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 Group I in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that claims 16-18 (amended in the 6/1/2026 response) properly depend from claims 1 and 5, respectively, and thus also are part of Group I. This is found persuasive because the preambles of claims 16-18 have been amended to correct typographical errors with respect to the preambles of the respective claims.
No other arguments regarding the restriction requirement of Groups I and II have been made, and therefore the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Flahaut et al. (US 2016/0285145).
Regarding claim 1, Flahaut et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a heat transfer system (ref 1) comprising: an electrochemical cell unit (ref 20) comprising an electrochemical cell (refs 21); a fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6) comprising a heat exchange section (at refs 6, Fig 1) in thermal contact with (Fig 1) the electrochemical cell unit (ref 20); a cooling medium ([0024]) disposed in the fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6), wherein, within the heat exchange section (at refs 6, Fig 1) of the fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6), the cooling medium ([0024]) comprises a mixture ([0024]) including a liquid component ([0024]) and a gas component ([0024]); and a pump (upstream of ref 3, Fig 1) configured to circulate ([0024]) the cooling medium ([0024]) through the fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6).
Regarding claim 2, Flahaut et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses within the heat exchange section (at refs 6) of the fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6), the gas component forms at least 50% by volume of the cooling medium (“homogenous mixture”, [0009], [0012], [0013], [0027], [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Flahaut et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the heat exchange section (at refs 6, Fig 1) of the fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6) includes fluid paths (defined by refs 6) that extend through (Fig 1, [0023]-[0024]) the electrochemical cell unit (ref 20) such that the cooling medium ([0224]) is in direct contact with (Fig 1, [0023]-[0024]) the electrochemical cell (refs 21).
Regarding claim 7, Flahaut et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the cooling medium ([0024]) includes the liquid component ([0024]) and the gas component ([0024]) throughout (Fig 1, [0024]) the fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6).
Regarding claim 8, Flahaut et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the pump (upstream of ref 3, [0024]) is configured to circulate ([0024]) the liquid component ([0024]) and gas component ([0024]) of the cooling medium ([0024]) as a mixture ([0024]) about the fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6).
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 non-obviousness.
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 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flahaut et al. (US 2016/0285145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugita et al. (US 2012/0171529).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Flahaut et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the liquid component of the cooling medium includes at least one of a surfactant and a foam suppressant, and within the heat exchange section of the fluid circulation system, at least a portion of the liquid component and gas component of the cooling medium form a foam.
Sugita et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery pack (ref 1) including a plurality of battery cells ([0036]). The battery pack (ref 1) has a cooling system ([0041]-[0042]) including a cooling member ([0041]-[0042]) in thermal contact with the battery cells ([0036]) and including a surfactant and foaming agent ([0060]-[0075]). This enhances the functioning of the cooling of the battery pack ([0060]-[0075]).
Sugita et al. and Flahaut et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery cooling systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the surfactant and foaming agent of Sugita et al. into the cooling system of Flahaut et al. to enhance the overall cooling functioning of the battery, thereby enhancing overall battery performance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flahaut et al. (US 2016/0285145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurazono (JP 2019/190777, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 9, Flahaut et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the fluid circulation system (refs 4, 5, 6) comprises: a primary circuit (depicted in Fig 1, totality of refs 4, 5, 6 in connection with each other) including the heat exchange section (at refs 6, Fig 1), wherein the liquid component of the cooling medium ([0024]) is confined to (Fig 1, [0024]) the primary circuit (depicted in Fig 1, totality of refs 4, 5, 6 in connection with each other), but does not explicitly disclose a gas inlet in the primary circuit that is upstream of the heat exchange section; and a gas outlet in the primary circuit that is downstream of the heat exchange section, wherein the gas inlet is one of a plurality of gas inlets disposed upstream of the heat exchange section, and comprising a mixer promoting bubble formation within the cooling medium
Kurazono discloses in Figs 1-8, a heat transport system (ref 100) including a primary cooling circuit (totality of structure depicted in Fig 1) including heat exchangers (refs 10, 20) with a gas inlet (at ref 70 bubble generator) having a plurality of inlets (refs 76, [0024]), upstream of the heat exchanger (ref 10, Fig 1). This configuration enhances the heat transport / cooling of the system in totality ([0004]-[0008]).
Kurazono and Flahaut et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, heat transfer / cooling systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the gas bubbler structure including multiple gas inlets disclosed by Kurazono into the system of Flahaut upstream of the heat exchange section to enhance the heat transport / cooling of the system in totality.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flahaut et al. (US 2016/0285145) in view of Kurazono (JP 2019/190777, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Miura et al. (JP 2019/190798, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified Flahaut et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose the gas inlet is disposed under the electrochemical cell and the gas outlet is disposed above the electrochemical cell such that buoyancy of the gas component causes the gas component to rise through the electrochemical cell unit, wherein the fluid circulation system further comprises a secondary circuit extending from the gas outlet to the gas inlet so as to recirculate the gas component about the fluid circulation system.
Miura et al. discloses in Figs 1-58, a cooling device (ref 10) for a secondary battery module (Figs 57-58, ref 12). The cooling device (ref 10) includes piping (refs 18) circulating a gas-liquid coolant (Abstract) therein. The cooling device (ref 10) includes a vaporizer (ref 14) that utilizes buoyancy for bubbles to flow upward (Fig 1, bubbles depicted in ref 14, flowing upward towards ref 14e) to collect gas and utilizes a condenser / second circuit to condense liquid refrigerant and recirculate it to the cooling device (ref 10). This configuration allows enhanced performance of the cooling device and efficiency of operation of the secondary cell via recirculating coolant ([0006], [0057]-[0062]).
Miura et al. and Flahaut et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery cooling systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the vaporizer and condenser structure / secondary circuit of Miura et al. into the system of modified Flahaut et al. to enhance performance of the cooling device and efficiency of operation of the battery via recirculation of coolant.
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 1-9, 16-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 16-18 of copending Application No. 18/284,858 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘858 application anticipate the instant claims. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Grunwald et al. (US 2017/0018825) discloses in Figs 1-8, a heat exchange system (ref 1) for a battery system ([0033]). The heat exchange system (ref 1) includes a primary heat exchange circuit (ref 3) and a secondary heat exchange circuit (ref 4), each cooling components of the battery system.
Siering et al. (US 2018/0034119) discloses in Figs 1-6, a cooling apparatus (ref 10) for cooling batteries ([0030]) in electric or hybrid vehicles ([0030]). The cooling apparatus (ref 10) includes a plurality of cooling modules (refs 11). Coolant includes a gas/liquid combination ([0035]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights