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 of Claims 1 - 16 in the reply filed on 2 September 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2 September 2026.
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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US20230369678A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches an immersion cooling system for a battery system (Abstract) where the battery system could be a battery pack [0035]. The battery pack can include a battery enclosure (Abstract) where there is a cell stack (FIG. 5, 8A) within the interior of the enclosure (113, [0014]). The cell stack includes a plurality of battery cells (“battery cells”, 10, 40, Abstract) disposed along a cell stack axis (i.e. the direction in which the cells are stacked together, FIG. 5, 8A). Each of the battery cells has a vent (38, FIG. 5).
The battery has a plurality of standoffs (“spacer members”, 310-1, -2, -3…) that support the cell stack within the enclosure (FIG. 10). The plurality of standoffs is capable of guiding liquid coolant of an immersion thermal management system within the interior, since the spacers (332) between the insulating spacer members (310) allow dielectric fluid to flow alongside surfaces of the metal-encased, pouch-type battery cells (40) where both edge cooling and face cooling can be performed [0050]. The plurality of standoffs is also disposed along the cell axis (i.e. the direction in which the cells are stacked together) at positions that are axially misaligned with the vents (FIG. 10). The spacer members and the spaces between them do not overlap with the vents in the direction in which the cells are stacked.
It should also be noted that although each of the embodiments is described above as having certain features, any one or more of those features described with respect to any embodiment of the disclosure can be implemented in and/or combined with features of any of the other embodiments, even if that combination is not explicitly described. In other words, the described embodiments are not mutually exclusive, and permutations of one or more embodiments with one another remain within the scope of this disclosure [0051].
Regarding Claim 2, Han teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the plurality of standoffs being a plurality of ribs projecting into the interior. The spacer members (310) include a plurality of vertical members that are arranged horizontally spaced from one another between cells (Claim 6). According to Merriam Webster, a rib can be defined as “an elongated ridge” (“Rib.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rib. Sept 2026.), and the description of the spacer members (310) in the reference is consistent with the definition provided here.
Regarding Claim 3, Han teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the plurality of standoffs (“spacer members”, 310) directly contact the plurality of battery cells (10, 40, FIG. 10).
Regarding Claim 5, Han teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the plurality of standoffs contacting the plurality of battery cells (40) on a first axial side of the vents (38), or on an opposite, second axial side of the vents. The reference teaches that the standoffs (“spacer members”, 310) are contacting the battery cells on one side of the battery cell, where the vent (38) is located, and on another side of the battery cell in an axial direction (i.e. the direction in which the cells are stacked together).
Regarding Claim 7, Han teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the vents being capable of releasing vent byproducts to an area that is axially between two of the standoffs that are axially adjacent to each other. The reference asserts that its present disclosure prevents hot gas from heating neighboring battery cells by arranging pouch-type battery cells in metal cases with vents and managing vent gas generated by each of the battery cells [0012] to prevent the vent gas from causing further battery cell failures due to overheating. In other words, the immersion cooling system prevents hot gas convection to neighboring battery cells to prevent thermal runaway propagation [0039]. Because the vents, in addition to other elements of the cooling apparatus, manage vent byproducts (“gas”) generated by the battery cells away from adjacent cells to avoid heat damage, the vents would also be able to release byproducts between two standoffs that are axially adjacent.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US20230369678A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding Claim 6, Han teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but is silent to the cell stack (battery cells 10 stacked together) being disposed vertically between some of the plurality of standoffs that are above the cells and some of the plurality of standoffs that are beneath the cells. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the standoffs of Han to be disposed above and below the plurality of battery cells. One would have been motivated to modify the invention in this way because it would allow for more battery cells to be packed adjacent to each other in the stack since there is no physical hindrance in the axial direction from the standoffs, thereby increasing the energy density/capacity of the battery pack. Also, it was also held that the rearrangement of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Claims 4 and 8 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20230369678A1, cited on IDS) in further view of Hickey et al. (US20230369708A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding Claim 4, Han teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach a distance between axially adjacent standoffs establishing channels that receive thermal barriers being less than a distance between axially adjacent standoffs establishing channels that do not receive thermal barriers. However, Hickey teaches an immersion cooling system for a battery system (Abstract), where the battery system could be a battery pack [0026]. The battery system includes cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”) made up of individual battery cells (“C battery cells”). The cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”) also contain a plurality of thermal barriers (“dividers”, 30). These dividers are provided between the battery cells in each cell group [0033], and they provide thermal insulation between the cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”). Hickey further teaches standoffs (“metal plates”, 34 and 38) that support an insulating member (36) being closer together than two standoffs that are not supporting the same insulating member (FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the standoffs so that a distance between adjacent standoffs that receive thermal barriers is less than the distance between adjacent standoffs that do not receive thermal barriers. It is reasonable to assume that a standoff that does not receive a thermal barrier would be further away from an adjacent standoff that does receive a thermal barrier because the former’s axial location is not necessitated by said thermal barrier. Also, it was held that the rearrangement of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (see MPEP 2144.05(VI)(C)), and the operation of the battery pack, battery cells and standoffs within the battery pack is not altered by the distance between thermal barrier receiving standoffs being smaller than “normal” standoffs.
Regarding Claim 8, Han teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach the standoffs guiding coolant along a vertical top of the cell stack and along a vertical bottom of the cell stack.
Hickey teaches an immersion cooling system for a battery system (Abstract), where the battery system could be a battery pack [0026]. The battery system includes cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”) made up of individual battery cells (“C battery cells”). The cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”) also contain a plurality of thermal barriers (“dividers”, 30). These dividers are provided between the battery cells in each cell group [0033], and they provide thermal insulation between the cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”). Hickey further teaches that during normal operation dielectric fluid (fluid used for cooling) fills the battery enclosure (14) to a level that is above the upper edges of the battery cells (20) to immerse the battery cells [0038]. The cooling fluid travels between the metal plates to provide face cooling (FIG. 5), and the figure shows that the fluid is flowing from the bottom of the case, vertically below the battery cells, to above the battery cells, vertically atop the cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack of Han where coolant is guided along the vertical tops of the battery cells and the vertical bottoms of the cells. One would have been motivated to modify the invention in this way because it is necessary to cool battery cells within the enclosure to avoid harm to the battery cells and thermal runaway propagation [0029], and this can be done effectively by supplying dielectric fluid to a level above the upper edges of the cells [0038] in addition to separating the battery cells into groups and managing vent gas [0029], according to Hickey.
Regarding Claim 9, Han teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but is silent to the cell stack including a plurality of thermal barriers disposed along the cell stack axis between groups of one or more battery cells, and the plurality of thermal barriers projecting outward from the cell stack axis past the battery cells.
However, Hickey teaches an immersion cooling system for a battery system (Abstract), where the battery system could be a battery pack [0026]. The battery system includes cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”) made up of individual battery cells (“C battery cells”). The cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”) also contain a plurality of thermal barriers (“dividers”, 30). These dividers are provided between the battery cells in each cell group [0033], and they provide thermal insulation between the cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”). Hickey further teaches the thermal barriers (“dividers”, 30) being disposed along the cell stack axis between groups of one or more of the battery cells [0033], and the plurality of thermal barriers (30) project outward from the cell stack axis past the battery cells (FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack and thermal barriers of Han to include thermal barriers that extend past the battery cells as in Hickey. One would have been motivated to modify the inventions in this way because the dividers (30), which contain insulating members (36), block vent gases from flowing from one battery group to another [0029]. Having a thermal barrier extend past a battery cell helps mitigate propagation of heat, since thermal energy is hindered by the addition length of the thermal barrier extending past the cell instead of being able to curl easily over a barrier that is flush with adjacent cells.
Regarding Claim 10, Han and Hickey teach all the limitations of claim 9 but Han does not teach the plurality of thermal barriers extending outward past the battery cells to overlap with at least some of the standoffs.
However, Hickey teaches the thermal barriers (“dividers”, 30, comprised of “insulating member”, 36, and “metal plate”, 34) extending past the battery cells to overlap with at least part of the standoff ([0040], FIG. 1). The metal plate elements (34) of the divider (30) act as standoffs within the battery cell, for the metal structure offers increased stability and rigidity between cells in the battery pack. In Fig. 1 of the Hickey reference, the metal plates extend the full length of the thermal barrier so that at least a part of the thermal barrier (“insulating member”, 36) overlaps with the standoffs (“metal plates”, 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify and combine the battery pack and cooling system of Han with the thermal barrier and standoff arrangement of Hickey. One would have been motivated to modify and combine the inventions in this way because the metal plates are used to further isolate the vent gases to a given battery cell to prevent further propagation and harm to neighboring cells [0040]. Also, providing the thermal barrier in between the metal plates, acting as standoffs, could help to ensure stability of the thermal barrier itself as well as stability to adjacent cells and ultimately the comprehensive structure of the whole battery pack.
Regarding Claim 11, Han and Hickey teach all the limitations of claim 10 but Han does not specifically teach the plurality of thermal barriers extending outward to a position axially between a first standoff within the plurality of standoffs, and a second standoff within the plurality of standoffs, the second standoff directly adjacent to the first standoff on a first axial side of the first standoffs, wherein an axial distance between the first standoff and the second standoffs is less than an axial distance between the first standoff and third standoff that is directly adjacent to the first standoff on an opposite, second axial side of the first standoff.
However, Hickey does teach the plurality of thermal barriers extend outward to a position axially between a first standoff within the plurality of standoffs [0042], and a second standoff within the plurality of standoffs, the second standoff directly adjacent to the first standoff on a first axial side of the first standoffs, wherein an axial distance between the first standoff and the second standoffs is less than an axial distance between the first standoff and third standoff that is directly adjacent to the first standoff on an opposite, second axial side of the first standoff (FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first, second and third standoffs are denoted by the straight arrows from left to right. The distance between the standoff denoted by the first arrow and the standoff denoted by the second arrow is smaller than the distance denoted between the standoff denoted by the first arrow and the standoff denoted by the third arrow.
Regarding Claim 12, Han and Hickey teach all the limitations of claim 9 but do not specifically teach an axial distance between pairs of standoffs that are positioned axially next to thermal barriers is less than an axial distance between pairs of standoffs that are not positioned axially next to thermal barriers.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a distance between standoffs positioned next to thermal barriers less than a distance between standoffs that are not positioned axially next to thermal barriers. One would have been motivated to do this because it would be necessary to have the standoffs, which provide support and rigidity to the battery pack, close together when a thermal barrier is between them to ensure the thermal barrier is not cracked or bent from mechanical stress. Hickey teaches the thermal barrier (“insulating member”) being disposed tightly between two standoffs (“metal plates”) (FIG. 1), so standoffs that distance between two standoffs that are specifically surrounding a thermal barrier would obviously be less than a distance between standoffs that are supporting the battery pack as opposed to surrounding a thermal barrier.
Regarding Claim 13, Han and Hickey teach all the limitations of claim 9, but Han does not specifically teach the thermal barriers extending vertically above the battery cells and vertically beneath the battery cells. However, Hickey teaches a divider (180) that a thermal barrier (“insulating spacer member”, 184 disposed between two “metal plates”, 34, 38) that extends vertically [0042]. (It should be noted here also that although each of the embodiments is described above as having certain features, any one or more of those features described with respect to any embodiment of the disclosure can be implemented in and/or combined with features of any of the other embodiments, even if that combination is not explicitly described. In other words, the embodiments described are not mutually exclusive, and permutations of one or more embodiments with one another remain within the scope of this disclosure [0044]). In Fig. 2, the divider (30, operationally the same as divider 184 described above) rises above and extends below the battery cell group (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack of Han with the thermal barriers of Hickey that extend vertically above and below the battery cells in a battery pack. One would have been motivated to modify the inventions in this way because the dividers (30), which contain insulating members (36), block vent gases from flowing from one battery group to another [0029]. Having a thermal barrier extend past a battery cell helps mitigate propagation of heat, since thermal energy is hindered by the addition length of the thermal barrier extending past the cell instead of being able to curl easily over a barrier that is flush with adjacent cells.
Regarding Claim 16, Han teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach the cell stack being one of a plurality of cell stacks within the interior. However, Hickey teaches an immersion cooling system for a battery system (Abstract), where the battery system could be a battery pack [0026]. The battery system includes cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”) made up of individual battery cells (“C battery cells”). The cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”) also contain a plurality of thermal barriers (“dividers”, 30). These dividers are provided between the battery cells in each cell group [0033], and they provide thermal insulation between the cell stacks (“G battery cell groups”). Hickey teaches a plurality of cell stacks within the battery pack ([0031], 16-1, -2, -3…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery cell groups of Han to include a plurality of battery cell groups as in Hickey. One would have been motivated to modify the invention in this way because increasing the number of battery cell groups, and consequently the number of battery cells, increases the energy capacity of the battery pack. Also, it was held that the duplication of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claims 14 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20230369678A1) in view of Hickey (US20230369708A1) and further in view of Hyun (KR20250119160A, Machine Translation via EPO).
Regarding Claim 14, Han and Hickey teach all the limitations of claim 9 but do not teach a busbar frame assembly disposed along a lateral side of the cell stack, the busbar frame holding at least one busbar that is electrically connected to one or more terminals of the battery cells within the cell stack, and the thermal barriers extending laterally outward past the battery cells at least as far as the busbar frame.
Hyun teaches a battery arrangement that can comprise a plurality of battery cells stacked and arranged in a stacking direction, a receiving housing that receives the plurality of cells and insertion elements arranged in insertion spaces between the cells [0009]. This battery arrangement including cell stacks can also include a busbar frame (150, “arrangement”) that is disposed along a lateral side of the cell stack (FIGS. 2 and 3). The busbar frame (“arrangement”) can further include a busbar (170) that electrically connects to the plurality of battery cells [0044] via a terminal (“conductor strip”, 111, 112) of each cell [0012]. The thermal barriers (“thermal insulation element”, 119) extend laterally outward past the battery cells at least as far as the busbar frame ([0087], FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery pack described by Han and Hickey to include a busbar frame assembly and busbar electrically connected to the battery cells where the thermal barriers also extend laterally outwardly past the battery cells as in Hyun. One would have been motivated to modify the inventions in this way because battery packs of this kind, when used in things like electric vehicles [0009], need a way to electrically connect to larger devices outside of the pack. The busbar frames can be electrically connected to the outside to store or charge electrical energy in the plurality of battery cells as well as to conduct or discharge electrical energy stored in the plurality of battery cells to the outside [0062]. The busbar acts as a conductivity pathway between the battery cells and the device the battery pack is connected to.
Regarding Claim 15, Han and Hickey in further view of Hyun teach all the limitations of claim 14, but Han and Hickey do not teach the plurality of thermal barriers, each extending laterally outward into respective gaps within the busbar frame assembly.
Hyun teaches the thermal barriers (“thermal insulating elements”, 119) extending outwardly into respective gaps within the busbar frame assembly ([0087], FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal barrier described by Han and Hickey in further view of Hyun to extend laterally outward into respective gaps in the busbar assembly. One would have been motivated to modify the inventions in this way because the thermal barrier (“thermal insulation element”, 119) can block or delay the spread of heat or flames to other areas if a battery cell experiences thermal runaway [0087], thereby mitigating damage to neighboring cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN D BAGILEO whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/M.D.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights