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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Office has successfully retrieved an electronic copy of CN 2023-103509883 on September 2, 2026.
Claim Objections
The warning for potentially objecting to claims 14-20 as substantial duplicates of claims 1-7 is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 2, 5, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 2 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (CN 113991237 A), hereinafter “Zhu,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 1 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 14-16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Tyler et al. (US 2016/0301117 A1), hereinafter “Tyler,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 1 and 14.
The rejection of claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Tyler and Kim et al. (US 2018/0114957 A1), hereinafter “Kim,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 1 and 14.
The rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Tyler and Boddakayala et al. (US 2024/0072336 A1), hereinafter “Boddakayala” as evidenced by Zhang (US 2024/0297371 A1) is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann (US 2023/0238633 A1) in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 1, Hoffmann discloses a battery pack comprising:
a box assembly, in this case the battery module (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 100), comprising a box, in this case the housing (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 13), wherein a plurality of battery module cabins are provided within the box, in this case the two battery blocks (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 10), the box is provided with at least one air duct between adjacent battery module cabins, in this case the intermediate space through which air flows (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 18 & 500), and the air duct extends from a first end of the box to a second end of the box and forms an air flow channel throughout the box, in this case the airflow channel extends from the air inlet to the air outlet (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 14, 15, & 500);
a plurality of battery modules, in this case each battery block consists of a plurality of individual round cells (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 10 & 11) which each correspond to a module; and
a control module, in this case the battery management system (¶ [0103]).
Hoffmann does not disclose that the plurality of battery modules and control module each respectively lean against first and second side walls of the air duct. However, Zhu teaches that each battery module “leans against” an air conduit first side wall, in this case each electric core (p. 9, Fig. 7, ref. no. 116) abuts against an aluminum profile radiating ventilation system branch air channel (p. 9, Fig. 7, ref. no. 117). Zhu further teaches that the control module “leans against” an air conduit second side wall, in this case the battery management unit (p. 8, Fig. 4, ref. no. 15) abuts against the main air duct of the battery box (p. 8, Fig. 3, ref. no. 12) and the flexible circuit board (p. 8, Fig. 6, ref. no. 113) abuts against and covers the aluminum profile radiating ventilation system branch air channel (p. 9, Fig. 7, ref. no. 117). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the basic principle of heat conduction between objects. One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that placing heat-producing components, such as the battery modules and control circuits, in physical contact with the air duct would have promoted heat transfer away from the heat-producing elements to the cooling air flowing within the duct via conduction through the duct walls, thereby facilitating improved battery pack operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the plurality of battery modules and the control module so as to “lean against” the air duct walls in order to have facilitated improved battery pack operation and safety.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Tyler.
Regarding claim 2, Hoffmann does not disclose the first thermal conductive adhesive. However, Tyler teaches a battery module that includes thermal conductive adhesive between the battery and the side wall, in this case an adhesive layer of compliant thermal epoxy (¶ [0040]-[0042], Fig. 3, ref. no. 78). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a thermal adhesive layer would have decreased movement of the battery during operation (see ¶ [0041]) thereby improving durability and reducing costs (¶ [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a first adhesive layer in order to have facilitated improved durability and reduced costs.
Regarding claim 3, Hoffmann further discloses a side plate installed on a side surface of the box and covering the battery module cabin that is provided on the side surface of the box, in this case the box side wall (see annotated Fig. 1, below). Hoffmann does not disclose the second thermal conductive adhesive. However, Tyler teaches providing thermal adhesive layers between the battery and a container wall (¶ [0040]-[0042], Fig. 3, ref. no. 78). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such thermal adhesive layers on additional sides of the batteries would have further decreased movement of the battery during operation (see ¶ [0041]) thereby improving durability and reducing costs (¶ [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a second adhesive layer in order to have facilitated improved durability and reduced costs.
PNG
media_image1.png
609
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hoffmann does not disclose the heat sink. However Zhu teaches a plurality of battery cells, in this case the electric cores (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 116), attached with a heat sink, in this case the aluminum profile radiating ventilation branch air duct (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 117). Zhu does not teach that the heat sink is in direct thermal contact with the first and second thermal conductive adhesives. However, Tyler teaches placing the thermal adhesive in direct thermal contact with the heat sink (¶ [0041], Fig. 3, ref. nos. 78 & 80). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that so disposing the first and second thermal conductive adhesives would have enhanced the heat exchange properties between the batteries and heat sink (see ¶ [0043]), thereby facilitating improved battery temperature regulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the battery cells and the first and second thermal conductive adhesives in direct thermal contact with a heat sink in order to have facilitated improved battery temperature regulation.
Regarding claim 6, Hoffmann does not disclose the heat sink. However, Zhu teaches the heat sink as discussed in the rejection of claim 4, above, and further teaches that the heat sink is made of aluminum (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 117). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the heat-conducting properties of aluminum and that selecting this material for the heat sink would have promoted heat conduction away from the heat-producing elements to the cooling air flowing within the duct via conduction through the duct walls, thereby facilitating improved battery pack operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the heat sink of aluminum in order to have facilitated improved battery pack operation and safety.
Regarding claim 7, Hoffmann further disclose that the battery modules further disclose a plurality of battery cells (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 11), but does not disclose the bottom heat sink. However, Tyler teaches a bottom heat sink, in this case the heat sink is imbedded in the bottom of the housing (¶ [0043], Fig. 3, ref. nos. 42 & 80). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that so disposing the heat sink would have enhanced the heat exchange from the batteries to heat sink (see ¶ [0043]), thereby facilitating improved battery temperature regulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the heat sink at the bottom of the battery cells in order to have facilitated improved battery temperature regulation.
Regarding claim 10, Hoffmann does not disclose the thermal conductive member. However, Zhu teaches a thermal conductive member provided between and in direct contact with the control module and the second side wall, in this case the conductive aluminum row (p. 9, Fig. 6, ref. no. 112). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing such a heat sink would have promoted the conduction of heat away from the control module, thereby facilitating improved battery pack operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed a thermal conductive member in contact with the control module and the second side wall in order to have facilitated improved battery pack operation and safety.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann, Zhu, and Tyler as applied to claim 4, above, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 5, Hoffmann does not disclose the heat sink flanges. However, Kim teaches a heat sink with two flanges on opposite sides of the main body, in this case the cooling fin (¶ [0053], Fig. 4, ref. no. 310) includes cartridge assembly guide units provided at both end portions (¶ [0053], Fig. 4, ref. no. 311) such that the battery cells may be inserted and fixed in the space between the cooling fins (¶ [0053], Fig. 3, ref. no. 200). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a structure would have fixed the battery cells in place relative to the heat sinks (see ¶ [0053]) thereby allowing heat to be discharged away from the battery cells (¶ [0050]), thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided heat sinks with flanges attached to the battery cells in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann and Zhu as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Boddakayala as evidenced by Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Hoffmann further disclose that the battery modules further disclose a plurality of battery cells (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 11), but does not disclose the insulating layer. However, Boddakayala teaches a heat insulating layer adhered to a battery cell at the outermost side of the battery module, in this case the thermal barrier structure includes an aerogel sheet (¶ [0047], Fig. 2, ref. nos. 54 & 60). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such an insulating layer would have prevented heat from propagating to undesired locations (see ¶ [0047]), thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a heat insulating layer adhered to a surface of one battery cell at an outermost side of the battery module in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Regarding claim 9, Hoffmann does not disclose the insulating layer. However, Boddakayala teaches the insulating layer as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, above, and further teaches that the insulating layer includes aerogel foam1 (¶ [0047], Fig. 2, ref. no. 54). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such an insulating layer would have prevented heat from propagating to undesired locations (see ¶ [0047]), thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a heat insulating layer adhered to a surface of one battery cell at an outermost side of the battery module in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann in view of Zhu and McLean et al. (US 2022/0328921 A1), hereinafter “McLean.”
Regarding claim 14, Hoffmann discloses a battery pack comprising:
a box assembly, in this case the battery module (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 100), comprising a box, in this case the housing (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 13), wherein a plurality of battery module cabins are provided within the box, in this case the two battery blocks (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 10), the box is provided with at least one air duct between adjacent battery module cabins, in this case the intermediate space through which air flows (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 18 & 500), and the air duct extends from a first end of the box to a second end of the box and forms an air flow channel throughout the box, in this case the airflow channel extends from the air inlet to the air outlet (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 14, 15, & 500);
a plurality of battery modules, in this case each battery block consists of a plurality of individual round cells (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 10 & 11) which each correspond to a module; and
a control module, in this case the battery management system (¶ [0103]).
Hoffmann does not disclose that the plurality of battery modules and control module each respectively lean against first and second side walls of the air duct. However, Zhu teaches that each battery module “leans against” an air conduit first side wall, in this case each electric core (p. 9, Fig. 7, ref. no. 116) abuts against an aluminum profile radiating ventilation system branch air channel (p. 9, Fig. 7, ref. no. 117). Zhu further teaches that the control module “leans against” an air conduit second side wall, in this case the battery management unit (p. 8, Fig. 4, ref. no. 15) abuts against the main air duct of the battery box (p. 8, Fig. 3, ref. no. 12) and the flexible circuit board (p. 8, Fig. 6, ref. no. 113) abuts against and covers the aluminum profile radiating ventilation system branch air channel (p. 9, Fig. 7, ref. no. 117). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the basic principle of heat conduction between objects. One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that placing heat-producing components, such as the battery modules and control circuits, in physical contact with the air duct would have promoted heat transfer away from the heat-producing elements to the cooling air flowing within the duct via conduction through the duct walls, thereby facilitating improved battery pack operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the plurality of battery modules and the control module so as to “lean against” the air duct walls in order to have facilitated improved battery pack operation and safety.
Hoffmann does not teach the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) fuselage. However, McLean teaches a UAV comprising batteries disposed within the fuselage (¶ [0038], Fig. 1, ref. no. 100). It is very well known that batteries provide electrical power to loads such as UAVs (see ¶ [0038]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing the battery pack within the UAV fuselage and electrically connecting it to an electric motor (see ¶ [0038], Fig. 1, ref. no. 106) would have yielded the predictable result of facilitating UAV operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a UAV with the battery pack in order to have facilitated UAV operation.
Claims 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann, Zhu, and McLean as applied to claim 14, above, and further in view of Tyler.
Regarding claim 15, Hoffmann does not disclose the first thermal conductive adhesive. However, Tyler teaches a battery module that includes thermal conductive adhesive between the battery and the side wall, in this case an adhesive layer of compliant thermal epoxy (¶ [0040]-[0042], Fig. 3, ref. no. 78). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a thermal adhesive layer would have decreased movement of the battery during operation (see ¶ [0041]) thereby improving durability and reducing costs (¶ [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a first adhesive layer in order to have facilitated improved durability and reduced costs.
Regarding claim 16, Hoffmann further discloses a side plate installed on a side surface of the box and covering the battery module cabin that is provided on the side surface of the box, in this case the box side wall (see annotated Fig. 1, above). Hoffmann does not disclose the second thermal conductive adhesive. However, Tyler teaches providing thermal adhesive layers between the battery and a container wall (¶ [0040]-[0042], Fig. 3, ref. no. 78). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such thermal adhesive layers on additional sides of the batteries would have further decreased movement of the battery during operation (see ¶ [0041]) thereby improving durability and reducing costs (¶ [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a second adhesive layer in order to have facilitated improved durability and reduced costs.
Regarding claim 17, Hoffmann does not disclose the heat sink. However Zhu teaches a plurality of battery cells, in this case the electric cores (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 116), attached with a heat sink, in this case the aluminum profile radiating ventilation branch air duct (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 117). Zhu does not teach that the heat sink is in direct thermal contact with the first and second thermal conductive adhesives. However, Tyler teaches placing the thermal adhesive in direct thermal contact with the heat sink (¶ [0041], Fig. 3, ref. nos. 78 & 80). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that so disposing the first and second thermal conductive adhesives would have enhanced the heat exchange properties between the batteries and heat sink (see ¶ [0043]), thereby facilitating improved battery temperature regulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the battery cells and the first and second thermal conductive adhesives in direct thermal contact with a heat sink in order to have facilitated improved battery temperature regulation.
Regarding claim 19, Hoffmann does not disclose the heat sink. However, Zhu teaches the heat sink as discussed in the rejection of claim 4, above, and further teaches that the heat sink is made of aluminum (p. 8, Fig. 7, ref. no. 117). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the heat-conducting properties of aluminum and that selecting this material for the heat sink would have promoted heat conduction away from the heat-producing elements to the cooling air flowing within the duct via conduction through the duct walls, thereby facilitating improved battery pack operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the heat sink of aluminum in order to have facilitated improved battery pack operation and safety.
Regarding claim 20, Hoffmann further disclose that the battery modules further disclose a plurality of battery cells (¶ [0117], Fig. 1, ref. no. 11), but does not disclose the bottom heat sink. However, Tyler teaches a bottom heat sink, in this case the heat sink is imbedded in the bottom of the housing (¶ [0043], Fig. 3, ref. nos. 42 & 80). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that so disposing the heat sink would have enhanced the heat exchange from the batteries to heat sink (see ¶ [0043]), thereby facilitating improved battery temperature regulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the heat sink at the bottom of the battery cells in order to have facilitated improved battery temperature regulation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann, Zhu, McLean and Tyler as applied to claim 17, above, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 18, Hoffmann does not disclose the heat sink flanges. However, Kim teaches a heat sink with two flanges on opposite sides of the main body, in this case the cooling fin (¶ [0053], Fig. 4, ref. no. 310) includes cartridge assembly guide units provided at both end portions (¶ [0053], Fig. 4, ref. no. 311) such that the battery cells may be inserted and fixed in the space between the cooling fins (¶ [0053], Fig. 3, ref. no. 200). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a structure would have fixed the battery cells in place relative to the heat sinks (see ¶ [0053]) thereby allowing heat to be discharged away from the battery cells (¶ [0050]), thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided heat sinks with flanges attached to the battery cells in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art reference could be found that fairly teaches or suggests the control module and bracket assembly as set forth in claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed apparatus is not disclosed or taught by the cited prior art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Zhu have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “double-sided leaning, throughout-type air duct”, see Remarks, p. 8) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, it is wholly unclear what “double-sided leaning, throughout-type air duct” even means. The Office assumes that Applicant is attempting to refer to the claimed structural elements of the batteries and control module “leaning against” the respective air duct side walls. The cited references clearly show heat-producing components, such as the battery modules and control circuitry, in physical contact with an air duct. Again, one having ordinary skill in the art would have certainly understood the principles of heat transfer via conduction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Tyler, Kim and Boddakayala are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, each of these cited references are concerned with regulating battery temperature. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the concepts taught by each reference would have applied regardless of the specific heat transfer medium employed or the circumstances in which they were used. Rather, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefits yielded by each reference in terms of regulating battery temperature and protecting personnel and sensitive components from overheating conditions. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Zhang states that “An aerogel is an open-celled, mesoporous, solid foam that is composed of a network of interconnected nanostructures and that exhibits a porosity (non-solid volume) of no less than 50%.” ¶ [0044].
