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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claims amendments received August 27, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 4, 11-12, and 15 are amended; resulting in claims 1-15 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer, et al. (US 2024/0258612 A1), cited on IDS, in view of Bourke, et al. (US 2007/0087266 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches a battery module comprising a liquid-tight housing (110) formed by a first end plate (114; front plate), a second end plate (116; back plate), and profile housing (113; single battery housing) (¶ [0086], Ln. 1-5; Fig. 1). As shown in Figures 1 and 4, the first end plate (114) and second end plate (116) are formed on opposite sides of the housing and the profile housing includes four plates, forming the shape of a square pipe. The profile housing accommodates a plurality of battery cells (120) and a first tempering fluid (¶ [0087], Ln. 1-5). The first tempering fluid is pumped through first fluid channels (11), with the inlet and outlet disposed on the first end plate (114) (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-6); Fig. 3, 7). Each battery cell is in thermal contact with the first tempering fluid (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-7). The plurality of battery cells make up a battery stack (cell assembly) as shown in Figures 19-20. Cell holders (140) hold the individual battery cells in position by covering about 50% of the lateral surface of the cells, and complement the next row of battery cell holders to hold the battery cells in position, forming holes to accommodate the cell body (¶ [0126], Ln. 1-11; Fig. 13-20).
Meyer teaches that the cells are electrically connected to each other by connection sheets (123a-d; at least two cell connectors), which connect to the plus or minus poles of the battery cells and then to electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b; assembly electrodes) (¶ [0111], Ln. 1-9). The electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) are electrically connected to the battery cells and are arranged in respective sealed holes (enclosure interfaces) within the first end plate (114; front plate) and second end plate (116) (¶ [0092], Ln. 1-6, 10-14). The electrical feedthrough extending from the battery cells to the sealed hole is immersed in the first tempering fluid. The electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) allow access to voltage of the battery module from the outside by way of the sealed holes (¶ [0092], Ln. 8-10), which therefore electrically expose the battery stack to the external of the battery housing. Meyer does not expressly teach that both sealed holes are disposed on the first end plate (114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer such that the negative electrical feedthrough (117b) is connected to a sealed hole located in the first end plate (114) rather than the second end plate (116). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that electrodes are commonly placed on the same side of a battery module. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification obvious and would be motivated to include both electrode connections on the same side of the battery module for easy connection to external devices.
Meyer further teaches that battery modules may be electrically connected to form a battery pack (¶ [0128], Ln. 1-4), however, Meyer does not expressly teach that two battery stacks (cell assemblies) are installed in the same profile housing (113), wherein each of the battery stacks are coupled to a corresponding enclosure interface such that the two battery stacks are electrically exposed to the external of the battery housing.
Bourke teaches a modular battery system containing a plurality of battery modules and a cooling manifold, with the battery modules connected in series (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-7). Bourke teaches that the plurality of battery modules (101) are arranged in a system housing (102), further teaching that the modules are secured by rails (110) on the sides of the system housing (102) (¶ [0043], Ln. 9-12, 15-18; Fig. 6). Bourke teaches that the rails include securing rings, and the modular system including a plurality of modules on rails allows modules to be transported or maneuvered into and out of the system housing (¶ [0044], Ln. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer to include a second battery stack (cell assembly) in the same profile housing as the first battery stack and connected in series, based on the teachings of Bourke. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an additional cell assembly, making the battery module a modular system. Modular battery systems allow a cell assembly to be transported or maneuvered into and out of the housing without impacting the entire battery module. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a rail system based on the teachings of Bourke to transport each battery stack. In including a second battery stack in the profile housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that an additional set of electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) would be included as well. Thus, the first end plate would include four sealed holes (enclosure interfaces) in order to connect with the two electrical feedthroughs of each battery stack, electrically exposing each of the two battery stacks to the exterior of the battery housing.
Further, in modifying the battery module of Meyer to include a second battery stack (cell assembly) in the same profile housing (113), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the flow of the first tempering fluid through the first battery stack would apply to the second battery stack. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to continue the flow of tempering fluid through the second battery stack in order to effectively cool all of the battery cells within the module, such that both cell assemblies are immersed in the tempering fluid.
Meyer further teaches that the first tempering fluid cools the battery cells on a circuit, defined by first fluid channels (111; flow control members) (¶ [0123], Ln. 1-7), which are located between the subsets of cells, and therefore between the battery stacks (Fig. 7). Meyer does not expressly teach that the flow first fluid channels include bulkhead members attached to an inner surface of the housing such that the first fluid channels function as walls to guide to flow of fluid through the cell assemblies in sequence.
Bourke teaches that the battery module is enclosed on all sides and includes a first endplate (401) and second endplate (402; front plate) (¶ [0065], Ln. 1-5; Fig. 4A), wherein the first endplate (401) is positioned remotely from the second endplate (402; front plate). Coolant enters the battery module through the container inlet (1650; fluid inlet) and exits the container outlet (1670; fluid outlet) (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-14). Bourke teaches that ribs (1643) are included to define fluid pathways (¶ [0071], Ln. 9-11), and as shown in Figure 4F below, the ribs are attached to an inner surface of the housing. In this case, the ribs attached to the inner surface act as bulkhead members to guide the flow of coolant. Bourke teaches that the coolant can be made to circulate through the container in different ways, based on the partitions in the coolant channels (¶ [0073], Ln. 1-5). Bourke teaches directing the coolant through each module in a serpentine path as shown in Figure 4F, which is referred to as a serial connection (¶ [0074], Ln. 14-18).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4F, while not shown in the PGPub, was made publicly available on 09/01/2010 in the file wrapper of application 11/252,925, corresponding to US 2007/0087266 to Bourke et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer to include a cooling manifold as taught by Bourke. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cooling circuit taught by Meyer could be altered using ribs and partitions as taught by Bourke in order to circulate the first tempering fluid throughout the battery module in different ways. In doing so, the ribs would function as bulkhead members attached to the inner surface of the profile housing to guide the flow of first tempering fluid. One would be motivated to alter the cooling circuit to a serial connection in order to effectively cool each battery stack.
Regarding claims 2 and 5-6, Meyer in view of Bourke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Meyer does not expressly teach a sealing member neighboring the first end plate (114; front plate) to obstruct a front passage between two neighboring battery stacks.
Bourke teaches that ribs (1643; sealing member) are included to define fluid pathways (¶ [0071], Ln. 9-11), and as shown in Figure 4F below, the ribs neighbor the first and second endplates to obstruct the fluid from flowing between neighboring cell assemblies. In this case, the ribs act as stoppers or bulkhead members to prevent flow from entering neighboring cell assemblies. Bourke teaches that the coolant can be made to circulate through the container in different ways, based on the partitions in the coolant channels (¶ [0073], Ln. 1-5). Bourke teaches directing the coolant through each module in a serpentine path as shown in Figure 4F, which is referred to as a serial connection (¶ [0074], Ln. 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer to include the cooling manifold of Bourke as explained above. In modifying the battery module of Meyer to include a cooling manifold as taught by Bourke, the ribs would function as a stopper or bulkhead member neighboring the first end plate (114; front plate) to obstruct a front passage between two neighboring battery stacks. One would be motivated to alter the cooling circuit to a serial connection in order to effectively cool each battery stack.
Regarding claims 3-4, Meyer in view of Bourke teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Meyer does not expressly teach a front passage comprising a first front opening neighboring the first end plate (114; front plate) and located at a lower surface of one of the two battery stacks and a second front opening corresponding to the first front opening and located at an upper surface of another of the two battery stacks, wherein a sealing member covers the first front opening and second front opening to prevent fluid from flowing through the front passage neighboring the first end plate. Meyer additionally does not teach a back passage comprising a first back opening positioned remotely from the first end plate and located at a lower surface of one of the two battery stacks and a second back opening facing the first back opening and located at an upper surface of another of the two battery stacks, wherein a sealing member is remotely positioned from the first back opening and second back opening to allow fluid to through the fluid passage positioned remotely from the first end plate.
Bourke teaches that the battery module is enclosed on all sides and includes a first endplate (401) and second endplate (402; front plate) (¶ [0065], Ln. 1-5; Fig. 4A), wherein the first endplate (401) is positioned remotely from the second endplate (402; front plate). Coolant enters the battery module through the container inlet (1650; fluid inlet), located on the second endplate (402; front plate), and exits the container outlet (1670; fluid outlet) (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-14). Ribs (1643; sealing member) are included to define fluid pathways (¶ [0071], Ln. 9-11), and as shown in Figure 4F, the ribs neighbor the first and second endplates to obstruct the fluid from flowing between neighboring cell assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer to include the cooling manifold of Bourke as explained above. In modifying the battery module of Meyer to include a cooling manifold as taught by Bourke, there would be openings and sealing members at the first end plate (114; front plate) and second end plate (116) that allow the first tempering fluid to flow in a serial connection, preventing fluid from moving through a passage neighboring the first end plate and allowing fluid to move through a passage positioned remotely from the front plate. One would be motivated to alter the cooling circuit to a serial connection in order to effectively cool each battery cell.
Regarding claim 7, Meyer in view of Bourke teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Meyer does not expressly teach that each of the flow control members is a bulkhead member attached to an inner surface of the profile housing and is inserted between the two battery stacks for separating the battery stacks from each other, including a bulkhead opening such that the fluid passage between the battery stacks remains unobstructed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer to include the cooling manifold of Bourke as explained above. In modifying the battery module of Meyer to include a cooling manifold as taught by Bourke such that ribs, acting as bulkhead members, are attached to the inner surface of the profile housing to guide first tempering fluid, ribs would additionally be included in between the first and second battery stack. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that bulkhead openings would be required in order for the first tempering fluid to flow from the first battery stack to the second battery stack, as both battery stacks would need to be cooled. One would be motivated to include the ribs in these positions in order to effectively cool each battery cell.
Regarding claim 8, Meyer in view of Bourke teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above, and as shown in Figure 4F of Bourke above, the combination of references includes an opening between the ribs neighboring the back plate, and therefore positioned remotely from the front plate.
Regarding claim 9, Meyer in view of Bourke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and as noted above, in including a second battery stack in the profile housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that an additional set of electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) would be included as well. Thus, the first end plate would include four sealed holes (enclosure interfaces) in order to connect with the two electrical feedthroughs of each battery stack, electrically exposing each of the two battery stacks to the exterior of the battery housing. Therefore, the combination of references teaches four sealed holes, twice as many as the number of battery stacks.
Regarding claims 10-12, Meyer in view of Bourke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and as noted above, the combination of references includes a rail system based on the teachings of Bourke to transport each battery stack, extending from a front end to a back end of two of the four plates comprising the profile housing. Thus, the rails included on the profile housing protrude from an inner surface of the corresponding two of the four plates comprising the profile housing, and include a rib or railway structure configured for transporting each battery stack.
Regarding claim 13, Meyer in view of Bourke teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Further, the plurality of railways configured for transporting each battery stack forms inner flow slit structures, as there are portions between the railways that are recessed. As these inner flow slit structures are capable of having ribs forming the cooling manifold installed, the inner flow slit structures are configured for the installation of one or more flow control members.
Regarding claim 14, Meyer in view of Bourke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Meyer further teaches that the profile housing is substantially box-shaped with two open sides (¶ [0031], Ln. 1-5), and that it may be made of aluminum (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-2).
With respect to the limitation requiring that the battery housing is “formed by an extrusion process,” it is noted that this limitation is a product-by-process limitation directed to a method of forming the battery housing. A method limitation does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a nonobvious difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Meyer discloses a box-shaped profile housing with two open sides, having a substantially identical structure to that of the claimed battery housing having a square pipe or rectangular tube shape comprising four plates.
Regarding claim 15, Meyer teaches a battery module comprising a liquid-tight housing (110) formed by a first end plate (114; front plate), a second end plate (116; back plate), and profile housing (113; single battery housing) (¶ [0086], Ln. 1-5; Fig. 1). As shown in Figures 1 and 4, the first end plate (114) and second end plate (116) are formed on opposite sides of the housing and the profile housing includes four plate, forming the shape of a square pipe. The profile housing accommodates a plurality of battery cells (120) and a first tempering fluid (¶ [0087], Ln. 1-5). The first tempering fluid is pumped through first fluid channels (11), with the inlet and outlet disposed on the first end plate (114) (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-6); Fig. 3, 7). Each battery cell is in thermal contact with the first tempering fluid (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-7). The plurality of battery cells make up a battery stack (cell assembly) as shown in Figures 19-20. Cell holders (140) hold the individual battery cells in position by covering about 50% of the lateral surface of the cells, and complement the next row of battery cell holders to hold the battery cells in position, forming holes to accommodate the cell body (¶ [0126], Ln. 1-11; Fig. 13-20).
Meyer teaches that the cells are electrically connected to each other by connection sheets (123a-d; at least two cell connectors), which connect to the plus or minus poles of the battery cells and then to electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b; assembly electrodes) (¶ [0111], Ln. 1-9). The electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) are electrically connected to the battery cells and are arranged in respective sealed holes (enclosure interfaces) within the first end plate (114; front plate) and second end plate (116) (¶ [0092], Ln. 1-6, 10-14). The electrical feedthrough extending from the battery cells to the sealed hole is immersed in the first tempering fluid. The electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) allow access to voltage of the battery module from the outside by way of the sealed holes (¶ [0092], Ln. 8-10), which therefore electrically expose the battery stack to the external of the battery housing. Meyer does not expressly teach that both sealed holes are disposed on the first end plate (114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer such that the negative electrical feedthrough (117b) is connected to a sealed hole located in the first end plate (114) rather than the second end plate (116). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that electrodes are commonly placed on the same side of a battery module. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification obvious and would be motivated to include both electrode connections on the same side of the battery module for easy connection to external devices.
Meyer further teaches that battery modules may be electrically connected to form a battery pack (¶ [0128], Ln. 1-4), however, Meyer does not expressly teach that two battery stacks (cell assemblies) are installed in the same profile housing (113), wherein each of the battery stacks are coupled to a corresponding enclosure interface such that the two battery stacks are electrically exposed to the external of the battery housing.
Bourke teaches a modular battery system containing a plurality of battery modules and a cooling manifold, with the battery modules connected in series (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-7). Bourke teaches that the plurality of battery modules (101) are arranged in a system housing (102), further teaching that the modules are secured by rails (110) on the system housing (102) (¶ [0043], Ln. 9-12, 15-18; Fig. 6). Bourke teaches that the rails include securing rings, and the modular system including a plurality of modules on rails allows modules to be transported or maneuvered into and out of the system housing (¶ [0044], Ln. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer to include a second battery stack (cell assembly) in the same profile housing as the first battery stack and connected in series, based on the teachings of Bourke. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an additional cell assembly, making the battery module a modular system. Modular battery systems allow a cell assembly to be transported or maneuvered into and out of the housing without impacting the entire battery module. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a rail system based on the teachings of Bourke to transport each battery stack. In including a second battery stack in the profile housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that an additional set of electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) would be included as well. Thus, the first end plate would include four sealed holes (enclosure interfaces) in order to connect with the two electrical feedthroughs of each battery stack, electrically exposing each of the two battery stacks to the exterior of the battery housing.
Further, in modifying the battery module of Meyer to include a second battery stack (cell assembly) in the same profile housing (113), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the flow of the first tempering fluid through the first battery stack would apply to the second battery stack. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to continue the flow of tempering fluid through the second battery stack in order to effectively cool all of the battery cells within the module, such that both cell assemblies are immersed in the tempering fluid.
Meyer further teaches that the first tempering fluid cools the battery cells on a circuit, defined by first fluid channels (111; flow control members) (¶ [0123], Ln. 1-7), which are located between the subsets of cells, and therefore between the battery stacks (Fig. 7). Meyer does not expressly teach that the flow first fluid channels include bulkhead members attached to an inner surface of the housing such that the first fluid channels function as walls to guide to flow of fluid through the cell assemblies in sequence.
Bourke teaches that the battery module is enclosed on all sides and includes a first endplate (401) and second endplate (402; front plate) (¶ [0065], Ln. 1-5; Fig. 4A), wherein the first endplate (401) is positioned remotely from the second endplate (402; front plate). Coolant enters the battery module through the container inlet (1650; fluid inlet) and exits the container outlet (1670; fluid outlet) (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-14). Bourke teaches that ribs (1643) are included to define fluid pathways (¶ [0071], Ln. 9-11), and as shown in Figure 4F below, the ribs are attached to an inner surface of the housing. In this case, the ribs attached to the inner surface act as bulkhead members to guide the flow of coolant. Bourke teaches that the coolant can be made to circulate through the container in different ways, based on the partitions in the coolant channels (¶ [0073], Ln. 1-5). Bourke teaches directing the coolant through each module in a serpentine path as shown in Figure 4F, which is referred to as a serial connection (¶ [0074], Ln. 14-18).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4F, while not shown in the PGPub, was made publicly available on 09/01/2010 in the file wrapper of application 11/252,925, corresponding to US 2007/0087266 to Bourke et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer to include a cooling manifold as taught by Bourke. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cooling circuit taught by Meyer could be altered using ribs and partitions as taught by Bourke in order to circulate the first tempering fluid throughout the battery module in different ways. In doing so, the ribs would function as bulkhead members attached to the inner surface of the profile housing to guide the flow of first tempering fluid. One would be motivated to alter the cooling circuit to a serial connection in order to effectively cool each battery stack.
Meyer further teaches that a plurality of battery modules may be electrically connecting to form a battery system, and that the plurality of battery modules are connected to a secondary tempering system (¶ [0014], Ln. 1-5). Meyer does not expressly teach that the battery system includes a casing including a side wall with a casing inlet, casing outlet, and two casing interfaces disposed on the side wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery system of Meyer in view of Bourke to include a casing for the battery system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a casing is commonly included over a battery module or system in order to protect the system. As the battery system includes a secondary tempering system, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a casing inlet and outlet for the secondary tempering fluid to flow in and out of the system. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include two casing interfaces, as interfaces for the positive and negative electrode leads are required for the battery system to supply power to external devices. Thus, one would be motivated to include a casing for the battery system in order to provide protection for the battery system, and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include the casing inlet, casing outlet, and casing interfaces in order for the battery system to function as intended.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
Applicant's amendments to claim 11 in the response filed August 27, 2026 overcome the previous objection to claim 11 over minor informalities.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2026 with respect to Meyer, et al. (US 2024/0258612 A1) in view of Bourke, et al. (US 2007/0087266 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that: the invention is not addressed as a whole; Meyer does not teach immersion of cell assemblies; the rejections including arguments of obviousness over common knowledge miss limitations at the heart of the invention; Meyer does not teach a cell holder with holder holes; Meyer does not teach two assembly electrodes for each cell assembly; Meyer in view of Bourke does not teach bulkhead members attached to an inner surface of the battery housing; Meyer in view of Bourke does not teach a sealing member neighboring the front plate to obstruct a front passage; Meyer in view of Bourke does not teach a fluid inlet disposed on the front plate; Meyer in view of Bourke does not teach inner protrusion lines; the coupling to a casing is not established; Meyer does not teach two or more cell assemblies in one enclosure; Meyer does not teach connector members and terminals for each unit; Meyer does not teach fluid ports and enclosure interfaces gathered one to one; Meyer does not teach flow control members between units and the sequence; Meyer does not teach the four-plate tubular housing closed at two ends; Bourke does not teach immersion; Bourke has no unit answering to a cell assembly; Bourke’s rails do not supply formations on the inner surface of a module housing; Bourke’s coupling features are not the same as the claimed requirements; one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Meyer’s arrangement; one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Bourke’s arrangement; the prior art does not recognize the problem solved by the instant invention; and that the prior art does not recognize the effects of the arrangement of the instant invention.
With respect to the argument, see pages 8-10 of the remarks, that the invention is not addressed as a whole, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that missing limitations are addressed one at a time, without addressing the claimed invention as a whole, however, the rejection of claim 1 above addresses all of the limitations of the claim together. For example, the first missing limitation addressed is that Meyer does not expressly teach that both sealed holes are disposed on the first end plate. This limitation is addressed in paragraph 10 of the office action above, as one of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification obvious and would be motivated to include both electrode connections on the same side of the battery module for easy connection to external devices. Subsequently, in looking the next missing limitation, Meyer does not expressly teach that two battery stacks (cell assemblies) are installed in the same profile housing (113), each coupled to a corresponding enclosure interface such that the two battery stacks are electrically exposed to the external of the battery housing. Bourke is relied upon to address this limitation. Bourke is relied upon as a secondary reference to include an additional cell assembly, making the battery module a modular system. As noted in the rejection above, in including a second battery stack in the profile housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that an additional set of electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) would be included as well. When this limitation is addressed, the rejection of the first missing limitation is preserved, as it is noted in paragraph 13 above that in including both electrode connections on the same side of the battery module and including a second battery stack in the profile housing, the first end plate would include four sealed holes (enclosure interfaces) in order to connect with the two electrical feedthroughs of each battery stack, electrically exposing each of the two battery stacks to the exterior of the battery housing.
With respect to the argument, see pages 9, 14, and 20 of the remarks, that Meyer does not teach immersion of cell assemblies, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Meyer teaches that “each cell is isolated from the first tempering fluid” however, this statement is not included in Meyer [0126] as argued. Meyer expressly teaches that the battery module includes a liquid-tight housing, a plurality of battery cells, and a first tempering fluid in thermal contact with the plurality of cells (¶ [0129], Ln. 1-6). Thus, Meyer teaches immersion cooling.
With respect to the argument, see pages 9-11 of the remarks, that the rejections including arguments of obviousness over common knowledge miss limitations at the heart of the invention, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify the battery module of Meyer to include both electrode connections on the same side of the battery module, to modify the battery module of Meyer in view of Bourke to include members to guide fluid between cell assemblies, or to modify the battery module of Meyer in view of Bourke to include a casing based on common knowledge in the art, as these limitations are at the heart of the instant invention. This argument is not persuasive. As noted in the office action above, the location of electrode interfaces being on the same side of a battery module is common practice. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification to the battery module of Meyer obvious and would have motivation to do so for easy connection to external devices. Further, continuing the flow of tempering fluid using ribs through the second battery stack is a modification one of ordinary skill in the art would make in the addition of a second battery stack to the module as explained above. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in adding a second battery stack to a battery module wherein a tempering fluid flow path is taught, the tempering fluid flow path would be used to cool the second battery stack as well, including the ribs provided. Finally, providing a casing around a battery module is common in the art, and providing access to electrical feedthroughs and tempering fluid inlet/outlet in the casing is necessary for the battery module to function. It is noted that these modifications are not the inventive concepts of the instant invention but are common design choices in the battery art.
With respect to the argument, see pages 12 and 14-15 of the remarks, that Meyer does not teach a cell holder with holder holes, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the cell holders of Meyer do not include holes, further arguing that the interpretation is broader than the claim reasonably allows. This argument is not persuasive. Meyer teaches that cell holders cover about 50% of the lateral surface of the battery cells and one cell holder is positively adjacent to the next (¶ [0126], Ln. 1-11; Fig. 13-20). Given this description and the shape of the cell holders provided in Figure 13, it is clear that adjacent cell holders create holes for each battery cell. Thus, as included in paragraph 8 above, the complementary cell holders (140) form a cell holder with holder holes that accommodate and hold at least of part of the body of one of the plurality of battery cells. A cell holder with holder holes allows for interpretation of complementary pieces creating a hole for each battery cell.
With respect to the argument, see page 12 of the remarks, that Meyer does not teach two assembly electrodes for each cell assembly, this argument is not persuasive. The teachings of Bourke are relied upon to include a second battery stack (cell assembly) in the same profile housing and connected in series. As noted in paragraph 14 above, in including an additional battery stack, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that an additional set of electrodes would be included on the additional battery stack, in order to provide electrical connection to the additional battery stack. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the argument, see pages 12-13 and 19 of the remarks, that Meyer in view of Bourke does not teach bulkhead members attached to an inner surface of the battery housing or a sealing member neighboring the front plate to obstruct a front passage, this argument is not persuasive. As shown in Figure 4F of Bourke (included in the office action above), while ribs may be considered as connecting certain cooling channels, they also obstruct the flow path. As shown in Figure 4F, the ribs direct coolant such that it flows in a serpentine path. Located on an inner surface of both the front and back plates, the ribs act as bulkhead members and sealing members, obstructing flow from certain paths.
With respect to the argument, see page 13 of the remarks, that Meyer in view of Bourke does not teach a fluid inlet disposed on the front plate, this argument is not persuasive. Meyer teaches that the first tempering fluid is pumped through first fluid channels (11), with the inlet and outlet disposed on the first end plate (114) (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-6); Fig. 3, 7). The Applicant argues that Bourke teaches a separate configuration, however, the teachings of Bourke are not relied upon to address the limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the argument, see pages 13 and 19 of the remarks, that Meyer in view of Bourke does not teach inner protrusion lines and that Bourke’s rails do not supply formations on the inner surface of a module housing, this argument is not persuasive. As addressed in paragraph 13 above, the combination of Meyer in view of Bourke includes a rail system based on the teachings of Bourke to transport each battery stack, extending from a front end to a back end of two of the four plates comprising the profile housing. Additionally, the rails (110) of Bourke are shown in Figure 6 as protruding from an inner surface of the housing in order to secure the battery modules. Thus, in implementing the rail system of Bourke in the battery module of Meyer, the rails would protrude from the inner surface of the housing.
With respect to the argument, see page 15 of the remarks, that the coupling to a casing is not established, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the assembly electrodes being electrically coupled to the casing interfaces is not addressed, however, paragraph 43 in the rejection above (corresponding to paragraph 46 of the non-final office action filed May 27, 2026) states that it would be obvious to include casing interfaces for the positive and negative electrode leads in order to supply power to external devices. Thus, the limitation that assembly electrodes are electrically coupled to the casing interfaces is addressed.
With respect to the argument, see page 16 of the remarks, that Meyer does not teach two or more cell assemblies in one shared container; Meyer does not teach connector members and terminals for each unit; and Meyer does not teach fluid ports and enclosure interfaces gathered one to one, these arguments are not persuasive. As previously noted, the teachings of Bourke are relied upon to include a second battery stack in the same profile housing. In including a second battery stack in the profile housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that an additional set of electrical feedthroughs (117a, 117b) would be included as well. Thus, the first end plate would include four sealed holes (enclosure interfaces) in order to connect with the two electrical feedthroughs of each battery stack, electrically exposing each of the two battery stacks to the exterior of the battery housing. Each interface would be sealed to an electrical feedthrough. Additionally, as noted above, Meyer teaches that the first tempering fluid is pumped through first fluid channels (11), with the inlet and outlet disposed on the first end plate (114) (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-6); Fig. 3, 7). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the argument, see page 16 of the remarks, that Meyer does not teach flow control members between units and the sequence, this argument is not persuasive. It is acknowledged in the office action above that Meyer does not expressly teach that the flow first fluid channels include bulkhead members attached to an inner surface of the housing such that the first fluid channels function as walls to guide to flow of fluid through the cell assemblies in sequence. The teachings of Bourke are relied upon to teach the fluid pathway. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the argument, see page 17 of the remarks, that Meyer does not teach the four-plate tubular housing closed at two ends, this argument is not persuasive. Meyer teaches a battery module comprising a liquid-tight housing (110) formed by a first end plate (114; front plate), a second end plate (116; back plate), and profile housing (113; single battery housing) (¶ [0086], Ln. 1-5; Fig. 1). As shown in Figures 1 and 4, the first end plate (114) and second end plate (116) are formed on opposite sides of the housing and the profile housing includes four plates, forming the shape of a square pipe. In modifying the module of Meyer to include a second cell stack, one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify this housing shape or arrangement, but would modify the size of the module.
With respect to the argument, see pages 18-20 and 23 of the remarks, that Bourke does not teach immersion and that Bourke’s coupling features are not the same as the claimed requirements, this argument is not persuasive. The teachings of Bourke are not relied upon to teach the immersion of cells, as Meyer teaches that limitation. Similarly, the teachings of Bourke are not expressly relied on to teach that the electrical connections and tempering fluid inlet/outlet would need to be connected to the casing. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the argument, see pages 19 and 21 of the remarks, that Bourke has no unit answering to a cell assembly, this argument is not persuasive. Bourke teaches a system including a plurality of battery modules, referring to each battery module as a monoblock battery (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-4). Bourke further describes a monoblock battery as a multi-cell battery (¶ [0001], Ln. 1-5), and thus teaches that each module includes more than one cell.
With respect to the argument, see page 19 of the remarks, that Bourke’s ribs are not bulkhead members on an inner surface, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that ribs (1643) are on the outer surfaces of side walls to connect, not obstruct, cooling channels. However, in looking to Figure 4F (included in the office action above), while ribs may be considered as connecting certain cooling channels, they also obstruct the flow path. As shown in Figure 4F, the ribs are provided on an inner surface of the housing and direct coolant such that it flows in a serpentine path, with the ribs acting as bulkhead members.
With respect to the argument, see pages 20-21 of the remarks, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Meyer’s arrangement, this argument is not persuasive. As detailed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery module of Meyer to include a second battery stack (cell assembly) in the same profile housing as the first battery stack and connected in series, based on the teachings of Bourke. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an additional cell assembly, making the battery module a modular system. Modular battery systems allow a cell assembly to be transported or maneuvered into and out of the housing without impacting the entire battery module.
With respect to the argument, see page 21 of the remarks, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Bourke’s arrangement, this argument is not persuasive. The teachings of Bourke are relied upon as a secondary reference to modify the battery module of Meyer. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the argument, see pages 17-18 and 22 of the remarks, that the prior art does not recognize the problem solved by the instant invention and that the prior art does not recognize the effects of the arrangement of the instant invention, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the claimed arrangement reduces the liquid connectors and allows each cell assembly to be separately reachable on the outer side of the plate, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
