on each side surface of Raudensky’s case extending perpendicular to the cells’ axial direction (i.e., the two side surfaces perpendicular to one direction of the at least one cell)—where the cooling plates would necessarily be configured to exchange heat with the cooling fluid for heat dissipation—with the reasonable expectation of further cooling the cells/maintaining cell operating temperature and strengthening the module, as taught by An.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Raudensky’s hollow fibers cannot correspond to the porous absorbent because the fibers are tubes through which heat-transfer liquid flows in a closed circuit inside the hollow fibers, not through a porous material’ i.e., “hollow” is different than “porous.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification is devoid a special definition for “porous,” so the broadest reasonable interpretation of “porous absorbent” appears to include any material or member capable of absorbing the coolant through any holes and allowing the coolant to flow through the inside and outside. Such is supported by Merriam-Webster’s definition of pore: “a small interstice admitting absorption or passage of liquid.” As Raudensky’s fibers include hollows through which the coolant flows (e.g., ¶ 0050, 0087, 0089)—and, thus, through the inside and outside—such reasonably constitutes a “porous absorbent” in light of the specification.
Such is further corroborated by Raudensky’s ¶ 0089, which notes that the hollow fibers are wound so that their connection with the bores ensures the flow of coolant in countercurrent. See also ¶ 0097, stating that the sections of fiber between the bores are the same length for all fibers so that the same amount of coolant passes through them. Moreover, Raudensky appears to distinguish the fiber system from the prior art’s tubes (¶ 0019, 0020)—to which Applicant appears to be equating Raudensky’s fibers—and Raudensky employs polymer fibers (¶ 0050), which appear similar to the specification’s exemplary absorbent of glass fiber, polypropylene, or amorphous silica fiber (spec., ¶ 0028, emphasis added; see also MPEP 2112.01 (I)). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that Raudensky’s hollow fibers are discrete flow channels distinct from the instant application’s absorbent formed as a continuous, permeable matrix enabling phase-change cooling. Such argument is unpersuasive at least for the above reasons and because claim 1 merely requires a “porous absorbent” rather than a phase-change material.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/21/2026
Prosecution Insights