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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“46” (see paragraphs [0029], [0078], [0094], and [0108] of the specification);
“18A” and “18B” (see paragraph [0068] of the specification); and
“112” (see paragraph [0092] of the specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “42A” and “44A” (Figure 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the legal terms “comprises” (in the 1st and 4th lines) and “comprising” (in the 1st line).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there are four instances of “dielectric liquid”, whereas a substantial portion of the specification and claims recites “dielectric fluid”. Although “dielectric liquid” and “dielectric fluid” are believed to be the same material, the applicants are suggested to amend to select one of these terms throughout the abstract, specification, and claims for consistency, and it is believed that “dielectric fluid” is more standard for suggested changes. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: throughout the specification, numerous occasions of both “dielectric liquid” and “dielectric fluid” are used. Although “dielectric liquid” and “dielectric fluid” are believed to be the same material, the applicants are suggested to amend to select one of these terms throughout the specification for consistency, and it is believed that “dielectric fluid” is more standard for suggested changes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the 12th line of claim 1, replace “liquid” with “fluid” after “at least one dielectric” since not only are there numerous instances of “dielectric fluid” throughout claim 1 and in a portion of the dependent claims, but the limitation “dielectric fluid” is believed to be more standard. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this instance, independent claim 1 includes the limitation “mechanism for holding the stack suitable for clamping…”, which appears to include (at least) two end flanges (100A,100B) and (optionally) at least one tie rod (102), as set forth in paragraphs [0022], [0065]-[0068], and [0118] of the substitute specification, and as shown in Figures 1, 4, and 5 of applicants’ drawings.
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.
Claims 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "the intermediate parts" in the 9th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the intermediate parts" with "the at least one intermediate part" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one intermediate part" in the 6th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 13th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 14th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the or each intermediate part" in the 15th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the or each intermediate part" with "the at least one intermediate part" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one intermediate part" in the 6th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 16th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the open channel" in the 16th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the open channel" with "the at least one open channel" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one open channel" in the 15th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" bridging the 16th and 17th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the periphery" in the 17th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 17th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intermediate part" bridging the 19th and 20th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the intermediate part" with "the at least one intermediate part" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one intermediate part" in the 6th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrochemical cell" in the 20th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “each” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the or each intermediate part" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the or each intermediate part" with "the at least one intermediate part" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one intermediate part" in the 6th line of claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the intermediate part" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the intermediate part" with "the at least one intermediate part" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one intermediate part" in the 6th line of claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the intermediate part" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the intermediate part" with "the at least one intermediate part" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one intermediate part" in the 6th line of claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the intermediate part" in the 7th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the intermediate part" with "the at least one intermediate part" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one intermediate part" in the 6th line of claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the intermediate part" bridging the 7th and 8th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the intermediate part" with "the at least one intermediate part" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one intermediate part" in the 6th line of claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" bridging the 8th and 9th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first open channel" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first open channel" with "the at least one first open channel" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first open channel" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines of claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second open channel" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second open channel" with "the at least one second open channel" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second open channel" in the 8th line of claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the open channel" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the open channel" with "the at least one open channel" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one open channel" in the 15th line of claim 1. Since claim 6 depends from claim 5, claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claim 6 depends from claim 5, claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the two distinct openings" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the two distinct openings" with "the at least two distinct openings" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two distinct openings" bridging the last two lines of claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the two distinct openings" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the two distinct openings" with "the at least two distinct openings" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two distinct openings" bridging the last two lines of claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the area" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cross-section" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the dielectric liquid flow" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the dielectric liquid flow” with “a dielectric fluid flow” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “less than 2 mm2”, and the claim also recites “in particular between 0.5 mm2 and 2 mm2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "dielectric liquid" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “dielectric liquid” with “dielectric fluid” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the supply inlet" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the discharge outlet" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claim 8, the limitation “being intended to be” is indefinite, as it is unclear as to whether or not the cooling circuit has a supply inlet and a discharge outlet connected thereto. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “being intended to be” with “are” (or similar) for clarity.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the holding mechanism" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicants are referred to the above Claim Interpretation section as it pertains to the limitation “mechanism for holding” in independent claim 1. Since claim 10 depends from claim 9, claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tie rod" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the tie rod" with "the at least one tie rod" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one tie rod" in the 4th line of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tie rod" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the tie rod" with "the at least one tie rod" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one tie rod" in the 4th line of claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the holding mechanism" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicants are referred to the above Claim Interpretation section as it pertains to the limitation “mechanism for holding” in independent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the hatch" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the hatch" with "the at least one hatch" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one hatch" bridging the 4th and 5th lines of claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the electrical connection tabs" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the electrical connection tabs" with "the at least one electrical connection tab" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one electrical connection tab" in the 3rd line of claim 12. Since claim 13 depends from claim 12, claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1. Since claim 13 depends from claim 12, claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the connection system" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the connection system" with "the at least one connection system" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one connection system" in the 2nd line of claim 13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the electronic management system" bridging the 4th and 5th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the dielectric liquid" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric liquid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the broad recitation “pouch”, and the claim also recites “in particular is a lithium ion electrochemical cell in a pouch format or wherein each electrochemical cell comprises an element of prismatic shape” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the dielectric liquid" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric liquid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the or each open channel" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the or each open channel" with "the at least one open channel" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one open channel" in the 15th line of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the dielectric fluid" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the dielectric fluid" with "the at least one dielectric fluid" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one dielectric fluid" in the 12th line of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the prismatic element" bridging the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the broad recitation “vehicle”, and the claim also recites “in particular a motor vehicle” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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)(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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 3 107 613 A1, of which a complete copy of the French document with a machine translation was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated April 10, 2024.
Regarding independent claim 1, FR ‘613 discloses a battery module (see abstract; paragraphs [0034]-[0057] of the French document corresponding to pages 9-16 of the machine translation (see the right-side columns of pages 9-16); claims 1-10 of the machine translation (see the right-side columns of pages 2 and 3); page 4 of the machine translation; and Figures 1-3), in which the battery module (1) comprises the following structural features:
a housing (casing (13)) defining an interior volume (14) – see abstract; pages 9 and 14 of translation; and Figure 1;
a stack comprising a plurality of electrochemical cells (C1,C2,C3) stacked in the interior volume (14), at least one intermediate part (spacers (l1,l2)) interposed between each pair of adjacent electrochemical cells (C1,C2,C3), and a mechanism for holding the stack suitable for clamping (via clamping means (2,3)) the electrochemical cells (C1,C2,C3) and the intermediate parts (l1,l2) against one another, the stack being contained in the interior volume (14) – see abstract; pages 9-11 and 14 of translation; and Figure 1; and
at least one dielectric fluid for cooling the stack (see pages 13 and 14 of translation),
wherein the dielectric fluid fills the interior volume (14), such that the stack is totally immersed in the dielectric fluid (see pages 13 and 14 of translation), and
wherein the intermediate parts (l1,l2) define at least one open channel (flow channels (10) – see Figures 1-3) for flow of the dielectric fluid opening onto a periphery of the stack and opening facing a main face of at least one electrochemical cell (C1,C2,C3), wherein the main face is applied against the intermediate parts (l1,l2) to place the main face of the at least one (or each) electrochemical cell (C1,C2,C3) into contact with the dielectric fluid (see pages 9-11, 13, and 14 of translation; and Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, FR ‘613 discloses that the intermediate parts (l1,l2) define a plurality of open channels (openings (6,7) that overlap to form the flow channel (10)) for circulating the dielectric fluid separated from each other (see abstract; pages 9 and 10 of translation; and Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, FR ‘613 discloses that the intermediate parts (l1,l2) define at least one first open channel (6) for flow of the dielectric fluid opening toward a first main face of a first electrochemical cell (C1) adjacent to the intermediate parts (l1,l2), and closed toward a second main face of a second electrochemical cell (C2) adjacent to the intermediate parts (l1,l2), located opposite the first electrochemical cell (C1) relative to the intermediate parts (l1,l2), the intermediate parts (l1,l2) comprising at least one second open channel (7) for flow of the dielectric fluid opening toward the second main face of the second electrochemical cell (C2), and closed toward the first main face of the first electrochemical cell (C1) – see pages 9 and 10 of translation; and Figures 1-3.
Regarding claim 4, FR ‘613 discloses that a bottom of the first open channel (6) for flow of the dielectric fluid is applied against the second main face of the second electrochemical cell (C2), a bottom of the second open channel (7) for flow of the dielectric fluid is applied against the first main face of the first electrochemical cell (C1) – see pages 9 and 10 of translation; and Figures 1-3.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, FR ‘613 discloses that the plurality of open channels (6,7) for flow of the dielectric fluid opens into a periphery of the stack via at least two distinct openings, wherein the two distinct openings open into two distinct faces of the stack, in two opposite or adjacent faces of the stack (see pages 9 and 10 of translation; and Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 8, FR ‘613 discloses that the housing (13) defines a supply inlet (16) for supplying dielectric fluid into the interior volume (14) and a discharge outlet (17) for discharging dielectric fluid out from the interior volume (14), the supply inlet (16) and the discharge outlet (17) are connected to a cooling circuit of the dielectric fluid that would have a circulating pump (see pages 12-14 of translation; and Figures 1-3).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, FR ‘613 discloses that the holding mechanism (2,3) comprises two end flanges (plates), arranged on either side of the stack, and at least one tie rod connecting the two end flanges, wherein at least one of the end flanges comprises an inner face intended to be placed opposite an electrochemical cell (C1,C2,C3) of the stack, the inner face being curved before clamping the stack using the at least one tie rod and flattening on a main face of an electrochemical cell (C1,C2,C3) after the stack is clamped using the at least one tie rod (see abstract; pages 9-11 of translation; and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, FR ‘613 discloses that the housing (13) comprises a lateral access opening (adjacent the openings (6,7)) and an opposite internal face located opposite the lateral access opening, the holding mechanism (2,3) comprising a hatch for closing the lateral access opening able to compress the stack between the hatch and the opposite face (see abstract; pages 9, 10, and 14 of translation; and Figure 1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, FR ‘613 discloses that each electrochemical cell (C1,C2,C3) defines at least one electrical connection tab protruding from the stack, the at least one electrical connection tab being immersed in the dielectric fluid, wherein a connection system and an electronic system for managing the battery module (1) connect to each electrical connection tab, the connection system and the electronic system being immersed in the dielectric fluid (see pages 13-15 of translation; and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, FR ‘613 discloses that each electrochemical cell (C1,C2,C3) comprises a lithium ion electrochemical cell in either of pouch or prismatic shape, the dielectric fluid present in each open channel for flow of the dielectric fluid in contact thereof (see pages 13-15 of translation; and Figure 1).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, FR ‘613 discloses a battery that comprises at least one battery module (1) of claim 1, as well as a vehicle that comprises at least one battery of claim 15 (see abstract; pages 4 and 15 of translation; and Figure 1).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3 107 613 A1.
Regarding claim 7, although FR ‘613 discloses the features of independent claim 1, FR ‘613 does not explicitly disclose that an area of a cross-section of each open channel of dielectric liquid (fluid) flow is less than 2 mm2. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a cross-sectional area of each open channel would be readily determined by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success (based also on a total number of open channels in combination with cross-sectional area of each open channel), thus obtaining a “total” cross-sectional area of the plurality of open channels (6,7) that overlap to form the flow channel (10) for circulating the dielectric fluid (see abstract; pages 9 and 10 of translation; and Figures 1-3). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights