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
Claims 14-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/02/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hickey et al (US20250062488A1, hereinafter Hickey).
Regarding claim 1, Hickey discloses “a battery pack” (Hickey, battery assembly 38, [0042]) with, “an enclosure assembly” (Hickey, housing 48, [0042]), “a cell stack housed within the enclosure assembly” (Hickey, battery cells 94, [0044]), “and at least partially submerged within a coolant” (Hickey, fluid 104, [0044]), with “a vent manifold that receives vent byproducts from the cell stack” (Hickey, manifold 106, central passage 108, and vent 100, [0045] and [0048]) where “the vent manifold housed within the enclosure assembly and at least partially submerged with the coolant” (Hickey, see Fig.4 where fluid 104 rises above base of manifold surfaces 116 and 118).
PNG
media_image1.png
263
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hickey discloses “the vent manifold is configured to convey the vent byproducts to an area outside the enclosure assembly” (Hickey, “…escape to ambient.”, [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Hickey discloses “the vent manifold maintains the vent byproducts separate from the coolant within the enclosure assembly” (Hickey, see Fig.5B the gases are separate from the fluid 104).
PNG
media_image2.png
605
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hickey discloses “the cell stack and the vent manifold directly contacts the coolant” (Hickey, see Fig.4 the cells 94 are submerged in the fluid 104 and the manifold 106 is partially submerged).
Regarding claim 6, Hickey discloses “the coolant manages thermal energy within the cell stack” (Hickey, “…fluid 104 may flow into the one of plurality of cells after the gas vents in order to start a cooling process.”, [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Hickey discloses “the coolant is a liquid coolant” (Hickey, “…cooling fluid…”, [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Hickey discloses “a plurality of battery cells of the cell stack, each battery cell within the plurality of battery calls having a first terminal on a first side of the vent manifold and a second terminal on a different, second side of the vent manifold” (Hickey, see Fig.3 showing highlighted terminals on opposing sides of vent manifold).
PNG
media_image3.png
385
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hickey discloses “the first terminal and the second terminal are at least partially submerged within the coolant” (Hickey, see Fig.4 highlighted terminals submerged in fluid 104).
PNG
media_image4.png
263
418
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Hickey discloses “the vent manifold extends over a plurality of vents of the cell stack” (Hickey, see Fig.3 with vent manifold covering plurality of vents 100 of the cells).
PNG
media_image5.png
385
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickey et al (US20250062488A1, hereinafter Hickey) in view of Stuetz et al (US20200266506A1, hereinafter Stuetz).
Regarding claim 2, Hickey does not disclose “the coolant is a non-conductive coolant”. However, Stuetz discloses a thermal management liquid for use in a battery module that may be a dielectric thermal management fluid (Stuetz, [0030]), with a dielectric being a type of insulator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the fluid of Hickey with the dielectric thermal management liquid of Stuetz to reduce electrical conduction between immersed electrical components because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the result of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 8, Hickey does not fully disclose “the enclosure assembly includes a tray and a cover, the enclosure tray including a bottom wall”. Hickey discloses an enclosure assembly having a tray and bottom wall but no cover (Hickey, base wall 52 and plurality of side walls 54, [0042]). Stuetz discloses a battery module which includes an inner cover between the housing and cells (Stuetz, module 102, inner cover 318, housing 202, and cells 304, [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the tray of Hickey with the cover of Stuetz to protect the sensitive electrical components comprising the battery cells because one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and that the result of the combination would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Regarding claim 9, Hickey does not disclose “a plurality of standoffs that hold the cell stack at a position spaced from the bottom wall”. However, Stuetz discloses a pair of support mounts disposed in the housing on the bottom portion of the housing adapted to receive and support each of the cells (Stuetz, support mounts 308, bottom portion 310, [0034]). As such a gap is provided between the cells and the bottom portion of the housing (Stuetz, gap 502, [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the bottom wall of Hickey with the support mounts of Stuetz to support the cells and provide under cell coolant circulation because one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and that the result of the combination would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Regarding claim 10, Hickey does not fully disclose “a plurality of busbars and a plurality of terminals of the cell stack, the plurality of busbars and the plurality of terminals at least partially submerged within the coolant”. Hickey does disclose a plurality of terminals which are submerged within the coolant (Hickey, see annotated Fig.3 and Fig.4 above), Hickey does not disclose any busbars. Stuetz discloses a plurality of fluid channels (Stuetz, [0039]) where a first and second busbar set are included in the respective third and sixth fluid channel (Stuetz, third channel 512, sixth channel 518, first busbar set 216, second busbar set 306, [0040]). Stuetz discloses that the busbars are used to connect the battery modules (Stuetz, [0025]) and are included within the fluid channels to provide direct contact cooling of the electrical components and each of the cells (Stuetz, [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the busbars of Stuetz in the battery module of Hickey to electrically connect the components of such and to further provide them within the fluid of Hickey to provide direct contact cooling of the electrical components and each of the cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
