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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to product, classified in H01M 10/52.
II. Claims 14-20, drawn to process, classified in B60L 58/26.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, Invention II can be practiced with a battery pack for electronics rather than a battery pack for an electric vehicle.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with 248-988-8360 on June 26, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 1, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There seems to be a typo in claim 1 line 8: “A control module programmed to configured to” should be “a control module programmed to” or “a control module configured to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0105392, hereinafter Nakhla.
Regarding claim 1, Nakhla teaches a thermal management system (Fig 1 and 3: 64) for an electrified vehicle (‘the battery pack 6 may serve as a traction battery pack 106 of the electric vehicle 100’ [0066]), comprising:
a battery pack (Fig 3: 6):
a pump (Fig 3: 52) configured to circulate a coolant through the battery pack (6) (‘transporting a second heat transfer fluid therethrough associated with a pump 52’ [0063]);
a gas separator (Fig 3: second heat transfer fluid flow path 44) configured to deaerate the coolant (‘second heat transfer 44 to allow for the thermal expansion of the second heat transfer fluid and degassing of the gas’ [0063]);
a reservoir (Fig 3: 62) configured to receive a gas removed from the coolant from within the gas separator (‘an expansion tank 62 is connected to the second heat transfer fluid flow path 44’ [0063]); and
a control module (pump control interface 84) programmed to configured to control the pump (52) based on a temperature of the coolant exiting the battery pack (a thermal management unit actuates a second heat transfer fluid valve to control flow of the second heat transfer fluid through flow loops that include and exclude the heat exchanger based on a temperature of the battery pack’ (Abstract). Part of the thermal management unit includes an electronic interface (Fig. 3) which further includes pump control interface 84 [0100]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakhla teaches the thermal management system (64) as recited in claim 1, wherein the thermal management system (64) is an immersion thermal management system (‘the second heat transfer fluid is a dielectric fluid used for immersion cooling of the battery pack 6’ [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakhla teaches the thermal management system (64) as recited in claim 2, wherein the coolant is a dielectric fluid (‘the second heat transfer fluid may be a dielectric fluid’ [0067]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakhla teaches the thermal management system (64) as recited in claim 1, wherein the gas includes air (fan 60 blows air through radiator 58 which is connected to second heat transfer fluid flow path 44).
Regarding claim 8, Nakhla teaches the thermal management system (64) as recited in claim 1, comprising a temperature sensor configured to sense the temperature (Fig 3: T1 to T4).
Regarding claim 12, Nakhla teaches the thermal management system (64) as recited in claim 1, comprising a heat exchanger (Fig 3: 58) configured to cool the coolant prior to the coolant being returned to the battery pack (‘radiator 58 associated with at least one fan 60 positioned to blow air through the radiator 58’ [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Nakhla teaches the thermal management system (64) as recited in claim 12, wherein the heat exchanger is a radiator (radiator 58).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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:
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0105392, hereinafter Nakhla as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0309271, hereinafter Gao.
Regarding claims 4-5, Nakhla teaches, as mentioned above, a thermal management system for an electrified vehicle (Fig 1 and 3: 64) that comprises of a battery pack (6), a pump (52), a heat transfer fluid flow path (44) (instant’s gas separator), an expansion tank (62) (instant’s reservoir) to receive gas from the heat transfer fluid flow path [0063], and a control module (84).
However, Nakhla fails to teach an explicit location of the expansion tank (instant’s reservoir).
Gao teaches a thermal management system including a two phase coolant immersion system and an air cooling system (Abstract) that includes a coolant 254, a vapor 260, a separator 270, and a containment layer 272 that removes heat in the vapor [0030]. The containment layer is on top of the system layer [0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the reservoir of Nakhla at the topmost part of the system in order to easily receive hot air from separator and heat exchangers [0016], as taught by Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that hot air rises, therefore, it would be obvious to place a reservoir that is intended to receive hot gas above the system from which the gas is coming from.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0105392, hereinafter Nakhla as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,407,533 B2, hereinafter Bartek.
Regarding claim 7, Nakhla teaches, as mentioned above, a thermal management system for an electrified vehicle (Fig 1 and 3: 64) that comprises of a battery pack (6), a pump (52), a heat transfer fluid flow path (44) (instant’s gas separator), an expansion tank (62) (instant’s reservoir) to receive gas from the heat transfer fluid flow path [0063], and a control module (84).
However, Nakhla fails to teach the battery cell that explicitly releases a vent byproduct gas.
Bartek teaches a thermal management system that regulates airflow through ductworks to stabilize the battery temperature. The batteries in this system are used to provide power during power outages (C2 L5-25). Hydrogen gas byproducts are generated during the production/charging cycles of the batteries and have the possibility of igniting (C6 L56-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the battery of Bartek, that does have a gaseous byproduct, in the thermal management system of Nakhla, for the purpose of providing power.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0105392, hereinafter Nakhla as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0069527, hereinafter Long.
Regarding claims 9-11, Nakhla teaches, as mentioned above, a thermal management system for an electrified vehicle (Fig 1 and 3: 64) that comprises of a battery pack (6), a pump (52), a heat transfer fluid flow path (44) (instant’s gas separator), an expansion tank (62) (instant’s reservoir) to receive gas from the heat transfer fluid flow path [0063], and a control module (84).
However, Nakhla fails to teach that the control module is programmed to operate the pump at a first or second speed depending of the temperature, and the specifics thereof (instant claims 9-11).
Long teaches a thermal management system for an energy storage system for an aircraft (an electric vehicle) that includes a pump circulating a thermal management fluid through the system. A controller circuitry may control a variable pumping capacity of the pump based on sensing pressure or temperature of the thermal management fluid (Abstract). The controller circuitry is configured to operate the pump at a first pumping capacity or a second pumping capacity (where the first pumping capacity is greater than the second pumping capacity) in response to the pressure or temperature being within a predetermined operating range [0102].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have programmed the controls of Nikhla in the thermal management system to operate the pump at different speeds depending on a predetermined temperature in order to respond to the absence of power of the battery and effectively cool the system (Abstract) (instant claims 9-10). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that because the system of Nikhla is continuously recycling, the de-gas tank is always configured to receive any gas in the system at any pump speed (instant claim 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights