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 the Claims
This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 09/03/2026.
Claims 1-8 are pending in the current office action.
Claims 1-3 and 7 have been amended by the applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The claim objections have been overcome by the applicant's amendments.
All 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dede et al. (US 2020/0136216 A1), and in further view of Thiagarajan et al. (US 2016/0169591 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dede discloses a battery module (24) with a vapor chamber (104), the battery module comprising (Annotated Dede Fig. 2B):
a plurality of battery cells (120) (Fig. 2B);
a plurality of vapor chambers each installed between adjacent battery cells among the plurality of battery cells and configured to absorb heat generated from the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 2B, Para. [0043] explains that the working fluid inside the plurality of vapor chambers (104) absorbs heat generated from the plurality of battery cells.);
PNG
media_image1.png
738
1104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Dede Fig. 2B: A battery module (24) comprising of a plurality of battery cells (120) and a plurality of vapor chambers installed between adjacent battery cells configured to absorb heat generated from the plurality of battery cells.
a cooling channel coupled to one side of the heat transfer interface material configured to receive heat from the heat transfer interface material and transfer heat to an outside of the battery module (Dede Fig. 3A, Para. [0027] teaches of a duct (114) comprising of an inlet and an outlet (118). Air flows into the inlet and outlet to remove heat from the PCM (heat transfer interface material) to the outside of the battery module.); and
wherein the vapor chamber has a chamber in which a fluid is able to circulate and move, the chamber is filled with a working fluid, and the working fluid is vaporized by receiving heat from the battery cell that circulates in the chamber while being liquefied by transferring heat to the heat surface interface material (Para. [0043] describes the presence of a working fluid within the vapor chamber that circulates between an evaporator surface (136), where the working fluid is vaporized upon receiving heat from the battery cells, and a condenser surface (138), where the working fluid is liquefied upon emitting heat to the PCM.).
Dede fails to disclose a single heat transfer interface material coupled to one side of the plurality of battery cells, in contact with the plurality of vapor chambers and configured to receive heat from the plurality of vapor chambers. Dede discloses a plurality of heat transfer interface materials (HTIM) wherein not all of the plurality of HTIMs are coupled to one side of the plurality of battery cells. Furthermore, Dede fails to disclose wherein the single HTIM is common to the plurality of vapor chambers, and each of the plurality of vapor chambers includes a condenser inserted into the single HTIM.
However, Thiagarajan teaches a single heat transfer interface material coupled to one side of the plurality of battery cells (Para. [0020] states that phase change material 150 (single HTIM) is disposed in all the porosity available in the cavity 120. Thiagarajan Fig. 1 illustrates that cavity 120 is located in an adjacent position to the plurality of cells 140 (battery cells).), in contact with the plurality of vapor chambers and configured to receive heat from the plurality of vapor chambers (Annotated Thiagarajan Fig. 4 depicts phase change material 150 in contact with the plurality of protruding portions of a vapor chamber 200.) and wherein the single HTIM is common to the plurality of protruding portions of vapor chamber 200 (Annotated Thiagarajan Fig. 4), and each of the plurality of vapor chambers includes a condenser inserted into the single HTIM (Annotated Thiagarajan Fig. 4 illustrates a vapor chamber 200 which includes a condenser (condensing vapor 220) within said vapor chamber. A portion of the condenser (two phase heat transporter 250) is inserted into a heat transfer interface material (phase change material 150).).
PNG
media_image2.png
681
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Thiagarajan Fig. 4: The vapor chamber (200) including a condenser (220) inserted into the heat transfer interface material (150) and wherein the single HTIM is common to the plurality of vapor chambers.
Dede and Thiagarajan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same art of developing thermal management systems for removing heat from cells of microelectronic products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of Dede to incorporate the teachings of a single heat transfer interface material coupled to one side of the plurality of battery cells and in contact and is common with the plurality of vapor chambers and each of the vapor chambers includes a condenser inserted into the single heat transfer interface material as disclosed by Thiagarajan because Thiagarajan teaches that such a structure enhances the thermal conductivity between the vapor chamber and the heat transfer interface material (Para. [0038]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Furthermore, the court has held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to make pieces separable (vapor chamber 200), it would be obvious to make the parts separable for that purpose. See MPEP 2144.04. V. (C).
Regarding claim 2, Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, discloses the battery module as discussed in claim 1.
Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, further discloses at least a portion of the chamber is included inside the condenser (Annotated Thiagarajan Fig. 4 depicts at least a portion of the vapor chamber 200 is positioned inside the condenser (condensing vapor 220).).
Regarding claim 3, Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, discloses the battery module as discussed in claim 2.
Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan above, fails to disclose the actual dimensions of the two phase heat transporter (250) within cell wall structure 130 that protrudes into the heat transfer interface material (150).
However, Thiagarajan teaches wherein a portion of the condenser is inserted into the heat transfer interface material is a result-effective variable. Specifically, Thiagarajan teaches that the thermal conductivity between the vapor chamber and the heat transfer interface material is enhanced (Para. [0038]) depending on a portion of the condenser that is inserted into the phase change material. Since this particular parameter is recognized as result-effective variable, (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (B). Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan to provide a battery module wherein a length of the condenser is 5% or more and 20% or less of a total length of the vapor chamber in a length direction away from the heat transfer interface material and yield the expected result of enhanced thermal conductivity between the vapor chamber and the heat transfer interface material within the cell wall structure. Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Regarding claim 4, Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, discloses the battery module as discussed in claim 3.
Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, further discloses wherein the vapor chamber is made of any one or more metals selected from copper, aluminum, steel, and titanium. (Dede Para. [0031] describes a vapor chamber (104) that includes a first face (128) and a second face (130) which may be constructed of copper or aluminum nitride.)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Hilker et al. (US 2023/0097290 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, discloses the battery module as discussed in claim 4.
Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan above, fails to disclose the composition of the working fluid and thus fails to teach that the working fluid is made of any one or more of mineral oil, a fluorinated fluid, and an ester-based fluid.
However, Hilker teaches a working fluid that is made of any one or more of mineral oil, a fluorinated fluid, and an ester-based fluid. (Para. [0043] describes components of a working fluid may include mineral oils and synthetic oils. Synthetic oils include certain ester-based fluids including dibasic acid esters and polyol esters.)
Dede, Thiagarajan, and Hilker are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same art of developing thermal management systems for removing heat from cells of microelectronic products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan as discussed above and incorporate the teachings of a working fluid composed of one or more of mineral oil, a fluorinated fluid, and an ester-based fluid as disclosed by Hilker because Hilker teaches that a battery module possessing a working fluid can help control the temperature of each component within a battery more effectively (Para. [0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that using a working fluid made of any one or more of mineral oil, a fluorinated fluid, and an ester-based fluid is a well-known cooling component in battery modules that would yield the predictable result of absorbing and spreading heat generated from the plurality of battery cells to minimize temperature deviation across the plurality of battery cells. The simple substitution of one known element for another (mineral oil or an ester-based fluid as the working fluid in place of water) is likely to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the results of the substitution would have been predictable (i.e. cooling a battery module). See MPEP 2143 (B).
Regarding claim 6, Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan and Hilker, discloses the battery module as discussed in claim 5.
Dede further discloses a pad having elasticity which is installed between a vapor chamber and a battery cell adjacent to the vapor chamber. (Annotated Dede Fig. 2B depicts an insulating shim 132 positioned between battery cell 120 and vapor chamber 104. The insulating shim may be composed of an electrically-insulating but thermally-conductive material such as silicone-based rubbers, which have elastic properties. (Para. [0032])).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan and Hilker, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Woo et al. (KR 20170099589 (A)).
Regarding claim 7, Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan and Hilker, discloses the battery module as discussed in claim 6.
Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan and Hilker above, fails to disclose a battery module wherein a board is installed on top of a plurality of battery cells; the board includes a bus bar electrically connecting the plurality of battery cells to each other and a printed wiring circuit board measuring voltages and temperatures of the plurality of battery cells. The battery module also is comprised of a front plate, a rear plate, side plates and an upper cover coupled to the front, rear, sides and top of the plurality of battery cells.
However, Woo teaches a battery module wherein a board is installed on top of a plurality of battery cells (Para. [0006] describes a circuit board mounted on the upper portion of a plurality of battery cells.); the board includes a bus bar electrically connecting the plurality of battery cells to each other (Para [0006] describes a bus bar electrically connecting the circuit board and the plurality of battery cells to each other.), and a printed wiring circuit board measuring voltages and temperatures of the plurality of battery cells (Para. [0030-0031] describes a circuit board which measures the voltages of the battery cells. The circuit board is electrically connected to first and second temperature sensors used for measuring temperature changes within the plurality of battery cells). The battery module also is comprised of a front plate coupled to a front side of the plurality of battery cells, a rear plate coupled to a rear side of the plurality of battery cells, side plates coupled to one or more sides of the plurality of battery cells, and an upper cover mounted on a top side of the plurality of battery cells (Annotated Woo Fig. 1B, Para [0040-0041]).
Dede, Thiagarajan, Hilker and Woo are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same art of developing thermal management systems for removing heat from cells of microelectronic products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan and Hilker as discussed above and incorporate the teachings of a board is installed on top of a plurality of battery cells wherein the board includes a bus bar electrically connecting the plurality of battery cells to each other and a printed wiring circuit board measuring voltages and temperatures of the plurality of battery cells. The battery module also is comprised of a front plate coupled to a front side of the plurality of battery cells, a rear plate coupled to a rear side of the plurality of battery cells, side plates coupled to one or more sides of the plurality of battery cells, and an upper cover mounted on a top side of the plurality of battery cells as disclosed by Woo because Woo teaches that a large-capacity battery module which monitors temperature changes within a plurality of battery cells can maintain constant voltage output, thus increasing the battery module’s operational efficiency (Para. [0003]). Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements (i.e. bus bar, circuit board, front, rear and side plates, and upper cover) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143 (A)).
PNG
media_image3.png
737
844
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Woo Fig. 1B: A battery module comprised of a board installed on top of a plurality of battery cells, the board comprising of a bus bar (120) electrically connecting the plurality of battery cells to each other, a printed wiring circuit board (130), measuring voltages and temperatures of the plurality of battery cells, a front plate (140) coupled to a front side of the plurality of battery cells and a rear plate (140) coupled to a rear side of the plurality of battery cells, a side plate (150) coupled to one or more sides of the plurality of battery cells, and an upper cover (160) mounted on a top side of the plurality of battery cells.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, Hilker, and Woo as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Anandarajah et al. (US 2022/0131117).
Regarding claim 8, Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, Hilker, and Woo disclose the battery module as discussed in claim 7.
Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, Hilker, and Woo above, fails to disclose a battery module wherein the heat transfer interface material has a thermal conductivity of 3 W/mk or more.
However, Anandarajah teaches a battery module wherein a heat transfer interface material has a thermal conductivity of 3 W/mk or more (Para. [0034] describes a thermal interface material that is intended to increase heat transfer and may be characterized by a thermal conductivity greater than or about 0.5 W/mk, greater than or about 1 W/mk, greater than or about 2 W/mk, greater than or about 5 W/mk, greater than or about 10 W/mk, or about 25 W/mk or greater.).
Dede, Thiagarajan, Hilker, Woo and Anandarajah are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same art of developing thermal management systems for removing heat from cells of microelectronic products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dede, as modified by Thiagarajan, Hilker, and Woo as discussed above to utilize a heat transfer interface material with a thermal conductivity of 3 W/mk or more as disclosed by Anandarajah because Anandarajah teaches that a greater thermal conductivity value correlates with increased heat transfer within the battery module (Para. [0034]). The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e. one heat transfer material with unknown thermal conductivity with another heat transfer material with a known thermal conductivity value) is likely to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 (B). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 to include subject matter regarding the heat transfer interface material and the condenser has changed the scope of claim 1 and, as a result, the 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 06/05/2026 is withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dede et al. (US 2020/0136216 A1), and in view of Thiagarajan et al. (US 2016/0169591 A1).
Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 to include subject matter regarding the heat transfer interface material and the condenser has changed the scope of claim 1 and, as a result, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 06/05/2026 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed 09/03/2026 with respect to the objections to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claim 7 have been withdrawn due to proper amendments remedying the issue moot.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 5, filed 09/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 5-8, filed 09/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot, due to the new rejection applied in the above final office action not relying on Dede et al. (US 2020/0136216 A1) to teach the amendments.
Applicant’s argument #1
Applicant argues that, on page 7 of the “Reply to Office Action of June 5, 2026”, the combination of Dede and Thiagarajan does not disclose or suggest the claimed shared, one-sided cold-plate arrangement. Neither reference discloses the claimed module-level architecture in which multiple inter-cell vapor chambers each include a projecting condenser end commonly coupled to a single shared HTIM/cooling channel plate located on one side of the cell stack. Applicant argues that Dede uses a distributed, interleaved architecture with internally ducted PCM shells and that Thiagarajan is not directed to a battery module and does not disclose a plurality of vapor chambers installed between adjacent battery cells.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dede discloses “a plurality of vapor chambers each installed between adjacent battery cells among the plurality of battery cells” (Dede Fig. 2B) and “a cooling plate coupled to one side of the heat transfer material” (Dede Fig. 3A and para. [0027]). Additionally, Thiagarajan teaches “a single heat transfer interface material coupled to one side of the plurality of battery cells, in contact with the plurality of battery cells” (para. [0020] and Thiagarajan Fig. 1). Furthermore, Thiagarajan teaches the single heat interface material is common to the plurality of condensers, the condensers protruding from a singular vapor chamber wherein said condensers are inserted into the single heat transfer interface material (Thiagarajan Fig. 4). Additionally, the invention of a thermal management system provided by Thiagarajan is directed to electronic equipment for use in an aircraft (para. [0004]), wherein certain aircraft, such as eVTOL aircraft, utilize batteries and are prone to overheating. In response to applicant's argument that “if Dede and Thiagarajan were combined, the combination would not disclose or suggest the claimed shared, one-sided cold-plate arrangement”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed 09/03/2026 with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection to claim 1 has been withdrawn due to proper amendments remedying the issue moot.
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 SANTINO M SERVAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-0847. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, F 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/SANTINO MICHALE SERVAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights