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 without traverse of Group I. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim1-9 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-9 and 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12567623. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims would be anticipated or obvious in view of the patented claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
To promote clarity in Claim 1: Lines 1-2, please amend the limitation “a first and second cell group and having a cooling device for cooling at least the first and second cell group” (i.e. singular format) to “first and second cell groups and having a cooling device for cooling at least the first and second cell groups” (i.e. plural format) or relevant language thereof.
To promote clarity in Claim 1: Line 40, please amend the limitation “the second subregions” to “the second two subregions”.
To promote clarity in Claim 1: Line 41, please amend the limitation “the first subregions” to “the first two subregions”.
To promote clarity in Claim 6, please amend the limitations “the first subregion” to “the respective first subregion” in Line 3, and “the third subregion” to “the respective third subregion” in Line 5.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a first battery cell of the first cell group is arranged, which has a first cell pole and a second cell pole, wherein the second cell pole of the first battery cell of the second cell group is located closer than the first cell pole of the first battery cell” (Lines 9-11). The instant limitation is indefinite. It is unclear to the Examiner how the second cell pole of the first battery cell is also part of the second cell group. Further clarification is also needed to what the second cell pole is closer to compared to the first cell pole of the first battery cell.
Similarly, Claim 1 also recites “a second battery cell of the second cell group is arranged, which has a first cell pole and a second cell pole, wherein the second cell pole of the second battery cell of the first cell group is located closer than the first cell pole of the second battery cell” (Lines 13-15). The instant limitation is indefinite. It is unclear to the Examiner how the second cell pole of the second battery cell is also part of the first cell group. Further clarification is also needed to what the second cell pole is closer to compared to the first cell pole of the second battery cell.
Claim 2 recites “the second and third subregions are coupled to the at least one supply connection, and the first and fourth subregions are coupled to the at least one discharge connection, so that the second and third subregions are located closer to the at least one supply connection in the flow direction than the first and fourth subregions” in Lines 11-14 (emphasis added).
It is unclear if the second subregion, emphasized above, refers to the second subregion in the first cooling region or to the third cooling region. It is also unclear if the first subregion, emphasized above, refers to the first subregion in first cooling region or to the third cooling region.
Claim 3 recites that the second cooling unit per cell group has a lower cooling capacity than the first cooling unit per cell group. Claim 1, in which Claim 3 depends from, recite a first cooling unit has a first cooling region that is assigned to the first cell group and a third cooling region that is assigned to the second cell group Thus having a first cooling unit per cell group).
Claim 2, in which Claim 3 also depends from, recite a second cooling unit has a second cooling region that is assigned to a first cell group. However, there is no recitation of the second cooling unit being part of the second cell group. Thus, it is unclear how a second cooling unit is present per cell group (i.e. in each first and second cell groups).
Claims 4 and 11 recite “so that the second and third subregions are closer to the at least one supply connect in the flow direction than the first and fourth subregions” (emphasis added). Due to the claims reciting a plurality of first, second, third, and fourth subregions, it is unclear which subregions the emphasized subregions above are referring to.
The term “designed like” in Claims 5 and 12-14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The instant term is not necessarily defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. That is, it is unclear if “designed like” requires the second energy storage arrangement to be designed exactly the same as the first energy storage arrangement, or there could be differences in structure, material, characteristics, etc.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "respective third subregion is fluidically connected to the fourth subregion of the same cooling region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear how there can be a respective third subregion when there is no third subregion present in the energy storage device.
Claims 7, 18, and 19 recite the limitations "the first and fourth subregions" and “the third subregions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the third and fourth subregions in the claim.
Claim 1, in which Claims 7, 15, 16, 18, and 19 depend from, recite two first subregions and two second subregions (i.e. first and second subregions are present in each of the first cooling region and in the third cooling region). Thus, it is unclear which first subregion and second subregion it is referring to in Claims 7, 15, 16, 18, and 19.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitations “the third subregions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 1, in which Claim 17 depends from, recite two first subregions and two second subregions (i.e. first and second subregions are present in each of the first cooling region and in the third cooling region). Thus, it is unclear which first subregion and second subregion it is referring to in Claim 17.
Additionally, Claim 4, in which Claim 17 also depends from, also recite two third subregions (i.e. a third subregion is present in each of the second cooling region and in the fourth cooling region). Thus, it is unclear which third subregion it is referring to in Claim 17.
Claim 17, in which Claims 7, 15, and 16 depend from, recite two first subregions and two second subregions (i.e. first and second subregions are present in each of the first cooling region and in the third cooling region). Thus, it is unclear which first subregion and second subregion it is referring to in Claims 7, 15, and 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, double patenting, and claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. Nos. 20230258420, 20220320697, 20210135307, and 20210046849 disclose a cooling system for an energy storage device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights