DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 1/12/2026. Claims 11-12 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of "a coolant inlet line," "a coolant outlet line," or a pressure sensor and temperature sensor in communication with the coolant inlet line (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith, in figure 1, discloses coolant lines 20 connected to the inlet and outlet of heat exchanger 18, system pressure sensor 22 which measures the pressure of the fluid supplied to the heat exchanger inlet, and system temperature sensor 24 which measures the temperature of the fluid supplied to the heat exchanger inlet. See rejection below.
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings received on 1/12/2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the abstract and specification were received on 1/12/2026.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it replaces the word “valves” with “values” in line 9 without underlining, strike-through, or double brackets, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.121. 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:
In paragraph 6, lines 11-13, the operating conditions are amended to include “during coolant pump start up condition”, “during coolant pump running condition”, and “after the coolant pump shuts down condition”. However, paragraph 19 discloses the operating conditions are monitored at cooling pump start up, cooling pump running at different speeds, and cooling pump shut down. It is unclear whether the operating conditions refer to time periods in which monitoring is performed, or the monitored sensor measurements. Paragraphs 6 and 19 are further unclear because they do not user proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 19, lines 3-5, “cooling pump start up, cooling pump running at different speeds and cooling pump shut down” should read “coolant pump start up, coolant pump running at different speeds and coolant pump shut down”.
In paragraph 24, line 2, “cooling pressure” should read “coolant pressure”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim should be limited to a single colon because using multiple colons in a single sentence to form nested lists is grammatically incorrect which makes it difficult to determine the relationships between its limitations.
In lines 9 and 15, “cooling pressure sensor” should read “coolant pressure sensor”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In line 23, “determines that the coolant leak exits” should read “determines that the coolant leak exists”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In lines 23-24, “the controller generating an alert” should read “the controller generates an alert”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, lines 19-21, the limitation “compare the signals indicative of pressure of the coolant and the signals indicative of temperature of the coolant with at least a predetermined pressure value” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be explicit disclosure of comparing the coolant temperature with the predetermined pressure value. Paragraph 7 discloses the controller compares the pressure and temperature values with known accepted pressure and temperature values. Paragraphs 19-21 appear to disclose the coolant temperature sensor and coolant pressure sensor are used to evaluate the coolant pressure under different operating conditions, and the controller compares the pressure values under different operating conditions with acceptable pressure values and rates of pressure changes. Paragraph 24 similarly appears to disclose the using both coolant pressure and temperature to evaluate the coolant pressure under different operating conditions, and comparing the pressure values under different operating conditions with acceptable pressure values and rates of pressure changes. There appears to be disclosure of using the coolant temperature signal to evaluate the coolant pressure, but not comparing the coolant temperature signal to the predetermined pressure value.
Claim 12 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 11, line 2, the limitation “a battery pack having a cooling system that includes…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the cooling system is inside of or merely associated with the battery pack, and where each of the components are located with respect to the battery pack and cooling system. Paragraph 10 discloses figure 1 is a schematic view of a coolant monitoring system, and amended figure 1 discloses the coolant monitoring system includes a battery pack that includes cooling plates, a coolant pressure sensor, and a coolant temperature sensor. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the battery pack comprises the cooling plates and coolant sensors.
Regarding claim 11, lines 19-21, the limitation “compare the signals indicative of pressure of the coolant and the signals indicative of temperature of the coolant with at least a predetermined pressure value” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the signals indicative of temperature of the coolant are compared with the predetermined pressure value. As discussed above, there appears to be disclosure of using the coolant temperature signal to evaluate the coolant pressure, but not comparing the coolant temperature signal to the predetermined pressure value. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that only the signal indicative of pressure of the coolant is compared with the predetermined pressure value.
Claim 12 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2021/0270690), in view of Cook et al. (US 7,194,893) and McCarthy et al. (US 2025/0309458), hereinafter Cook and McCarthy, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Smith discloses a coolant monitoring system comprising: a cooling system (Smith; fig. 1: system 10) that includes: a heat exchanger (Smith; para. 37: heat sink 18 may be embodied as any form of heat exchanger) to provide cooling (Smith; para. 45: Heat QOUT is rejected from the liquid coolant to the environment E by the heat sink 18); a coolant inlet line coupled to heat exchanger, and configured to deliver a coolant to the heat exchanger (Smith; fig. 1: coolant line 20 connected to bottom of heat exchanger); a coolant outlet line coupled to the heat exchanger, and configured to permit the coolant to exit the heat exchanger (Smith; fig. 1: coolant line 20 connected to top of heat exchanger); a cooling pressure sensor in communication with the coolant inlet line and configured to generate signals indicative of a pressure of the coolant (Smith; fig. 1: system pressure sensor 22 measure the pressure of the fluid supplied to the heat exchanger); a temperature sensor in communication with the coolant inlet line and configured to generate signals indicative of a temperature of the coolant (Smith; fig. 1: system temperature sensor 24 measures the temperature of the fluid supplied to the heat exchanger); and a controller in communication with the cooling pressure sensor and the temperature sensor (Smith; fig. 1: processor 28), the controller being configured to monitor the signals indicative of pressure of the coolant and the signals indicative of temperature of the coolant over an elapsed amount of time (Smith; para. 42: The processor 28 also is configured to compare the actual pressure in the gas space 32 as detected by the system pressure sensor 22 to predicted variations in pressure in the gas space 32 as a function of variations in temperature within the system 10 as detected by the system temperature sensor 24 at predetermined intervals.), wherein the controller is configured to compare the signals indicative of pressure of the coolant and the signals indicative of temperature of the coolant with at least a predetermined pressure value that is indicative of no leak being present in the cooling system to determine if a coolant leak exists (Smith; paras. 49-51: The processor 28 is configured to determine the existence of a leak in the sealed cooling system 10, and to output a signal indicative of such a leak, by comparing actual pressure in the gas space 32 (as detected by the system pressure sensor 22) to the predicted pressure in the gas space 32 as a function of the temperature within the system 10 as detected by the system temperature sensor 24. With no leak in the sealed cooling system 10, the actual pressure in the gas space 32 is expected to closely correspond to the predicted pressure in the gas space 32 as a function of the liquid coolant temperature within a predetermined margin or tolerance … With a leak in the sealed cooling system 10, the actual pressure in the gas space 32 may be expected to vary substantially from the predicted pressure in the gas space 32 as a function of the liquid coolant temperature in various ways, thereby providing an indication of the presence, location, and extent of the leak in the sealed cooling system, as will be discussed further below.), and if the controller determines that the coolant leak exits, the controller generating an alert (Smith; para. 49: processor 28 is configured to determine the existence of a leak in the sealed cooling system 10, and to output a signal indicative of such a leak).
Although Smith discloses making comparisons at predetermined intervals and a processor, which inherently includes a clock, Smith does not explicitly disclose an independent time measurement device configured to generate a signal indicative of the elapsed amount of time.
Cook, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle leak detection systems), explicitly discloses a processor receives input from a separate time measurement device configured to generate a signal indicative of an elapsed amount of time (Cook; col. 4, ll. 24-27: The processor can either include the necessary memory or clock or be coupled to suitable circuits that implement those functions.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the cooling system of Smith to include a clock separate from the processor, as disclosed by Cook, to yield the predictable result of accurately determining time intervals between measurements.
Smith, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a battery pack that includes: the cooling pressure sensor; the temperature sensor; a plurality of cooling plates; the coolant inlet line is coupled to the plurality of cooling plates; and the coolant outlet line is coupled to the plurality of cooling plates, and configured to permit the coolant to exit the battery pack.
McCarthy, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle battery cooling systems), discloses a battery pack includes a cooling system (McCarthy; para. 42: cooling system 200 may [be] … integrated within the housing 111), a plurality of cooling plates; a coolant inlet line is coupled to the plurality of cooling plates; and a coolant outlet line is coupled to the plurality of cooling plates (McCarthy; para. 42: coolant lines 210 may comprise, be formed as, and/or connected to heat exchangers (e.g. cooling plates) arranged to exchange heat with the battery pack 110. Additionally, or alternatively, coolant lines 210 and/or heat exchangers may be incorporated in the housing 111 of the battery pack 110), and configured to permit coolant to exit the battery pack (McCarthy; para. 42: Coolant lines 210 may extend through the housing 111 of the battery pack 110 and/or be connected/arranged in a vicinity of the battery pack 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the heat exchanger, coolant temperature sensor, and coolant pressure sensor of Smith, as modified, to be installed inside a battery pack housing, as disclosed by McCarthy, and to further modify the heat exchanger of Smith, as modified, to include cooling plates, as further disclosed by McCarthy, to yield the predictable result of cooling a vehicle’s battery.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Smith, as modified, discloses the alert is generated in response to a drop in pressure from the predetermined pressure value (Smith; para. 73: processor 28 may be configured to determine and output a signal indicative of a large leak in the event the pressure in the gas space 32 does not rise with increasing coolant temperature and if the output pressure of the coolant pump 14 is decreasing or lost).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665