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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-13 are as previously presented. Claims 14-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are currently examined.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection as set forth within the previous office action has been modified as necessitated by the applicants amendments.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0301674), and further in view of Tang (US 2021/0399362).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a battery module ([0014], discussed throughout), comprising; a plurality of battery cells (figure 15, #20, [0069], [0101], [0107] and discussed throughout); at least one cooling channel provided on at least one side of the plurality of battery cells (figures 6-12 and 15, letter S, [0056] and discussed throughout) and through which a coolant for cooling the plurality of battery cells flows ([0054], [0057] and discussed throughout); and at least one cooling fin (figures 3 and 6-12 #100, main frame, [0054], discussed throughout) disposed in contact with the at least one cooling channel (figures 6-12, discussed throughout) and having at least one support rib for supporting the at least one cooling channel (figures 6012 #130a can also include portions #131 and #132, discussed throughout).
Lee is silent to wherein liquid in the at least one cooling channel. Lee discloses a cooling fluid such as air ([0054]). Tang discloses a battery module with a cooling channel (abstract) wherein, the cooling fluid can be air or a cooling liquid ([0076], [0023], [0103] and discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the cooling liquid from Tang within Lee as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 2, Lee discloses wherein, the at least one cooling channel is a plurality of cooling channels (figures 14 and 15), and wherein the plurality of cooling channels are provided on an upper side and a lower side of the plurality of battery cells (figures 14 and 15).
As to claim 3, Lee discloses wherein, the at least one cooling fin is disposed in contact with the plurality of cooling channels provided on the upper and lower sides of the plurality of battery cells (figures 14 and 15, thermal contact or the adhesive can be considered part of the cooling fin unit).
As to claim 4, Lee discloses wherein, the at least one cooling fin is a plurality of cooling fins, and wherein the plurality of cooling fins are disposed between the plurality of battery cells (figures 14 and 15 #100, discussed throughout).
As to claim 5, Lee discloses wherein, the at least one cooling fin communicates with the plurality of cooling channels (figures 14 and 15, discussed throughout).
As to claim 6, Lee discloses wherein, the at least one cooling fin includes a fin channel connected to the plurality of cooling channels and into which the coolant flows (figure 15).
As to claim 7, Lee discloses wherein, the at least one support rib includes: a channel support extending from an end of the at least one cooling fin and supporting the at least one cooling channel (figures 6-12 #130a, discussed throughout); and a cell support extending from the channel support and supporting the plurality of battery cells (figures 6-12 #131 and #132, discussed throughout).
As to claim 8, Lee discloses wherein, the cell support is bent at a predetermined angle from the channel support (figures 6-12 #131, #132 and #130a, discussed throughout).
As to claim 9, Lee discloses wherein, the at least one support rib is integrally formed with the at least one cooling fin (figures 6-12, discussed throughout).
As to claim 10, Lee discloses wherein, the at least one support rib is a plurality of support ribs (figure 15), and wherein the plurality of support ribs are disposed to face each other on at least one end of the at least one cooling fin (figure 15).
As to claim 11, Lee discloses a battery pack ([0110], discussed throughout), comprising: at least one battery module according to claim 1 ([0110], and seen above); and a pack case accommodating the at least one battery module ([0110], discussed throughout).
As to claim 12, Lee discloses an energy storage system, comprising at least one battery pack according to claim 11 ([0110], [0111], discussed throughout).
As to claim 13, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising at least one battery pack according to claim 11 ([0110], [0111], discussed throughout).
Claims 1 and 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley (US 2018/0123191), and further in view of Smith (US 2020/0127351).
As to claim 1, Dudley discloses a battery module ([0002], [0006]-[0013], figure 6, discussed throughout), comprising; a plurality of battery cells (figure 6 #40, 42… [0025], discussed throughout); at least one cooling channel provided on at least one side of the plurality of battery cells (figures 2, 4 and 6 #92 and #102, discussed throughout) and through which a coolant for cooling the plurality of battery cells flows ([0060], discussed throughout); and at least one cooling fin (figure 6 #100 and #90, the metallic plate have a plurality of cooling fins; discussed throughout) disposed in contact with the at least one cooling channel (figure 6, discussed throughout) and having at least one support rib for supporting the at least one cooling channel (figure 6 #2510, #2512… discussed throughout), refrigerant in at least one cooling change (figure 2, [0060] and discussed throughout).
Dudley is silent to wherein the refrigerant is a liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to have the refrigerant be a liquid given a finite number of options i.e. gas or liquid (see MPEP 2143 I). Alternatively, Smith discloses an energy storage system (abstract) wherein a liquid coolant or refrigerant coolant can be used ([0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the cooling liquid from Smith within Dudley as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 14, modified Dudley discloses wherein, wherein the plurality of battery cells from a cell stack; and wherein the at least one cooling channel is outside of the stack (figure 6, discussed throughout).
As to claim 15, modified Dudley discloses wherein, a fin channel in the at least one cooling fin (figure 6, between the fins are fin channels); and a channel connection portion between the at least one cooling channel and the fin channel (figure 6, one of the supports could be a channel connection portion thus reading on the instant claimed invention, discussed throughout).
As to claim 16, modified Dudley discloses wherein, an end of the at least one support rib contacts the plurality of battery cells (figure 6, discussed throughout).
As to claim 17, modified Dudley discloses wherein, the at least one cooling channel directly contacts the at least one support rib (figure 6, discussed throughout).
As to claim 18, modified Dudley discloses further comprising a fin channel in the at least one cooling fin (figure 6, the channel between the fins, discussed throughout).
As to claim 20, modified Dudley discloses wherein, the at least one cooling channel extends perpendicular to the at least one cooling fin (figures 2, 4, 6 the cooling channel in figure 6 goes into the page and the fins extend perpendicular to that direction. Discussed throughout).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments, filed 8/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-13 under Lee have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of modified Lee and newly added rejections of modified Dudley. Please see new rejections above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights