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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application. Claims 12-13 are withdrawn. Claims 1-11 & 14-16 are presently examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, in the reply filed on 8/3/2026, is acknowledged.
Applicant’s traversal is on the ground(s) that “each species is so related that an undue burden would not be placed on the Examiner in maintaining each species in the application”. This is not found persuasive because the species are mutually exclusive: the application fails to teach how the features of Species B and the features of Species A can be achieved simultaneously. Thus, there would be serious search and/or examination burden because a prior art search would require a different strategy and direction for each embodiment. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant that claims 1-16 are in Species A. Claims 1-11 and 14-16 are in Species A. Claims 12-13 are in Species B, with a second valve 108 located in each outlet pipe. This is discussed in paragraph 48 and illustrated in figure 4, which are in Species B.
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species. Currently, claim 1 is generic / linking for all species.
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.
Claims 2-11 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 2 states:
“the battery pack is divided into a plurality of battery modules that each include a number of the plurality of the battery cells, each of the battery modules being isolated from each other”
It is unclear what “include a number” means and how this number relates to the plurality of the battery cells. The present specification mentions this number (paragraph 7), but fails to provide guidance of its meaning. This number could be interpreted as a number painted on each battery module, an identification number, or a quantity of battery cells. The claim must be amended to clarify the meaning, with support from the specification, or the claim may be cancelled.
Claims 3-11 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 16 states “the manifold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. For present examination, Examiner presumes that claim 16 will be amended to depend from claim 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-7 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100112419A1 (Jang) in view of US20020034682A1 (Sun).
With regard to claim 1, Jang teaches the following claim limitations:
A vehicle (paragraph 56: electric vehicle) comprising:
a battery pack (Figure A below) including a housing (paragraph 56; figure 3: battery tray 12) having a plurality of battery cells (paragraph 56; figure 3: plurality of batteries 11) contained therein, the housing (12) including a plurality of vents (Figure A. See discussion below regarding “plurality”.)…
a battery thermal management system (paragraph 56; figure 3: device for controlling the temperature of batteries) configured to cool each of the battery cells (11) and dilute the battery gases generated by the plurality of battery cells (11), the battery thermal management system including:
an inlet pipe (Figure A) in communication with an atmosphere located external to the battery pack;
an air induction device (paragraph 56; figure 3: cooling fan 13) for drawing air from the atmosphere located external to the battery pack into the inlet pipe (cooling fan 13 will draw air into the inlet pipe, even though the fan is not located in the inlet pipe);
at least one outlet pipe (Figure A) connected to (Figure A: connected through the valve 31, battery tray 12, and cooling fan 13) the inlet pipe downstream from the air induction device (13) and in communication with (air flows from the interior to the outlet pipe) an interior of the housing (12);
at least one first valve (paragraph 56; figure 3: outlet three-way valve 31), the at least one first valve (31) located between (Figure A) the at least one outlet pipe and the interior of the housing (12);
at least one first temperature sensor (paragraph 56; figure 3: temperature sensor 17) for generating signals indicative of a temperature (paragraph 70; figure 3: temperature sensor 17 transmits the detected temperature to the battery controller 16) within the housing (12); and
a controller (paragraph 56; figure 3: battery controller 16) in communication with each of the air induction device, the at least one first valve, and the at least one first temperature sensor (paragraphs 56, 66, & 70-71; figure 3),
wherein upon receipt of a signal from the at least one first temperature sensor (17) that is indicative of the temperature within the housing (12) being above a predetermined threshold, the controller (16) is configured to instruct the air induction device (13) to begin drawing the air into the inlet pipe and outlet pipe connected to the inlet pipe, and instruct the at least one first valve (31) located between the at least one outlet pipe and the interior of the housing (12) to open to permit the air to enter the battery pack and cool each of the battery cells (11) and dilute the battery gases generated by the plurality of battery cells (11) before a mixture of the air and battery gases exit the battery pack through at least one of the plurality of vents (paragraphs 54-71; figure 3; Figure A)
Figure A: Annotated Jang Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
672
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 requires a plurality of vents, but Jang teaches a single vent (Figure A above). MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) provides guidance for this issue: “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. “Plurality” of vents compared to a single vent is merely duplicating parts, and thus is not patentable without a new and unexpected result.
Claim 1 also states that the intended use / purpose of the plurality of vents is for discharging battery gases generated by the plurality of battery cells. MPEP 2114(II) provides the law for this claim limitation:
“‘[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
The above limitation is an intended use and does not limit the scope of the claim for patent examination.
With regard to claim 2, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 2 states:
the battery pack is divided into a plurality of battery modules
Jang teaches a single battery module (paragraph 56; figure 3: plurality of batteries 11). MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) provides guidance for this issue: “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. A plurality of battery modules compared to a single battery module is merely duplicating parts, and thus is not patentable without a new and unexpected result.
Regarding the plurality of battery modules, claim 2 states —
that each include a number of the plurality of the battery cells
This limitation was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. It is not possible to analyze this limitation until the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is resolved; therefore, this claim limitation is disregarded for present prior art analysis.
Claim 2 also states:
each of the battery modules being isolated from each other
Multiplication of Jang’s battery tray 12 with the plurality of batteries 11, thus forming a plurality of battery modules, would result in separate trays 12, thus isolating the battery modules from each other.
With regard to claims 3-7, Jang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 2, as discussed above. Claims 3-7 merely recite duplicate components of the battery pack and thermal management system of claim 1, associated with the plurality of battery modules of claim 2. As discussed above, duplicating a component is not patentable without a new and unexpected result.
With regard to claim 14, Jang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jang also teaches the following limitation of claim 14:
the air induction device is a fan (paragraph 56; figure 3: cooling fan 13)
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100112419A1 (Jang), as applied to claims 1-4, and further in view of “Development of cooling strategy for an air cooled lithium-ion battery pack” (Sun).
With regard to claim 8, Jang teaches the limitations of claims 1-4 as described above. Jang, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claim 8, which is taught by Sun:
each battery module includes a conduit located within an interior of the battery module that is attached to a respective outlet pipe with one of the valves located therebetween
Sun describes cooling air entering a lower cooling duct, passing through cooling channels between adjacent batteries, then exiting from an upper cooling duct [claimed conduit] (p.407, 2.3, right column; Figure B below). Examiner interprets Sun’s battery module to be the structure within the dotted line in Figure B below. Jang’s valve and outlet pipe can be connected to Sun’s conduit / outlet.
Figure B: Annotated Sun Figure 5
PNG
media_image2.png
531
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sun is directed to a cooling strategy development method for improved temperature uniformity cooling efficiency of an air cooled battery pack (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for a conduit to be located within an interior of Jang’s battery module, and for that conduit to be attached to external components, such as Jang’s valve then outlet pipe, as taught by Sun, for improved temperature uniformity cooling efficiency.
With regard to claim 9, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claims 1-4 & 8 as described above. Jang fails to teach the following limitation of claim 9, which is taught by Sun:
the conduit includes a plurality of outlet ports that are directed at a respective battery cell of the number of battery cells located in the respective battery module (Figure B above)
With regard to claim 10, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claims 1-4 & 8-9 as described above. Jang also teaches the limitations of claim 10 (paragraphs 54-71; figure 3; Figure A above).
With regard to claim 11, Jang teaches the limitations of claims 1-4 & 8-10, as discussed above. Claim 11 merely recites duplicate temperature sensors. As discussed above, duplicating a component is not patentable without a new and unexpected result.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100112419A1 (Jang), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20090011326A1 (Wood).
With regard to claim 15, Jang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Jang, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claim 15, which is taught by Wood:
the plurality of vents are in communication with a manifold that collects the battery gases emitted from the plurality of vents (paragraphs 42-43; figure 5B)
Wood describes battery module 30 vent holes 58 attached to a manifold that combines into manifold base member 68 (paragraphs 42-43; figure 5B). Wood is directed to a path for battery gas to escape away from the battery assembly (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Jang’s vents to combine into a manifold, as taught by Wood, for a path for battery gas to escape away from the battery assembly.
With regard to claim 16, Jang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Jang, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claim 16, which is taught by Wood:
the manifold is in communication with an exhaust pipe that directs the battery gases collected by the manifold in a direction away from the vehicle (paragraphs 41-43; figure 5B)
Wood is directed to a path for battery gas to escape away from the battery assembly for release outside of the vehicle (abstract; paragraphs 8, 10-11, & 41). Wood doesn’t explicitly mention an exhaust pipe; however, it would have been obvious to attach additional pipe(s) to Wood’s manifold base member 68, in order to reach an exterior of the vehicle. Such additional pipe(s) are similar to piping for venting combustion gas in a combustion engine. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Jang’s vents to combine into a manifold with an exhaust pipe, as taught by Wood, for a path for battery gas to escape away from the battery assembly and outside of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon, but made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20200313256A1 (Kuronuma) presents a vehicle cooling system 10 for a battery chamber 25 with a cooling fan 22 and switching valves 48 & 64 (paragraphs 33-35; figures 3-4).
US20210408618A1 (Soto) teaches multiple fans 220 blowing air across a battery bank 222 (paragraph 50; figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights