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 of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/24/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed (First Office Action for German Patent Application) that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: ”arrow A” and “arrow B” in paragraph 30. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanabe (JP 2010-211963 A) and evidence provided by Yen et al. (US 2023/0143123 A1, hereinafter Yen) and Tajima et al. (US 2018/0034116 A1, hereinafter Tajima).
Re Claim 1. Tanabe teaches a passive cooling system (Fig. 1-3) for battery cells, comprising:
a housing (item 10) defining a cavity;
a plurality of battery cells (item 21)disposed in the cavity of the housing;
each of the battery cells being surrounded by a porous media (items 22 & 23);
a phase change material (item 40) disposed within spaces defined by the porous media; and
a cold plate (item 11) disposed at an end of the cavity.
Re Claim 2. Tanabe teaches wherein the porous media defines a plurality of vapor channels (item 22) along each of the plurality of battery cells.
Re Claim 3. Tanabe teaches the plurality of vapor channels extend vertically upward along a side of the battery cells (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 5. Tanabe teaches wherein the porous media surrounding the battery cells includes an open cell foam (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 7. Tanabe teaches wherein the porous media surrounding the battery cells includes a non-organic cellular structure (P5, chemical fibers).
Re Claim 8. Tanabe teaches wherein the phase change material is dielectric (P4, Novec HFE & Yen, para. 35).
Re Claim 9. Tanabe teaches wherein the phase change material has a boiling point of 34 or 49°C at ambient pressure (P4, Novec HFE & Tajima, para. 35).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
Re Claim 11. Tanabe teaches wherein the cold plate (item 11) is partially exposed to ambient for cooling (Fig. 1 & 2).
Re Claim 12. Tanabe teaches wherein the cold plate (item 11) is a top enclosure of the housing (Fig. 1 & 2).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pape et al. (DE 102009000673 A1, hereinafter Pape, cited by applicant).
The teachings of Tanabe have been discussed above.
Tanabe fails to specifically teach a sub-dividing structure disposed in the cavity for sub-dividing the cavity into a plurality of separate compartments.
The invention of Pape encompasses battery pack. Pape teaches a sub-dividing structure (Fig. 4) disposed in the cavity for sub-dividing the cavity into a plurality of separate compartments (items 28, 28c & 28d).
In view of Pape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Tanabe to employ a sub-dividing structure, since Pape teaches the advantage of using it, which is to introduce different fillings into the different chambers that are tailored to the application (para. 15).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Meintschel et al. (DE 102007063194 A1, hereinafter Meintschel).
Tanabe fails to specifically teach that the open cell foam includes one of epoxy, polyurethane and silicone.
The invention of Meintschel encompasses cell assembly. Meintschel teaches that the open cell foam (Fig. 3, item 1.5) includes one of epoxy, polyurethane and silicone (P5).
In view of Meintschel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Tanabe to employ the open cell foam made of one of epoxy, polyurethane and silicone, since Meintschel teaches the advantage of using them, which is electrically insulating while thermally conductive (P5).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yen.
Tanabe fails to specifically teach that the cold plate is liquid cooled.
The invention of Yen encompasses dielectric liquid evaporative cooling. Yen teaches that the cold plate (Fig. 1, item 70) is air cooled or liquid cooled (para. 32).
In view of Yen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Tanabe to have a liquid cooled cold plate, since it is well-known alternative of air cooled cold plate.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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 E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights