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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 3/30/2026:
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 16-26 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended, Claims 6-7 and 15 remain canceled, and claims 16-26 stand withdrawn.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. US-20130108897-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Christian) in view of Hartmann et al. US-20160223269-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Hartmann), Wetzel et al. US-20130255918-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wetzel), and Lee et al. US-20140356675-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lee ‘675).
Regarding Claim 1, Christian discloses a rechargeable battery in Fig. 2 (see abstract) comprising an anode, a cathode, an electrolyte disposed between the anode and cathode (cells 110), a protective housing that at least partially encloses the anode, the cathode and the electrolyte in Fig. 1 (battery module 100 in electric vehicle 1), at least one heat-spreader element in Fig. 2 (cooling plates 120) disposed partially or entirely inside the protective housing in Fig. 2 (cooling plates 120 interspersed among numerous battery cells 110) (see paragraph [0023]) and configured to receive heat from an external heat source in Fig. 2 (heat sink/source 200 coupled with tab 126 of cooling plate 120) at a desired heating temperature Th to heat up the battery to a desired temperature Tc for battery charging (the structure and configuration of Christian is fully capable of functioning as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Fig. 2 of Christian illustrating graphene heat exchange member 120
Christian is silent on the cells 110 comprising an electrolyte disposed between the anode and the cathode (cells 110) however Christian teaches that the invention applies to lithium-ion and related batteries (see paragraph [0002]) and an electrolyte disposed between an anode and cathode is a configuration that is ubiquitous to lithium ion battery cells and as such is implicitly disclosed by Christian. Alternatively, a skilled artisan would find it critical for the electrolyte to be disposed between the anode and the cathode in order to make a functioning battery.
Similarly, the protective housing of Christian is implicitly disclosed because a battery module, such as module 100 of Fig. 1 disposed within an electric vehicle, routinely comprises a protective housing that at least partially encloses the battery cells of the module and this is well-known in the art. Accordingly, the protective housing enclosing the battery module (which as depicted by Fig. 1 could include the vehicle body itself) inherently comprises a protective housing. Alternatively, a skilled artisan would find it critical to provide a protective housing covering at least part of the battery cell anode, cathode, and electrolyte and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a protective housing as claimed to the battery module 100 of Christian in order to enclose the cells, protect them from the internal environment of the electric vehicle of Fig. 1, provide impact protection, and to facilitate assembly as is routine and well-known in the art.
Christian further discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1, wherein said heat-spreader element comprises a material selected from a graphene film (as discussed above, see also Fig. 2, Fig. 4A, graphene film 124).
Christian is silent on the heat-spreader element comprising a material selected from a flexible graphite sheet, artificial graphite film, brass, steel, Mg alloy sheet, silicon nitride, boron arsenide, a composite thereof, or a combination thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor thermal management films used in batteries (see abstract), Hartmann discloses that thermal conductivity enhancement materials included in the heat transfer films, plates, spreaders, or other structures may comprise graphene, graphite, metals such as silver or copper, metal nitrides, or various other materials known to comprise high conductivity (see paragraphs [0091]-[0092] and [0260]).
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of heat exchange in batteries (see abstract), Wetzel discloses using steel and brass as materials for a heat exchange element as it has a high thermal conductivity and good heat transfer coefficient (see paragraphs [0012]-[0015]). A skilled artisan would recognize that steel and brass are therefore appropriate materials to use as the conductivity enhancement material disclosed by Hartmann, since Hartmann suggested using materials with high conductivity.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable battery disclosed by Christian to comprise the types of highly thermally conductive materials taught by Hartmann and Wetzel, such as steel and brass as claimed in order to use materials known in the art to provide high conductivity and known to be suitable for use as a heat-spreader material.
Christian further discloses wherein the battery may be a lithium-ion battery and related batteries (see paragraphs [0001]-[0002]).
Christian, Hartman, and Wetzel are not specific on the battery being a lithium metal secondary battery, lithium-sulfur battery, lithium-air battery, lithium-selenium battery, sodium- ion battery, sodium metal secondary battery, sodium-sulfur battery, sodium-air battery, magnesium-ion battery, magnesium metal battery, aluminum-ion battery, aluminum metal secondary battery, zinc-ion battery, zinc metal battery, zinc-air battery, nickel metal hydride battery, lead acid battery, lead acid-carbon battery, lead acid-based ultra-battery, or supercapacitor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heat regulation in batteries (see paragraph [0011]), Lee ‘675 discloses using a heat-spreader element (flexible member) 400 in a battery module in Fig. 2, and that nickel metal hydride batteries are representative secondary battery types in addition to a lithium ion secondary battery (see paragraphs [0002], [0011], [0019]-[0021], and [0044]).
As such, a skilled artisan would recognize the heat-spreader element for a battery disclosed by Christian would also function in various types of batteries, such as a nickel metal hydride battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery comprising the heat-spreader element disclosed by Christian wherein the battery is a nickel metal hydride battery, as disclosed by Lee ‘675, as the heat-spreader element would function appropriately in a different type of battery.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses the heat-spreader element does not receive an electrical current from an external circuit to generate heat for resistance heating of the battery (paragraph [0023] teaches thermal communication with heat sink/source 200 is through thermal pathway 126 and in-plane high thermal conductivity of graphene sheets 124).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses at least a temperature sensor for measuring an internal temperature of the battery (Fig. 4A, thermistor 140 temperature sensor 124A).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses wherein the heat-spreader element acts as a temperature sensor for measuring an internal temperature of the battery (the heat-spreader element of Christian is structured and configured as claimed and accordingly is fully capable of functioning as claimed).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses wherein said heat-spreader element comprises a high thermal conductivity material having a thermal conductivity no less than 10 W/mK (graphene sheet 124 comprises a thermal conductivity within the claimed range as evidence by the Applicant's instant Specification p. 6 and p. 18; also see Christian paragraphs [0007]-[0011] graphene 10 W/m-K through plane conductivity and 1400 W/m-K in-plane conductivity).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses wherein the heat-spreader element has a heat- spreading area at least 50% of a surface area of the anode or cathode (as shown by Fig. 2 where the graphene sheet comprises a primary surface area approximately equal to that of the battery cell).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses wherein the heat-spreader element is flat and has a heat-spreading area (as shown by Fig. 2 including the entire face of the graphene sheets) having a length-to-thickness ratio greater than 10 (as illustrated by Fig. 2-3).
Christian does not expressly state a length to thickness ratio however Figures 2-3 depict a length to thickness ratio greater than 10.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christian to comprise a length to thickness ratio greater than 10 in order to use a length to thickness ratio that provides suitable heat transfer properties within a workable range in order to make and use the invention of Christian. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." /n re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses wherein the heat-spreader element is in a heat-spreading relation to the anode or the cathode and provides heat thereto before or during charging of the battery because the graphene sheets of Christian are in direct thermal contact with the cells of Christian.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Christian is silent with respect to the specific thickness of the heat-spreader element, and wherein the heat-spreader element has a thickness from about 0.5 m to about 1 mm.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a thickness of the heat-spreader element to comprise a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1 mm. The motivation for doing so would have been to select a thickness suitable for use, within a workable range, as the heat transfer member of Christian. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." /n re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses wherein the battery has an anode terminal and a cathode terminal (Fig. 2, terminals 114) for operating the battery and the heat-spreader element is in thermal contact with the anode terminal or the cathode terminal wherein the anode terminal or the cathode terminal is configured to receive heat from the outside heat source (as shown by Fig. 2) because the heat transfer members are in thermal contact with the entire battery cell 110 and module 100.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian in view of Hartman, Wetzel, and Lee ‘675, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US-20150072191-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Christian further discloses wherein the heat-spreader element has a tab (Fig. 2 tab 126).
Christian, Hartman, Wetzel, and Lee ‘675 are silent with respect to the tab being protruded outside of the protective housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrode assemblies (see abstract), Lee discloses a heat-transfer element comprising a tab that is protruded outside of the protective housing (Fig. 3, tab 181 protruding out of protective case 150) in order to thermally transfer heat to and from the battery cells and the heat source/sink outside of the battery including improving heat dissipation efficiency by permitting dissipation through the battery case (see paragraphs [0029]-[0034]).
Christian does expressly state “wherein said tab is configured to controllably make thermal contact with the external heat source and get disconnected with the external heat source when a battery temperature reaches the desired temperature Tc” as Claimed. However, it is noted that (1) the claimed heat source is not a structural limitation of the claimed invention, and (2) the Applicant’s disclosure demonstrates the claimed configuration wherein the heat source is controllably moved into and out of thermal contact with the external tab of the heat source as shown by the double headed arrow of Figure 4.
Accordingly, Christian inherently discloses wherein said tab is configured to controllably make thermal contact with the external heat source and get disconnected with the external heat source when a battery temperature reaches the desired temperature Tc as claimed because the tab of Christian (as taught by Christian or as modified above in view of Lee) is fully capable of being selectively brought into thermal contact with an external heat source in order to control the battery to reach a desired temperature Tc as claimed. For example, an external heat source can be moved into and out of thermal contact with the tab as shown by the Applicant's Figure 4.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Christian to comprise the tab protruding outside and in contact with the housing as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to thermally transfer heat to and from the battery cells and the heat source/sink outside of the battery including improving heat dissipation efficiency by permitting dissipation through the battery case.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Christian discloses the rechargeable battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Modifying Christian in view of Lee results in the claimed invention wherein the heat-spreader element is in thermal contact with the protective housing because the tab 126 contacts the housing in order to improve thermal dissipation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights