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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species a (claims 2, 9, and 18) in the reply filed on July 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement never set forth, in any detail, how or why the claims should be restricted. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons set forth in the Restriction Requirement. The identified species are directed toward distinct additional components. Distinct components, by definition, require a different field of search.
Applicant has failed to admit on the record that the identified species are, in fact, obvious variants. In the event that a generic claim is found to be allowable, the nonelected species, in theory, would be considered for rejoinder. If, however, each species was found to be distinctly independent, this only could be determined though searching each distinctly claimed element, which results in a different field of search, thus reinforcing the original restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 27, 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 15-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15-17 of copending Application No. 18/238,175 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention is substantially anticipated (or otherwise encompassed) by the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15-17 of copending Application No. 18/386,331 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention is substantially anticipated (or otherwise encompassed) by the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 17 limits the claimed conductive lower layer and conductive upper layer (of parent claim 16) to PTC heating film (PTCHF). The Specification, in referring to the conductive upper and lower layers (par. 52), only appears to refer to such layers as a distinct embodiment to lower and upper layers of PTCHF (par. 51), without ever specifically indicating that the conductive lower and upper layers are/include PTCHF.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 8, and 15 be found allowable, claims 15, 17, and 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. (Claim 15 is considered to be a substantial duplicate of claim 1, claim 17 is considered to be a substantial duplicate of claim 8, and claim 20 is considered to be a substantial duplicate of claims 1 and 15.) When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Any nominal distinctions between the claims are not considered to amount to structural distinctions in the claimed apparatus, as the identified duplicate claims are considered to be substantially identical in scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 216015503 U; noting references made herein are with respect to U.S. equivalent copy US 2023/0387507).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15-17, and 20, Chen teaches a battery arrangement comprising a plurality of battery cells 20 proximately positioned in a group (Fig. 2). Chen teaches the use of PTCHF as heating component 400, which can be adhered to both sides of the battery cell 20 (par. 68). In Figure 4, it can be seen that component 400 is adhered to two opposite sides, which is considered to satisfy the claimed relative “upper” and “lower” ends/layers.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 18, Chen teaches at least controller 200 taught to control the battery 100 (par. 57 and Figs. 1 and 2) and heating component 400, as described above. The controller 200 and heating component 400 are considered to constitute a battery thermal management system configured to raise the temperature of the plurality of battery cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
