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
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 3/23/2026 are as follows:
Claims 4 and 6 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 are pending and are being examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Battery Casing with Integral Oscillating Heat Pipe Around Cells”.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 3/23/2026 and are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitation invokes 112(f).
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, 5, 7, 8, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US2019/0148681A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Park teaches a heat transfer device (200), the heat transfer device comprising (Figures 1-5):
a case (210) configured to receive at least one thermal element (100), wherein the at least one thermal element is a lithium ion cell or a heat sink (Figures 1-5, 9, 11, 12; Paragraphs 61, 69, 73, 115-119, 125; The thermal element is a heat sink), wherein the case comprises (Figures 1-5; Paragraphs 61, 69):
an integrated oscillating heat pipe (260), wherein the integrated oscillating heat pipe is embedded in at least one wall of the case, and wherein the integrated oscillating heat pipe comprises at least two layers (Figure 2 illustrates two heat pipes, which is interpreted as two layers. Alternatively, Figure 4 illustrates the heat pipes have a first outer wall layer 262 and an inner wick layer 265, which would be interpreted as two layers; Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81; The heat pipe extends between multiple cells, thus creating alternating hot and cold areas along the heat pipe. This arrangement will create an oscillating heat pipe. Figures 2, 5, and 6 illustrate the heat pipe in the middle the case 210, and thus is considered embedded in the wall of the case); and
a heatsink element (268 or 274), wherein the heatsink element is in contact with at least one wall of the case (Figures 1-5, 9, 11, 12; Paragraphs 73, 115-119, 125).
Re Claim 2. Park teaches at least two thermal elements are spaced apart by the at least one wall (Figures 1-5, 9).
Re Claim 5. Park teaches the heat transfer device is manufactured as a single part using an additive manufacturing process (Figure 1 illustrates a single assembly. The claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of manufacturing. The presence of process limitations (i.e. method of additive manufacturing) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113).
Re Claim 7. Park teaches the at least one wall includes various voids such that the weight of the heat transfer device is less than otherwise (Figures 1, 2, and 7 illustrates various voids in the walls of the casing; Paragraphs 61, 69).
Re Claim 8. Park teaches the integrated oscillating heat pipe comprises at least two or more layers that are in fluid communication (Figure 4; Paragraphs 71-75).
Re Claim 10. Park teaches the case comprises a first integrated oscillating heat pipe and a second oscillating heat pipe (Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81).
Re Claim 11. Park teaches the case comprises a first integrated oscillating heat pipe configured for maximum performance under a first set of thermal conditions and a second oscillating heat pipe configured for maximum performance under a second set of thermal conditions (Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81; Both heat pipes are designed for maximum performance).
Re Claim 12. Park teaches the case comprises a first integrated oscillating heat pipe with a first fill ratio corresponding to a first maximum performance under a first set of thermal conditions and a second oscillating heat pipe with a second fill ratio corresponding to a second maximum performance under a second set of thermal conditions (Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81; Both heat pipes are designed for maximum performance).
Re Claim 13. Park teaches the case further comprises a first portion with a first integrated oscillating heat pipe, and a second portion with a second integrated oscillating heat pipe, and wherein the first portion and the second portion are both in contact with both of at least two thermal elements received by the case (Figure 2 illustrates two heat pipes; Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81).
Re Claim 14. Park teaches the case further comprises a second integrated oscillating heat pipe, and wherein the first oscillating heat pipe is integrated in a first region of the at least one wall, and wherein the second oscillating heat pipe is integrated in a second region of the at least one wall (Figure 2 illustrates two heat pipes; Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81).
Re Claim 15. Park teaches the case further comprises a first portion with a first integrated oscillating heat pipe, and a second portion with a second integrated oscillating heat pipe, and wherein each thermal element of the at least one thermal element is in contact with at most integrated oscillating heat pipe selected from among the first and the second integrated oscillating heat pipe (Figure 2 illustrates two heat pipes; Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81).
Re Claim 16. Park teaches the case if further configured to receive that at least one thermal element into a receiver, and wherein the receiver is further configured to receive a heatsink element (Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81; The receivers are capable of receiving any element shaped to fit within the receiver. Further, the cells 100 are considered heatsink elements since they transfer and receive heat).
Re Claim 17. Park teaches the case comprises a first integrated oscillating heat pipe tunable to a first thermal setting and a second oscillating heat pipe tunable to a second set of thermal conditions, the second set of thermal conditions (Figure 2 illustrates two heat pipes; Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81).
Re Claim 20. Park teaches the case if further configured to receive that at least one thermal element into a receiver, and wherein the receiver is further configured to receive a heatsink element (Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81; The receivers are capable of receiving any element shaped to fit within the receiver. Further, the cells 100 are considered heatsink elements since they transfer and receive heat).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US2019/0148681A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 3. Park teaches the at least two thermal elements are spaced apart by the at least one wall (Figures 1-5) but fails to specifically teach that the wall is 3 mm thick. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the wall 3mm thick, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the wall around 3mm thick, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). In this instance, the variable is the wall thickness and the result is the structural integrity of the wall.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US2019/0148681A1, as previously cited) in view of Yang (US2011/0094718A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 9. Park teaches the integrated oscillating heat pipe comprises at least two or more layers but fails to specifically teach the topology of adjacent layers are generally rotated 90 degrees from each other.
However, Yang teaches the topology of adjacent layers (100, 100’) are generally rotated 90 degrees from each other (Figures 16-17).
Therefore, in view of Yang’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate 90 degrees adjacent layers of Park in order to better evenly dissipate the heat across the device, thereby improving thermal performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to rotate 90 degrees adjacent layers of Park, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US2019/0148681A1, as previously cited) in view of Hirasawa (US2014/0367074, as previously cited).
Re Claim 18. Park teaches the case comprises a first integrated oscillating heat pipe with a first fill ratio, a second oscillating heat pipe with a second fill ratio (Figure 2 illustrates two heat pipes; Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81) but fails to specifically teach the second fill ratio different from the first fill ratio.
However, Hirasawa teaches it is known to select different fill ratios for heat pipes to control heat flow (Paragraphs 18, 45, 70-71).
Therefore, in view of Hirasawa's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second fill ratio different from the first fill ratio of Park in order to achieve a desired heat transfer characteristic.
Re Claim 19. Park teaches the case comprises a first integrated oscillating heat pipe with a first working fluid, and a second oscillating heat pipe with a second working fluid (Figure 2 illustrates two heat pipes; Figures 1-5, 9; Paragraphs 69-81), but fails to specifically teach the second working fluid different from the first working fluid.
However, Hirasawa teaches it is known to form heat pipes with different working fluids, such that the second working fluid different from the first working fluid (Paragraphs 18, 45, 70-71).
Therefore, in view of Hirasawa's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second working fluid different from the first working fluid of Park in order to achieve a desired heat transfer characteristic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select two different working fluids, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 of the reply that Park fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 and thus the 102 rejection should be withdrawn. Park teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Thus, the applicants’ assertion that the 102 rejection should be withdrawn is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 of the reply that Park fails to teach the heat pipe is embedded in at least one wall of the case. Figures 2, 5, and 6 of Park illustrate the heat pipe is in the middle the case 210, and thus is considered embedded in the wall of the case. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights