CTNF 18/564,678 CTNF 84464 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. BATTERY MODULE INCLDUING LIQUID IMMERSION COOLING UNIT Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/564,678 Art Unit: 1727 May 19, 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on November 28, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-14 are currently pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-14 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ safe ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ safe ” is not defined by the claim, 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. It is unclear as to what characteristics a sealing portion must have to read on “safe”. For purposes of compact prosecution, any sealing portion configured to close the through-hole will read on the claim . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreisel et al. (US 2018/0316074 A1; as found in IDS dated 03/17/25) . As to Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 13, Kreisel discloses a battery pack, comprising a battery module: having at least two cylindrical cells; an inner partition wall 5 that partitions each battery cell into an upper and lower part; and a cooling liquid such as water disposed and sealed under the partition wall, wherein the inner partition wall comprises: a battery cell hole 7 for fitting the cells to be fixed thereto; a through-hole 3 formed through the inner partition wall; and a sealing portion 9 which seals (closes) the through-hole (Abstract, Fig. 1-2, and paragraphs [0015-0016, 0021, 0023, 0033]). As to Claim 3, Kreisel discloses wherein the inner partition wall comprises a support layer 5 (which intrinsically comprises a material with at least some degree of resistance to heat deformation to maintain the inner partition wall); and a sealing portion 9 which comprises two layers (sealing portion layer and safe sealing portion layer) to seal the circumference of each battery cell (paragraphs [0015-0016, 0021, 0033]). As to Claim 4, Kreisel discloses wherein the sealing portion comprises an elastomer, which is intrinsically configured to melt at an abnormal temperature or higher given that the material intrinsically comprises a melting point, see MPEP 2112 (paragraph [0016]). As to Claim 10, Kreisel discloses wherein at least two of the support layer, the sealing layer, and the safe sealing portion layer are disposed on each other (Fig. 1-2 and paragraphs [0015-0016 and 0033]). As to Claim 11, Kreisel discloses an inlet port 3 and an outlet port 4 (Abstract and Fig. 1). As to Claims 12, Kreisel discloses a battery cell that is without a separate coating or resin layer provided at an outside thereof (Abstract and Fig. 1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreisel et al. (US 2018/0316074 A1; as found in IDS dated 03/17/25) in view of Fuhr (US 2012/0003513 A1) . As to Claims 5 and 9, Kreisel does not specifically disclose the claimed sealing material. However, Fuhr teaches of a battery module, comprising a sealing member 54 made of silicone (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0047]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seal of Kreisel to comprise silicone because Fuhr teaches that such a material is pliable and non-conductive (paragraph [0047]). As to Claim 14, Kreisel does not specifically disclose prismatic batteries. However, Fuhr teaches wherein the battery cells can be cylindrical or prismatic (paragraph [0041]). In addition, the courts have held that the shape of the claimed batteries is a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the batteries of Kreisel to be prismatic because Fuhr teaches that an improved battery module with a suitable seal for prismatic cells can be provided (paragraphs [0008, 0041 and 0047]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/564,678 Page 2 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/564,678 Page 3 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/564,678 Page 4 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/564,678 Page 5 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/564,678 Page 6 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/564,678 Page 7 Art Unit: 1727
Prosecution Insights