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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on June 9th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-9 include a “cold expansion portion”. Any material or object that expands in volume as its temperature decreases may interpreted as a “cold expansion portion”.
Claim 1 includes the term “connected” which may be reasonably interpreted as “directly connected” or “indirectly connected”. Either interpretation may be used to sustain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim includes a “cold expansion coefficient”, but it is unclear what said coefficient is and the specification does not provide enough information as to describe what it is. The specification as filed states that the cold expansion portion has a large coefficient such that the portion can appropriately adjust the flow rate of cooling liquids in the corresponding flow channel [0030]. There is no explicit proportional or inversely proportional relationship between the coefficient and any aspect of the cold expansion portion. It seems to be implied that the coefficient is proportional to the cold expansion portion’s thickness (and by extension, the portion’s volume). Furthermore, no units for this coefficient are given that would one of ordinary skill in the art to understand its purpose.
For the sake of this Office Action, the final volume of the cold expansion portion will be proportionally related to its initial volume. Therefore, when the cold expansion portion is 100%, the final volume of the portion will be equivalent to the initial volume. When the cold expansion portion coefficient is 500%, the final volume of the portion will be equivalent to 5x the volume of the initial volume.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2020/0328486 A1) and further in view of Cherng (US 2011/0151303 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kwon discloses a box of a power battery comprising a tray and an accommodating space for cells in the tray (Fig. 6, 220) where a battery module case would be present within the tray (as required by claim 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
1017
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kwon continues to disclose a liquid cooling plate (a filling portion body contained in the rectangle in annotated Fig. 5, 131; [0068]) that defines a flow channel (the combination of the channels 140 in the annotated Fig. 3 below) inside the battery module directly adjacent to the bottom of the tray.
PNG
media_image2.png
775
1002
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There is an upper body and lower body formed on the filling portion body that comprise a cold expansion portion ([0065], [0068], and [0073]).
PNG
media_image3.png
490
1127
media_image3.png
Greyscale
When the upper and lower body completely expand, the liquid cooling plate is indirectly connected to the tray through the expansion portion (Fig. 4, 131 contacts 120, the battery module case, which would fit in the tray depicted above in Fig. 6). Furthermore, the cold expansion portion expands to reduce the space of the cooling passages [0084].
PNG
media_image4.png
716
1380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kwon, however, teaches that the cooling fluid in this system is air [0054] and fails to teach that the cooling fluid is liquid. Cherng is analogous art to Kwon because both teach batteries (Kwon, title; Cherng, title). Cherng teaches that cooling gas or cooling liquid can be used in a cooling system in a battery [0011]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that liquids are suitable for cooling systems in batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a cooling liquid in Kwon’s cooling channels due to its art recognized suitability for intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Kwon does not teach a specific thickness of the cold expansion portion. The purpose of the cold expansion portion is to control the size of the cooling channels and the amount of cooling fluid that flows through said channels. The amount of fluid flowing through the channels directly affects the rate of cooling of the heated batteries. Therefore, optimizing the size of the cold expansion portion indirectly allows one to optimize the desired cooling effect of the batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the thickness of the cold expansion portion to optimize the battery’s cooling by optimizing the range of the thickness of the cold expansion portion.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon does not teach a specific amount of area that the cold expansion portion takes up on the liquid cooling plate. The purpose of the cold expansion portion is to control the size of the cooling channels and the amount of cooling fluid that flows through said channels. The amount of fluid flowing through the channels directly affects the rate of cooling of the heated batteries. Therefore, optimizing the area occupied by the cold expansion portion affects how the size of the cooling channel is changed due to the amount of cold expansion material is present. This then optimizes the desired cooling effect of the batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the area of the cold expansion portion present on the liquid cooling plate in order to optimize the cooling of the battery.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, both claims are drawn to an optimized range of the cold expansion portion’s volume change. Kwon does not teach the volume of the expansion portion. The purpose of the cold expansion portion is to control the size of the cooling channels and the amount of cooling fluid that flows through said channels. The amount of fluid flowing through the channels directly affects the rate of cooling of the heated batteries. Therefore, optimizing the volume of the cold expansion portion indirectly allows one to optimize the desired cooling effect of the batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the volume of the cold expansion portion to optimize the battery’s cooling by optimizing the range of the volume that the cold expansion portion may have.
Regarding claim 10, Kwon teaches that the filling portions may be formed of a shape transformation material such as a shape memory alloy [0062]. This includes the filling portion body that comprises an upper body, a lower body, and the filling portion body (i.e., the liquid cooling plate). This shape memory alloy may be NiAl [0064], an aluminum alloy. Claim 10 also includes limitations that state that the tray is an integral extrusion type structure and that the liquid cooling plate is a stamped aluminum alloy plate. Both of these limitations are product-by-process limitations. Absent evidence that there is a structural difference over the prior art as a result of the product-by-process limitation(s), said limitation(s) do not carry patentable weight and therefore will not be considered with respect to patentability. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 12, Kwon states that the module case containing the batteries may be in a battery pack for mounting the battery module or inside a device [0051].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon and Cherng as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hougham (US 2004/0110322 A1). Kwon fails to teach that the cold expansion portion is a foam material. Hougham is analogous art to Kwon because both discuss electronic devices (Kwon, title; Hougham, title). Hougham teaches materials that can be combined into a Negative Thermal Expansion (NTE) system device that have the “useful property of volumetrically expanding upon lowering the device temperature below the reference” temperature (abstract). Hougham continues to teach that these NTE devices can be combined into a solid foam structure [0068]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hougham’s foam could be used as the filling portion of Kwon’s disclosure whose shape changes according to different temperatures (Kwon, [0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Hougham’s foam as a cold expansion portion in Kwon’s box of a power battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are 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. Claim 2 requires that an inner cavity be present in the liquid cooling plate and that an open surface of the inner cavity is closed by the tray. It is not obvious to modify Kwon, the closest prior art, such that the filling portion body has such an open cavity. There are no obvious benefits that would be gained by adding cavities and empty spaces to Kwon’s filling portion body. Claims 3 and 4 are allowable due to their dependence on claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fan (US 2018/0315988 A1) teaches an electric power system that uses a negative thermal expansion component (corresponding with the claimed “cold expansion portion”) to help manage cooling of the system (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights