DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 7 January 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-21 are currently presented for examination of which claims 16-21 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-15, in the reply filed on 7 January 2026 is acknowledged.
The examiner notes that claim 16 has been amended to recite “formed with the method of claim 1” at lines 1-2 and requested rejoinder of the product claims 16-21, however rejoinder is not ripe at this time.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 16-21.
Each of claims 16-21 has been presented with inaccurate status identifiers, such as “Original” or “Currently Amended.” Claims 16-21 were restricted in the Office Action of 6 November 2025, and while Applicant has amended the claims and requested rejoinder0.0, any non-elected claims must have either status identifiers “Withdrawn” or “Withdrawn – Currently Amended.” (See MPEP 714(C)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1, 7, and 10-14
Claims 1, 7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0167442 to Becker et al. (hereinafter “Becker”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0296728 to Kim et al. (hereinafter ”Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoplastic heat exchanger for a battery module (intended use; see Title), the method comprising: providing a battery interface portion (19) having a battery interface surface (lower surface of portion 19 adjacent volume 8; see Fig. 6) and a chamber surface (upper wall 9; see Fig. 6) opposite the battery interface surface, the battery interface portion (19) comprising a first thermoplastic composition (see paragraph [0070]; exemplary materials polypropylene, polyamide, polyester); injection molding (see paragraph [0067]) a base portion (18) having a channeled surface (internal surface divided by segments 16’; see Fig. 6) defining a plurality of channels (cells 2) and an outer surface (lower wall 10) opposite the channeled surface (see Fig. 6), the base portion (18) comprising a second thermoplastic composition (see paragraphs [0067] and [0070]; housing 3 formed of thermoplastic material, housing 3 can comprise base portion 18 formed by injection molding); and melt-bonding (joining may be by melting; see paragraph [0071]) the battery interface portion (19) and the base portion (18) such that the chamber surface (lower portion of wall adjacent volume 8; see Fig. 6) cooperates with the plurality of channels (2) of channeled surface (internal surface divided by segments 16’; see Fig. 6) to define a flow chamber (hollow spaces at interior of body 3) for a thermal cooling fluid (intended use) within the thermoplastic heat exchanger.
Becker does not explicitly disclose that the battery interface portion is provided by extruding.
However, it is known in the art of battery containers to provide portions of the housings by extrusion.
For example, Kim teaches a battery container module (see Title) including an inner frame member (1200). The inner frame may be formed by an extrusion process (see paragraph [0388]) and may be formed of a plastic composite material (see paragraph [0389]) which may include an adhesive which has a thermoplastic component (see paragraph [0467]) such as polyamide or thermoplastic polyester.
It would been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Becker to include forming components of the battery interface portion by a conventional process, such as extrusion, as taught by Kim. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably produce a battery housing component in a conventional and predictable manner without modification of the principles of operation of Becker. Because both Becker and Kim teach that the thermoplastic material may be polyester or polyamide, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that each would be extrudable to produce the battery housing shape.
Thus, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Becker discloses that the first and the second thermoplastic composition (body formed of a thermoplastic; see paragraph [0070]) are the same or different (materials are understood to be the same) and comprise a polymer selected from polyamide (polyamide disclosed; see paragraph [0070]), polycarbonate, and polypropylene (polypropylene disclosed; see paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Becker teaches that the first thermoplastic composition (portion 18 may be provided with surface elements 7, which may have high thermal conductivity; see paragraphs [0038] and [0049]) has a higher thermal conductivity than the second thermoplastic composition (portion 19 may include portion 9 with low thermal conductivity; see paragraph [0038] and paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose that the battery interface portion has a thickness of 0.5 to 5 mm; and the base portion has a thickness of from 2.5 to 10 mm exclusive of the plurality of channels.
However, the MPEP instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that indicates that a battery interface and base portion having the recited dimensions would behave differently than battery interfaces and base portions having thicknesses defined outside of the claimed dimensions, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the method taught by the combination would produce a device which is not patentably distinct from the claims.
Thus, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose that the flow chamber has a cross sectional area of from 10 to 900 mm2.
However, the MPEP instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that indicates that a flow chamber having the recited dimensions would behave differently than a flow chamber having a cross section defined outside of the claimed dimensions, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the method taught by the combination would produce a device which is not patentably distinct from the claims.
Thus, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Becker teaches comprising the step of injection molding (see paragraph [0067]) an inlet port (12) and an outlet port (also 12; see Fig. 4) each having a body (material surrounding inlet and outlet; see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0059]) and defining a flow channel (12’; see Fig. 5) into the base portion (18).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Becker teaches comprising the step of injection molding (see paragraph [0067]) an inlet port (12) comprising a third thermoplastic composition (see paragraph [0070]; thermoplastic material) and an outlet port (also 12, spaced apart; see Fig. 4) comprising a fourth thermoplastic composition (see paragraph [0067]; claim not understood to require that the first, second, third, or fourth thermoplastic composition are different compositions from one another).
Claims 8-9
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Becker and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0369545 to Naritomi et al. (hereinafter “Naritomi”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Becker and Kim teaches the limits of claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly disclose that the first and/or the second thermoplastic composition comprises a polyamide selected from polyamide 6, polyamide 11, polyamide 12, polyamide 46, polyamide 6,10, polyamide 6,12, and polyamide PPA, however both Becker and Kim teach that the thermoplastic composition may include polyamide (see Becker paragraph [0070] and Kim paragraph [0467]).
Naritomi teaches a heat exchanger (1) comprising a thermoplastic material (see paragraph [0035]). The exchanger may be formed of a thermoplastic resin including having a polyamide resin as a main component (see paragraph [0035]) such as polyamide 6 or polyamide 66 (see paragraph [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of Becker and Kim to include a conventional polyamide, such as polyamide 6, as taught by Naritomi. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably include a conventional material, understood to be suitable for use in a heat exchanger as taught by Naritomi, without modification of the principles of operation of Becker and Kim.
Thus, the combination of Becker, Kim, and Naritomi teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Becker, Kim, and Naritomi teaches the limitations of claim 8, and further Kim teaches that the first and/or the second thermoplastic composition comprises a fibrous filler selected from aramid fibers, carbon fibers, cellulose fibers, acrylic fibers, polyvinyl alcohol fibers, glass fibers, and mineral fibers (see paragraph [0491]; reinforced fiber for layup may include at least glass fiber, carbon fiber, cellulose fiber, and mineral fibers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 15 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:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “contacting a first bonding portion of the chamber surface with a laser beam; contacting a second bonding portion of the channeled surface with another laser beam; and subsequently contacting the chamber surface and the channeled surface to weld the battery interface portion and the base portion and form the thermoplastic heat exchanger,” in combination with the remaining limitations.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “contacting the battery interface surface or the outer surface with a laser beam such that the laser beam travels through the battery interface portion or the base portion, respectively, to melt the first and/or the second thermoplastic compositions at the interface and weld the battery interface portion and the base portion together to form the thermoplastic heat exchanger,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Becker teaches that components may be secured by laser welding (see paragraph [0085]), but does not fairly teach a laser beam traveling through the battery interface or the base portion to produce the welding.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “rotationally contacting the inlet port about a perimeter of the first opening to generate friction sufficient to melt a portion of the third thermoplastic composition; cooling the melted portion of the third thermoplastic composition to weld the inlet port to the thermoplastic heat exchanger; rotationally contacting the outlet port about a perimeter of the second opening to generate friction sufficient to melt a portion of the fourth thermoplastic composition; and cooling the melted portion of the fourth thermoplastic composition to weld the outlet port to the thermoplastic heat exchanger,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0305544 to Miloaga et al. (hereinafter “Miloaga”) a method for forming a thermoplastic housing for a battery (see abstract).
United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0273405 to Henderson et al. (hereinafter “Henderson”) teaches a thermoplastic assembly formed by injection molding (paragraph [0056]) which may be assembled by melt-bonding (paragraph [0064]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (517) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726