DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted May 29, 2024, April 1, 2025, July 8, 2025, and December 30, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
5. Claims 7-8 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. Claim 7 is dependent upon Claim 6, which has been cancelled, which renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. To advance prosecution, Claim 7 will be considered dependent upon Claim 1, which newly contains the subject matter of now-cancelled Claim 6. Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent on rejected Claim 7.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge CN214477762 in view of Peng CN215220919.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 5, Ge discloses a box of a battery comprising a thermal management component (liquid cooling plate) 3 configured to accommodate a fluid to adjust a temperature of the battery (paras n0003-n0006), an end region of a first edge of the thermal management component being provided with a protrusion which protrudes outwards in a first direction (x), the first direction (x) being parallel to the first edge of the thermal management component, and the protrusion and second edge of the thermal management component forming a recess, and a connecting plate accommodated in the recess and connected o the second edge and the protrusion, wherein a mounting beam 4 is provided on the connecting plate via friction stir welding with the second edge (para n0037, meeting Claim 2) and in an integrated manner (since Ge teaches that the whole box is an integrated box and the mounting beams are integrated with the connecting plate, paras 0037, 0043, meeting Claim 5), and the mounting beam extends in the second direction (y) parallel to the second edge and is configured to mount components in the battery (see entire disclosure and especially all Figs and paras n0037-0047). Ge does not specifically recite wherein the box further includes a mounting block provided on the protrusion, the mounting block abuts against the mounting beam, and the mounting block cooperates with the mounting beam and is configured to mount components in the battery. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery box design, Peng discloses wherein fixing members such a rails and frame members are matched with, and fixed to, fixing blocks in order to secure the battery assembly together in a quick, convenient, and labor-saving manner (see e.g. paras n0005-n0009, n0024-n0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include in the battery box of Ge a mounting block on the protrusion such that the mounting block cooperates with the mounting beam and is configured to mount components in the battery because Peng teaches that fixing a mounting or fixing block to a mounting beam or rail allows for battery elements to be assembled together in a quick, convenient, and labor-saving manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Ge discloses wherein a flow channel cavity (e.g. liquid cooling channel) is provided in the thermal management component 3 (see at least e.g. Fig 2 and paras n0011-n0012, n0039-n0040) and but does not specifically disclose wherein and a cavity wall of the flow channel cavity has a thickness less than or equal to 1.5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the flow channel cavity of Ge such that the best thickness for a cavity wall is determined such that e.g. the cavity is structurally supported while allowing for enough volume of coolant to flow to cool the battery properly, and the skilled artisan could easily arrive at a wall thickness less than or equal to 1.5 mm, since the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held 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.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the annotated Fig of Ge below shows that the thermal management component 3 comprises two first edges parallel to each other, and end regions of the two first edges that are located on the same side are each provided with the protrusion which protrudes outwardly in the first direction (x) and the second edge is connected to the two protrusions for to form a recess, wherein end regions located on two sides of each of the two first edges are each provided with the protrusion which protrudes outwardly in the first direction (x), and the thermal management component comprises two second edges parallel to each other and each second edge is connected to two respective protrusions to form one recess (meeting Claim 10) (the annotated Fig shows only one end of the thermal management component but both ends have the same design).
Regarding Claim 11, Ge discloses in para n0044 and shown in the Figs. that the thermal management component 3 includes two parts 35/36 (first liquid cooling plate 35 and second liquid cooling plate 36) welded to each other where a weld seam is formed between the parts and is parallel to the first edge and perpendicular to the second edge).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Ge discloses in para n0037 a support beam 2 extending in the first direction (x) and provided on the first edge of the thermal management component 3 and the protrusion since 2 is attached at the first edge as shown in the Figs, and teaches that battery box is an integrated box, which shows that the support beam and thermal management component 3 are of an integrated structure (para 0023, “the liquid-cooled integrated housing proposed in this utility model includes side beams, module mounting beams, and liquid cooling plates”.
Regarding Claim 14, Ge teaches that the thermal management component 3 and connecting plate 4 are connected to each other to form a bottom plate of the box and are made of aluminum (para n0046).
Regarding Claims 16-17, Ge does not specifically disclose a battery comprising a battery cell with the box described above accommodating the battery cell and does not disclose an electrical apparatus, per se, comprising the battery of Claim 16, which supplies electric energy to the electrical apparatus, but Ge very clearly discloses the battery box as being used to hold a battery (which necessarily includes a battery cell) and as an improvement to known battery technology used in electric vehicles (see para n0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the disclosed battery box to house a battery that includes a battery cell and to use this battery in an electrical apparatus in a vehicle since Ge teaches that this is the intended use for the technology disclosed and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 18, Ge modified by Peng discloses a method for preparing a battery box comprising providing a box comprising a thermal management component configured to accommodate a fluid to adjust the temperature of a battery cell, an end region of the first edge of the thermal management component being provided with a protrusion which protrudes outwardly in a first direction (x), the first direction (x) being parallel to the first edge of the thermal management component, and the protrusion and a second edge of the thermal management component forming a recess, and a connecting plate accommodated in the recess and connected to the second edge and the protrusion, wherein a mounting beam 4 is provided on the connecting plate, and the mounting beam extends in a second direction (y) parallel to the second edge and is configured to mount components in the battery box of Ge and Peng, wherein the box further includes a mounting block provided on the protrusion, the mount block abuts against the mounting beam, and the mounting block cooperates with the mounting beam and is configured to mount components in the battery box (see the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety, as all provisions of the structure herein are disclosed by Ge and Peng) (see entire disclosure and especially all Figs and paras 0007-n0012, n0037-0047 of Ge). Ge does not specifically disclose a battery comprising a battery cell with the box described above accommodating the battery cell, but Ge very clearly discloses the battery box as being used to hold a battery (which necessarily includes a battery cell) (see e.g. para n0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the disclosed battery box to house a battery that includes a battery cell such that the method of Ge modified by Peng is directed to prepare a battery (the battery box preparation being part of such a process) since Ge teaches that this is the intended use for the technology disclosed and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
7. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge CN214477762 in view of Peng CN215220919, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Cheng CN110762088.
Regarding Claim 7, Ge modified by Peng discloses the claimed battery box as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Ge modified by Peng discloses that the mounting block is welded indirectly (via the connecting plate on which it sits) to the mating surface of the thermal management component 3 by friction stir welding (as described above), but fails to specifically disclose that the mounting block is welded to the protrusion by an arc welding process. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery box bottom plate design, Chen discloses that when welding portions of a bottom plate together, friction stir welding and arc welding are functionally equivalent forms of welding for use in this type of structure (see e.g. para 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use arc welding to weld indirectly (via the connecting plate on which it sits) to the mating surface of the thermal management component 3 of Ge modified by Peng, which includes the protrusion, since Chen teaches that friction stir welding and arc welding are functionally equivalent forms of welding for use in this type of structure.
Regarding Claim 8, Ge discloses wherein a coolant access cavity (e.g. coolant channel) is provided in the cooling plate 3 (see e.g. Figs and paras n0011-n0012) and provides this channel in the protrusions (see Fig. 2) but does not specifically disclose wherein the coolant access cavity is a water access cavity and a cavity wall of the water access cavity that faces the mounting block has a thickness greater than or equal to 2 mm. However, the coolant access cavity of Ge is capable of being used for water and so it qualifies as a water access cavity, since “water” could be used as the coolant and is therefore an intended use. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the coolant access cavity of Ge in the protrusion and to determine the best thickness for a cavity wall such that e.g. the cavity is structurally supported, and could easily arrive at a wall thickness greater than or equal to 2 mm, since the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held 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.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wen CN207217635 discloses a battery box cooling plate having guide beams (structural beams) 170 abutting other structural beams and having fasteners to fix the battery module (see entire disclosure and especially Fig 1 and e.g. paras 0067-0068).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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 Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729