DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments, filed on July 13, 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Regarding the limitation(s) “material strength” in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification and arguments as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, any measurement of relative ‘strength’ can be used for this characterization, which is also clearly impacted by thickness of the layer, etc; e.g. an 2” thick aluminum plate has a significantly higher “material strength” than a sheet of aluminum foil for cooking.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 is 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schnaars et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2015/0295287 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schnaars et al. disclose a composite temperature control plate (Figures; Title; Abstract), configured for a battery pack (ibid and Paragraph 0009), the composite temperature control plate comprising: a temperature control layer (Figures, ‘flow channel’ element 4 especially when filled with a radiating fluid:
PNG
media_image1.png
540
1208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), configured to lower or raise a temperature of the battery pack (ibid: as the fluid can either cool or heat the battery pack depending on the temperature of the supplied fluid); and a protective layer (elements 3a and 3b, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
540
1208
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), different from the temperature control layer (ibid), laminated and fixed on the temperature control layer in a thickness direction of the temperature control layer and the protective layer (ibid); the protective layer comprising a heat insulating layer (thermoplastic resin material: Paragraphs 0034 – 0035 and 0047), the heat insulating layer being made of a heat insulating material (ibid); the protective layer comprising a mounting portion extending at least to a periphery of the temperature control layer (e.g.
PNG
media_image3.png
540
1208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
), the mounting portion being configured to connect with outside (this is an intended use limitation and is not germane to the determination of patentability, but the exterior portion that is not used for sealing the flow channel is clearly capable of being connected to the outside), wherein the temperature control layer is entirely embedded in the heat insulating layer (ibid), and a portion of the heat insulating layer extending to the periphery of the temperature control layer is the mounting portion (ibid).
Alternative to the above interpretation, the Examiner also notes that the heating bands 9 can be taken as the “temperature control layer, configured to lower or raise a temperature of the battery pack” as they can be configured to raise the temperature of the battery pack and this limitation is unclear if the temperature control layer must be capable of both functional limitations (i.e. the limitation does not say that it must be configured to lower _and_ raise a temperature). With this interpretation, Figure 3 (
PNG
media_image4.png
314
854
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) clearly shows the protective layer (elements 3a/3b) encompassing the thermal control layer and possessing the claimed mounting portions on either side of the heating band/temperature control layer (
PNG
media_image5.png
314
854
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 2, based on first interpretation, the ‘material strength’ of the reinforced thermoplastic is deemed to be clearly higher than that of the fluid making up the thermal control layer.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 - 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schnaars et al. as applied above, as further evidenced by the Admitted Prior Art (APA).
Schnaars et al. is relied upon as described above.
While the Examiner maintains that a fluid ‘layer’ is conventional in the patent arts, the Examiner acknowledges that Applicants intent appears to be that the thermal control layer is a structural layer, not just a vacuum or “layer” of a fluid.
However, the APA (see at least Paragraph 0023) teaches a similar design construct wherein a solid material layer (aluminum in the APA) forms channels, which are then “filled” by placing in copper tubing. This allows a secure, liquid-type channel (i.e. the copper tubing) but has added complexity of needing to secure the copper tubing in place. With regard to the design taught by Schnaars et al., the same concept can be easily applied, but wherein the copper tubing is located within the thermoplastic reinforced layers 3a and 3b. This would result in a separate ‘thermal control layer’ being formed out of copper pipe, with the ‘protective layer’ being the reinforced thermoplastic layers encapsulating it (elements 3a and 3b). As discussed above, there is clearly a ‘mounting portion’ that extends beyond the channels which allows for sealing the tubing/channel. This clearly meets the intended use aspect of a ‘mounting portion’ as the amount of excess thermoplastic material would have been a matter of routine design choice and would allow for securing the two halves together, much less ‘mounting’ to an underlying substrate.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Schnaars et al. to use a copper tubing as is conventional in the prior art within the channel, which necessarily results in a separate, structural layer meeting the claimed limitations as taught by the APA, as this allows for added fluid security, as the integrity of the channel is less critical if the fluid is flowing through the tubing.
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative ‘material strengths’ through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Schnaars et al. regarding the desire to use reinforced thermoplastic material (which may already be ‘stronger’ than the copper tubing). However, since copper is pliable and capable of being bent, it is certainly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to form fiberglass reinforced thermoplastic layers (i.e. layers 3a and 3b!) that are _not_ pliable, which would necessarily result in layers meeting the claimed, generic limitations (one can also readily envision a thick thermoplastic layer that is “more rigid” than the copper tubing in the amazingly broad conceptual language of ‘material strenght’). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Schnaars et al. disclose adding a heating element layer (element 10) meeting the claimed structural requirements. Similar to claim 2 above, the Examiner notes that optimization of the relative ‘material strength’ of the layers is a matter of routine optimization, as it is likely almost entirely a factor of layer thickness, etc. And a skilled artisan is clearly capable of optimization of thickness values. As such, the Examiner deems that the relative ‘material strength’ limitations do not provide any novelty to the claimed language, as the relative material strengths would have been subject to routine optimization to a wide range of values and there is no evidence of unexpected results when the claimed relative order is met.
Regarding claim 4, Schnaars et al. discloses this in the citations above (teaching the thermoplastic layers as insulative and the layer 10 as conductive).
Regarding claim 7, there are two ways this claim can be met. First, it would have been obvious to join two pieces of copper tubing together or to use couplings around 90 degree corners instead of trying to bend the tubing … such ‘multiple pieces of tubing’ would read on the claimed “first temperature control layer and the second temperature control layer are joined to form a flow channel structure”. Second, while not explicit in the prior art, Schnaars et al. clearly provides guidance that forming these flow channels from securing a ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ piece to each other is known in the art. The same could be done with copper inserts, etc.; instead of a single tubing inserted into the material layers 3a/3b, a metal half-conduit can be used in each of the top or bottom surfaces, then joined together. This is implied by Schnaars et al. in their discussion of a metal barrier layer (Paragraph 0048), but no Figure explicitly illustrates this structure.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schnaars et al. as evidenced by the APA as applied in Paragraph 10 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0131674 A1) and Becker et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0151818 A1).
Schnaars et al. and the APA are relied upon as described above.
Neither disclose the specific structural arrangements of the battery pack, as recited in claims 8 -10, but Schnaars et al. does clearly provide for use within a battery pack.
However, regarding claims 8 - 10, Lu et al. (Paragraphs 0097 - 0115) discloses a housing structure meeting the claimed limitations of claim 8, but fails to teach a seal meeting the limitations of claims 9 or 10. However, Becker et al. (Paragraphs 0049 - 0053 and 0065) also discloses a similar housing structure (i.e. reading on the structural elements of claim 8), wherein it is known to provide a sealant and fastener, along with a groove to receive the sealant ("o-ring" as sealant and "recess" as the groove receiving the sealant).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Schnaars et al. as evidenced by the APA to use a battery structure as taught by Lu et al. and Becker et al., as such a structure is conventional in the art and allows the batteries to be secured and protected inside a battery pack.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 6 is deemed allowable for the reasons previously set forth. Claim 5 is deemed allowable because the prior art fails to teach or render obvious a foam layer meeting the claimed limitations, in combination with the amended language set forth in claims 1 and 3.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) – Lu et al. in view of various references
The above noted rejection has been withdrawn because Applicants’ amendment(s) have set forth new limitations (e.g. the amended language of claim 1) no longer anticipated, nor rendered obvious, by the above noted rejection.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C § 102 or 103 – Schnaars et al.
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Applicants’ amendment resulted in embodiments not previously considered (i.e. amended language of claim 1) which necessitated the new grounds of rejection, and hence the finality of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights