COOLING STRUCTURE OF BATTERY PACK

§102 §103

COOLING STRUCTURE OF BATTERY PACK 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 . Response to Amendment In response to communication filed on 7/30/2026: Claim 1 has been amended; claims 7-20 have been added. No new matter has been entered. Previous rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been upheld. Previous drawing objections have been modified. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant discloses: “First, Takeuchi addresses a different technical problem. Takeuchi's stated object is to shorten and simplify the duct that carries cooling air to both a battery case (13) and a separately housed electronic component (14) - an inverter-type "electrical component" - by splitting a single intake duct into parallel branches at a bifurcation (branch portion 51), rather than routing air through the battery case first and on to the electrical component in series. Nowhere does Takeuchi discuss a vehicle collision, an intruding barrier, or any structure for retaining the duct against the battery case upon impact. This is a materially different problem from the one addressed in the present application, i.e., preventing exposure of a high-voltage unit at an intake port when a collision-damaged part of the vehicle invades the duct's mounting location.” The Examiner respectfully traverses. The differences in technical problems are not commensurate within the scope of the claim. Further, this is an anticipation rejection which discloses every element of the claim. MPEP 2131.05: "Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102." Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). See also State Contracting & Eng’ g Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (The question of whether a reference is analogous art is not relevant to whether that reference anticipates. A reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims. The Applicant discloses: “Second, and more directly, Takeuchi's duct structure does not match the newly recited geometry. In Takeuchi, intake duct 30 comprises an upstream intake duct 40 (itself comprising a first upstream duct 42 running from a cabin-mounted air intake 41 to a cooling fan 20, and a second upstream duct 43 running from the fan to cooling-air inlets 54/56) and a downstream intake duct 50 (internal to the battery pack housing 11, containing the bifurcation 51 and separate passages 52, 55 leading respectively to the electrical component 14 and to the battery case 13's internal cooling passage 16). The only "bend" structure disclosed - the inclined portion 46, horizontal portion 47, and convex/concave curved surfaces 44, 45 at the junction 48 of second upstream duct 43 - turns air from a fan mounted apart from the battery case downward into inlets 54/56 that open above the pack. Takeuchi does not disclose a duct that first runs along a top plate of the battery case from an intake port to an end of that top plate, and only then bends downward at that end to continue along a side plate toward a bottom plate of the case. Rather, the bend in Takeuchi occurs between a remotely mounted fan and the intake openings, with no portion of the duct traveling down the outside of the case.” The Examiner respectfully traverses. Takeuchi does disclose a duct that first runs along a top plate of the battery case (Figs. 5 and 7 show intake duct, element 40/43, is connected to the cooling passage, element 52, via the cooling air inlet, element 54, which flows above the battery pack, element 10, and extends up to the heat shield plate, element 17). Further, Takeuchi discloses the intake duct is provided with a bent part (Figs. 5 and 7 shows element 55 bending downward. See annotation below.). PNG media_image1.png 1406 2500 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 7 of Takeuchi Further, the claims do not disclose a portion of the duct traveling down the outside of the case. Where is this shown? The Applicant discloses: “As shown in Hwang's Figs. 3-5, however, cooling unit 60 (comprising heat exchanger 62 and ventilation fan 64) is a separate assembly mounted at the rear of battery cover 43, and duct 70 simply routes air from that separately housed unit 60 up into port 43a at the top of the cover. Hwang does not disclose that duct 70, after any bend, proceeds to extend along a side plate of a battery case toward a bottom plate of the case, as newly recited in claim 1. Instead, cooling unit 60 and the associated portion of duct 70 sit outboard of the battery cover, off of the case's side wall, and are secured to the battery carrier 42 or vehicle floor 21 independently of the case's side and bottom plates (Hwang 0067). Hwang is also silent as to any duct geometry intended to resist separation from the top plate upon vehicle-collision deformation, in contrast to the L- shaped, side-plate-hugging duct path described in the present specification and its associated crash-retention behavior (see new claim 9).” The Examiner respectfully traverses. Hwang does disclose the duct, after its first right angle bend, proceeds down the side of the battery modules toward the bottom plate of the case via element 82a. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “air conditioning equipment” (claim 14), “screws” (claim 15), and “the bent part of the intake duct is disposed toward a side of the vehicle” (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al. (JP 6476906 B2). Regarding claims 1 and 20, Takeuchi et al. teach a cooling structure of a battery pack (Abstract discloses a cooling structure for a battery pack.) for an electric vehicle (See background art), the cooling structure comprising: a battery case housing a battery module and electronic equipment coupled to the battery module (Paragraphs 0021, 0023; Figs. 5 and 7 disclose a battery pack, element 10, has a housing, element 11, comprising a battery case, element 13, comprising battery modules, element 12, and electrical components, element 14.); an intake duct communicating with the battery case (Paragraphs 0005, 0010; Figs. 5 and 7 disclose an intake duct, element 40, which comprises a second upstream intake duct, element 43.), the intake duct being configured to send cooling air for cooling the battery module (Paragraphs 0005, 0010, 0029; disclose the intake duct, element 40, is connected to a cooling fan, element 20, which sends cooling air to the battery pack.); and an intake port disposed in a top plate of the battery case, the intake port being configured to send the cooling air into the battery case (Paragraphs 0034-0036; Figs. 5 and 7 disclose a first cooling air inlet, element 54, which sends cooling air in the battery case. It is connected to a heat shield plate, element 17.), wherein the intake duct is coupled to the top plate so as to communicate with the battery case via the intake port and extends from the intake port to an end of the top plate (Paragraph 0032; Figs. 5 and 7 disclose the first cooling air inlet, element 54, opens above the battery pack, element 10. Figs. 5 and 7 clearly show the intake duct, elements 40/43 being connected to the inlet, element 54. Finally, the cooling air inlet, element 54, is connected to the cooling passage, element 52 which extends to an end up the heat shield plate, element 17.), the intake duct is provided with a bent part that is downwardly bent in a vicinity of the end of the top plate (Figs. 5 and 7 show the intake duct, element 50, being downwardly bent.), and the intake duct extends from the bent part toward a bottom plate of the battery case along a side plate of the battery case (See annotated figure below.). PNG media_image1.png 1406 2500 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 7 of Takeuchi Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the battery case is housed in a housing space under a rear floor of a vehicle, and the bent part of the intake duct is disposed toward a rear side of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0017-0019; Fig. 2, disclose a rear floor panel, element 4, comprising the battery pack , element 10, and the intake duct, element 40, the bent part of the duct is toward the rear side.). Claims 1-2, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2013/0298586 A1). Regarding claims 1 and 20, Hwang et al. teach a cooling structure of a battery pack (Abstract discloses a cooling air duct and cooling unit for a battery.) for an electric vehicle (Paragraph 0040), the cooling structure comprising: a battery case housing a battery module and electronic equipment coupled to the battery module (Paragraphs 0055-0061; Figs. 1, 3, and 4 disclose a battery, element 40, comprising a battery carrier, element 42, and a battery cover, element 43, which house cell modules, element 41. Further, paragraph 0090 discloses the inclusion of a temperature sensor to sense the temperature of the battery, element 40, which is not shown in the drawings.); an intake duct communicating with the battery case (Paragraph 0061; Figs. 1 and 4, disclose an external duct, element 70, outside the battery, element 40, connected to a cool air duct, element, 80, inside the battery.), the intake duct being configured to send cooling air for cooling the battery module (Paragraph 0061 discloses cool air being sent to the battery, element 40, from a battery cooling unit, element 60.); and an intake port disposed in a top plate of the battery case, the intake port being configured to send the cooling air into the battery case (Paragraphs 0069, 0073, and 0076; Figs. 1 and 4 disclose a duct connection port, element 43a, located on top the of battery cover, element 43. which sends cooling air in the battery case.), wherein the intake duct is coupled to the top plate so as to communicate with the battery case via the intake port and extends from the intake port to an end of the top plate (Figs. 1 and 4, disclose the entire duct comprising the external duct, element 70, connected to the cool air duct, element 80, via the duct connection port, element 43a. Further, the cool air duct, element 80, extends to the end up the cover at element 84a, the discharge port.) the intake duct is provided with a bent part that is downwardly bent in a vicinity of the end of the top plate (Figs. 1 and 4, element 70, shows a bent part aimed toward the battery pack.), and the intake duct extends from the bent part toward a bottom plate of the battery case along a side plate of the battery case (Fig. 5 shows the duct, element 70, after its first right angle bend, proceeds down the side of the battery modules toward the bottom plate of the case via element 82a.). Regarding claim 2, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the battery case is housed in a housing space under a rear floor of a vehicle, and the bent part of the intake duct is disposed toward a rear side of the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 13 show the battery, element 40, being attached to the floor, element 21, near the rear side of vehicle, element 30. Fig. 13 shows the duct, element 510, extending toward the rear side of the vehicle.). Regarding claims 7 and 8, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery according to claim 1, wherein the bent part is bent approximately at a right angle toward the bottom plate of the case; wherein the intake duct has an approximately L-shape along an outer circumferential surface of the battery case (See annotated Fig. 5 below.). PNG image3.png 100 100 image3.png Greyscale Fig. 5 of Hwang Regarding claim 11, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1, further comprising a blower configured to pressure-feed air to the intake duct, and a blower box that fixes the blower to the intake duct, the blower box being disposed upstream of the intake duct (Fig. 4; paragraph 0093 discloses a ventilation fan, element 64, which forcibly introduces air into the duct, element 70.). Regarding claim 14, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the cooling air sent to the battery module comprises air cooled by air conditioning equipment in a vehicle cabin and outside air (Paragraph 0062). Regarding claim 16, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the battery case is housed in a housing space under a front floor of a vehicle on which a driver's seat and a passenger seat are placed, and the bent part of the intake duct is disposed toward a side of the vehicle (Fig. 13 discloses the bent part of the duct is toward a front side of the vehicle.). Regarding claim 19, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the intake duct extends straightly from the intake port to the end of the top plate along the top plate, upstream of the bent part (See annotated Fig. 5 below.). PNG image5.png 100 100 image5.png Greyscale Fig. 5 of Hwang Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2013/0298586 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (WO 2015-045526 A1). Regarding claim 9, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the intake duct is configured such that, upon deformation of the intake duct caused by impact of a barrier against the intake duct, a portion of the intake duct is hung on an end of the battery case so that the intake duct remains coupled to the top plate and the intake port remains covered by the intake duct. Yamamoto et al. show upon impact the intake duct deforms (Fig. 7, element 33). Further, the intake duct, upon impact, prevents the fan (Fig. 7, element 31) from coming into contact with the battery pack (Fig. 7, element 20). Further, the intake port (Fig. 5, element 36) communicates with the intake duct (Fig. 7, element 33) and is covered by the intake duct upon impact (Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang with Yamamoto in order to avoid contact between the battery pack and the cooling fan. Regarding claim 10, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the intake duct comprises a resin material that is softer than a material of a barrier configured to deform the intake duct upon impact. Yamamoto et al. teach wherein the intake duct comprises a resin material that is softer than a material of a barrier configured to deform the intake duct upon impact (Fig. 7 shows the intake duct, element 33, deforming upon impact. Further, page 9, second paragraph discloses it is made of a resin material.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang with Yamamoto in order to avoid contact between the battery pack and the cooling fan. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2013/0298586 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0399608 A1). Regarding claim 12, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein a dust filter is at an air inlet of the blower box. Yu et al. teach a fan that includes a dust filter (Paragraph 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang with Yu in order to improve longevity of the energy storage devices. Regarding claim 13, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the blower is an axial blower. Yu et al. teach cooling fans for a battery can comprise axial fans (Paragraph 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang with Yu in order to improve longevity of energy storage devices. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2013/0298586 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hara et al. (JP 2011/020552 A). Regarding claim 15, Hwang et al. teach the cooling structure of the battery pack according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the intake duct is fixed to the top plate by screws. Hara et al. teach a duct (Fig. 6, element 55) attached to a bracket (Fig. 6, element 66) with mounting legs (Fig. 6, element 62) with screwholes (Fig. 6, element 64) and bolts (Fig. 6, element 63) of a battery casing (Fig. 6, element 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang with Hara in order to suppress pressure loss of the cooling duct. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 17 and 18 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 17 and 18 are not disclosed in the prior art in such a way to present a prima facie case of obviousness for current prior art of record. 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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30. 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 Tavares-Crockett 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. Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 1729 /DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 October 1st, 2026