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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:.
Claim 1: Applicant argues that the application explains that a uniform distribution is achieved not by distributor plates or tunes orifices, but by flow resistance created by the physical geometry and placement of the battery module elements and the manifold is physically formed between the housing inner wall and the housing outer wall such that flow enters via wall openings while Wang expressly teaches away from the claimed passive inhibition feature and relies instead on a designed distributor plate (remarks pp. 6-7).
Claim 2: Wang’s openings are not formed in a housing inner wall bounding a manifold but rather formed in a separate distributor plate that is added to compensate for non-uniform flow while Claim 2 requires that the plurality of openings cooperate with passive impedance created by the battery module elements.
Claim 3: Wang 1 teaches regional and adjustable pass-through relationships. Wang 2 is purely theoretical and analytical. It does not teach a concrete structural configuration that can be directly mapped onto the claimed battery module housing. Neither Wang 1 nor Wang 2 teaches fixing the manifold cross-section relative to the total opening area in order to enable passive, self-regulating flow behavior caused by downstream structural resistance. Further, the Examiner’s rejection relies on impermissible hindsight by retrofitting Applicant’s claimed structural relationship into unrelated teachings (Remarks pp. 8-9).
Claim 4: Wang 2 characterizes M and a theoretical parameter used for modeling flow behavior, not as a prescribed structural constrains to be applied across physical systems. Wang 2 teaches that no fixed ratio universally governs uniform flow and Wang 2’s discussion of the “extreme condition” M=0 is a theoretical limit not a practical design suggestion. Huazhao confirms that flow uniformity is system-specific and achieved through active balancing and tuning distributor geometry. Neither Wang 2 nor Huazhao recognizes a specific manifold-to-opening ration as a variable governing passive, self-regulating flow enabled by downstream structural resistance (Remarks pp. 10-11).
The present claims define a fixed geometric relationship that cooperates with passive impedance caused by battery module elements in a wall-bounded housing manifold to eliminate the need to distributor plates, tapered conduits, or iterative tuning. Nothing in Wang 2 or Huazhao suggests abandoning those mechanisms in favor of Applicant’s approach, where uniformity emerges from passive interaction between manifold geometry and battery module elements (Remarks pp. 12)
Claims 5-8: the claimed “flows around the battery module element” refers to non-channeled flow encountering physical resistance from the module geometry itself which is absent from Wang’s spacer-defined channels.
Claims 9-10: the flow distributer element of Kind does not constitute a further housing wall because the distributor elements are flow-conditioning components not housing walls. Treating a flow distributor element as a “housing inner wall” impermissibly broadens the claim language and conflates fundamentally different structures because a housing inner wall is a structural boundary of the housing itself (Remarks pp. 13).
Claims 11-12: Tanjo does not disclose that each module housing includes a manifold arranged between an inner wall and an outer wall, nor does Tanjo disclose that manifolds of separate housings are fluidly connected to one another. Sun’s conduits are not battery module housings and Sun does not disclose multiple, spatially distinct battery module housing whose manifolds are fluidly connected. Sun’s conduits are part of a single continuous cooling system, not discrete module-level manifolds bounded by housing walls. (Remarks pp. 14-15)
Claim 13: Wang 2 provides theoretical analysis of flow distribution in generalized manifolds and does nto disclose a battery module housing, does not disclose opening formed in a housing inner wall, and does not teach any specific ratio as a design rule. Huazhao likewise does not disclosed the claimed relationship.
Claim 14: Wang 1 teaches that uniform flow is achieved by the distributor plate with tuned openings, and that without the plate the flow is non-uniform. The interaction between air and battery cells in Wang 1 occurs after pressure and flow have already been actively shaped by the plate (remarks pp. 16-17).
Claims 15 and 17: Wang 1 does not disclose that the cross-sectional area of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as the sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings, nor does Wang 1 disclose that uniform flow distribution is achieved through passive flow impedance caused by the battery module elements. Wang 2 does not disclose a battery module housing, does not disclose openings formed in a housing inner wall, and does not teach a concrete structural requirement that a manifold cross-section be at least as large as the sum of the opening cross-sections in a physical battery module housing. The discussion of M in Wang 2 is expressly theoretical and system-dependent, addressing abstract boundary conditions rather than prescribing a structural design rule applicable to Wang 1's battery module architecture.
Claim 16: Wang 2 provides theoretical analysis of flow distribution in generalized manifolds and does not disclose a battery module housing, does not disclose opening formed in a housing inner wall, and does not teach any specific ratio as a design rule. Huazhao likewise does not disclosed the claimed relationship.
Regarding argument a, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. The structure taught by Wang 1 meets the structural features required by claim 1. Wang 1 teaches a battery module housing comprising: a housing interior configured to receive at least one battery module element ([0025]), a housing inner wall arranged to spatially separate housing inner space from a housing outer wall of the battery module housing, and a cooling fluid manifold bounded between the housing inner wall and the housing outer wall (abstract; [0025]; [0027]; Fig. 4; Fig. 5), wherein the housing inner wall comprises at least one opening configured to facilitate flow of a cooling fluid from the cooling fluid manifold into the housing inner space and around the at least one battery module element ([0027]-[0028]).
The limitation “so as to enable a uniform flow…” is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In reCasey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Fig. 5 of Wang 1 illustrates a fluid flow path around battery cells (Fig. 5 annotated below). Once the air flows into the air pocket it is passively inhibited by the battery cells, because the battery cells are stationary and thus passively inhibit flow through the system. Therefore, the structure taught by Wang 1 meets the limitations of claim 1.
Absent specific claimed features that result in a uniform flow distribution of the cooling fluid around the housing interior, any differences between the instant application and the prior art are a result of something not claimed. Further, Attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding argument b, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 2 merely requires the housing inner wall have “a plurality of openings distributed and disposed in the housing inner wall”. The distributor plate of Wang meets the claimed structural features of the “housing inner wall”. Claim 2 does not require that the plurality of openings cooperate with passive impedance created by the battery module elements as stated in the arguments.
Regarding argument c-e, i, and k-l, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Fluid flow through manifolds follows principles which are applicable in a variety of industries and fields. It is not necessary to look only at battery specific manifolds when designing a cooling manifold system for a battery, rather one of ordinary skill would look to manifold specific art to design an optimally performing fluid manifold. As Wang 2 teaches a generalized theory providing understanding of flow in manifold systems and offers a tool for designs of manifold systems (pg. 1342), it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Wang 2 in the design of a cooling fluid manifold system.
Wang 2 teaches that uniform flow distribution can be found only when the ratio (M) of the sum of all the ports areas to the area of the manifold is smaller (Section 6.3, page 1339). The claimed difference in cross-sectional area of √2 would result in a M value always less than 1, which limits the effects flow branching and aids in maintaining a uniform fluid flow (Section 6.3, Page 1339). Huazhao teaches controlling a ratio between total opening area and distributor tube cross-sectional area allows control over uniformity of fluid flow ([0032]). Huazhao discloses that there is an art recognized relationship between the cross-sectional area of the manifold and port which affects the overall uniformity of fluid flow. Considered as a whole, the references teach that a relationship between the area of the manifold (cross-sectional area) to the port opening area (hole in an inner wall) is manipulated to control uniformity of fluid flow. Therefore, the cross-sectional area of both the manifold and openings are considered result effective variables, wherein the selection of the particular values thereof would be considered a matter of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art and as such the relative difference in area between the manifold and openings would likewise be a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP §2144.05 II).
Further, 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). Wang 1 is relied upon for the structural features claimed, while Wang 2 is a teaching reference relied upon to teach the theory of flow distribution and pressure drop and their importance in controlling flow in manifolds, and Huazhao is relied upon for the teaching of controlling a ratio between total opening area and distributor tube cross-sectional area allows control over uniformity of fluid flow. Wang 1, Wang 2, and Huazhao all teach fluid manifolds with an inner wall with holes.
Additionally, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims require that the flow be passively inhibited by the at least one battery module element so as to enable uniform flow distribution. This functional limitation does not require abandoning flow shaping structures. In Wang 1, once the air flows into the air pocket it is passively inhibited by the battery cells, because the battery cells are stationary and thus passively exist while inhibiting flow through the system. Wang 1 further teaches uniform flow ([0028]; [0032]-[0033]).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In regards to argument f, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 5 merely requires “wherein the at least one opening is arranged in the housing inner wall such that when the cooling fluid flows into the housing inner space, the cooling fluid flows around the battery module element” which is met by the structure taught by Wang 1. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., non-channeled flow) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Sun is not relied upon in the rejection of claims 5-8.
In regards to argument g, absent specific claimed features structurally differentiate “a further housing inner wall” from the distributor element of Kind, which functions to spatially separate the housing inner space from the housing outer wall and comprises at least on opening, any differences between the instant application and the prior art are a result of something not claimed.
In regards to argument h, 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). Wang 1 teaches the structure of a single battery module housing as conceded in the Remarks pp. 14. Further, Tanjo teaches a battery pack configured by connecting a plurality of modules, for example two modules, each housed in a separate module case, with 24 cells each ([0023]; Fig. 1; [0009]). Tanjo teaches wherein a cooling duct provides air to both modules, thereby providing cooling for cells in each respective module ([0010]; Fig. 1). Module 4i and 3i are spatially distinct as shown in Fig. 1, below. Sun teaches that the use of a variable cross-sectional area of cooling fluid manifolds is advantageous to minimize the variations in pressure between cooling fluid channels formed between battery units, thereby maintain uniform cooling (column 5, lines 51-60). Combining Wang 1, Tanjo and Sun would result in multiple Wang 1 modules, each with a fluid manifold structure, connected via a duct (conduit), with variable cross-sectional areas for the cooling fluid manifolds thereby meeting the limitations of claim 11.
PNG
media_image2.png
469
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to argument j, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. The structure taught by Wang 1 in view of Tanjo and Sun meets the structural features required by claim 14 (See claim 14 rejection below). Fig. 5 of Wang 1 illustrates a fluid flow path around battery cells (Fig. 5 annotated above). Once the air flows into the air pocket it is passively inhibited by the battery cells, because the battery cells are stationary and thus passively inhibit flow through the system. The limitation “so as to enable a uniform flow…” is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In reCasey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Once the air flows into the air pocket it is passively inhibited by the battery cells, because the battery cells are stationary and thus passively inhibit flow through the system. Claim 14 does not exclude additional components other than those recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20160315366 A1) hereinafter “Wang 1”.
Regarding claim 1, Wang 1 teaches a battery module housing comprising: a housing interior configured to receive at least one battery module element ([0025]), a housing inner wall arranged to spatially separate housing inner space from a housing outer wall of the battery module housing, and a cooling fluid manifold bounded between the housing inner wall and the housing outer wall (abstract; [0025]; [0027]; Fig. 4; Fig. 5), wherein the housing inner wall comprises at least one opening configured to facilitate flow of a cooling fluid from the cooling fluid manifold into the housing inner space and around the at least one battery module element ([0027]-[0028]). Wang 1 teaches that flow uniformity is desired and non-uniform flow should be prevented ([0028]; [0032]-[0033]), and the use of a plate assists with achieving a more uniform flow ([0033]). Wang 1 teaches wherein a plate (inner wall) may be spaced apart from a battery array to create an air pocket between the first longitudinal side and the plate ([0027]; Fig. 5).
Wang 1 does not explicitly teach wherein the flow is passively inhibited by the at least one battery module element so as to enable a uniform flow distribution of the cooling fluid around the housing interior.
However, Wang 1 teaches wherein a plate (inner wall) may be spaced apart from a battery array to create an air pocket between a first longitudinal side and the plate ([0027]; Fig. 5) and teaches wherein air flow uniformity is desired ([0028]; [0032]-[0033]). Fig. 5 of Wang 1 illustrates a fluid flow path around battery cells (Fig. 5 annotated below). Once the air flows into the air pocket it is passively inhibited by the battery cells, because the battery cells are stationary and thus passively inhibit flow through the system. Therefore, the structure taught by Wang 1 meets the limitations of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang 1 teaches wherein the housing inner wall further comprises a plurality of openings distributed and disposed in the housing inner wall ([0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang 1 teaches wherein the at least one opening is arranged in the housing inner wall such that when the cooling fluid flows into the housing inner space, the cooling fluid flows around the battery module element (Fig. 5 annotated above; [0032]; abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Wang 1 teaches wherein: a plurality of battery module elements is arranged in the housing interior (Fig. 2; [0022]-[0024]) and an opening is associated with at least one of the battery module elements (Fig. 5 annotated below; [0028]).
PNG
media_image3.png
353
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Wang 1 teaches wherein the opening is arranged in front of a battery module element that is closest to the opening (Fig. 5 annotated above, each opening is in front of a battery module element; [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang 1 teaches wherein the cooling fluid manifold comprises a cooling fluid inlet configured to facilitate flow of the cooling fluid into the cooling fluid manifold ([0025]-[0026]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 1 (US 20160315366 A1) in view of Wang (Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume 168, Issue 3, Pages 1331-1345 "Theory of flow distribution in manifolds") hereinafter “Wang 2”.
Regarding claim 3, Wang 1 teaches the battery module housing according to claim 2. Wang 1 does not teach wherein a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as a sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings.
However, Wang 2 teaches the theory of flow distribution and pressure drop and their importance in controlling flow in manifolds. Wang 2 teaches that uniform flow distribution can be found only when the ratio (M) of the sum of all the ports areas to the area of the manifold is smaller (Section 6.3, page 1339). At the extreme condition (i.e., M= 0), there is no the effect of the flow branching (Section 6.3, Page 1339). The equation for M is given as 𝑀 = 𝐹𝑐 𝑛/𝐹 where F and Fc are the cross-sectional areas of the manifold and the port, respectively (Section 6.3, Page 1339). Utilizing a large manifold size in relation to the size of the holes in the inner wall would allow for even and consistent fluid flow that can then be controlled by the hole sizing. The claimed limitation of “cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as a sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings” would result in a M value equal to or less than 1, which limits the effects of flow branching and aids in maintaining a uniform fluid flow (Section 6.3, Page 1339). The uniformity of the flow distribution in a manifold system often determines efficiency, durability and cost of the units (Section 1, page 1331).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery module housing taught by Wang 1 such that a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as a sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings as taught by Wang 2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery module housing taught by Wang 1 such that a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as a sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings as taught by Wang 2 to increase the uniformity of fluid distribution (Section 6.3, page 1339; Section 1, page 1331).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 1 (US 20160315366 A1) in view of Wang 2 (Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume 168, Issue 3, Pages 1331-1345 "Theory of flow distribution in manifolds") in further view of Huazhao et al. (US 20110017438 A1) hereinafter “Huazhao”
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang 1 teaches the battery module housing according to claim 3.
Modified Wang 1 does not teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the cooling fluid manifold is greater by √2 than the sum of all cross- sectional areas of the plurality of openings.
However, Wang 2 teaches the theory of flow distribution and pressure drop and their importance in controlling flow in manifolds. Wang 2 teaches that uniform flow distribution can be found only when the ratio (M) of the sum of all the ports areas to the area of the manifold is smaller (Section 6.3, page 1339). At the extreme condition (i.e., M= 0), there is no the effect of the flow branching (Section 6.3, Page 1339). The equation for M is given as 𝑀 = 𝐹𝑐 𝑛/𝐹 where F and Fc are the cross-sectional areas of the manifold and the port, respectively (Section 6.3, Page 1339). Utilizing a large manifold size in relation to the size of the holes in the inner wall would allow for even and consistent fluid flow that can then be controlled by the hole sizing. The claimed difference in cross-sectional area of √2 would result in a M value always less than 1, which limits the effects flow branching and aids in maintaining a uniform fluid flow (Section 6.3, Page 1339).
Further, Huazhao teaches a multi-channel heat exchanger in which distribution of refrigerant can be improved by balancing the ratio of the total area of the openings in a distributor tube to the cross-sectional area of the distributor tube with a given distributor tube length ([0030]-[0032]). Specifically, controlling a ratio between total opening area and distributor tube cross-sectional area allows control over uniformity of fluid flow ([0032]).
Huazhao discloses that there is an art recognized relationship between the cross-sectional area of the manifold and port which affects the overall uniformity of fluid flow. Therefore, the cross-sectional area of both the manifold and openings are considered result effective variables, wherein the selection of the particular values thereof would be considered a matter of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art and as such the relative difference in area between the manifold and openings would likewise be a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP §2144.05 II).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the cross-sectional area of the manifold and the cross-sectional area of the fluid exits taught by modified Wang 1, in order to minimize the effects of cooling fluid flow branching while maintaining a compact design.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 1 (US 20160315366 A1) in view of Kind (DE102011015337 A1). Reference is made to previously enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, Wang 1 teaches the battery module housing according to claim 1. Wang 1 teaches that a plate with holes (inner wall) can be arranged within the outlet manifold or the inlet manifold ([0033]). Wang 1 teaches that a plate increases air flow consistency across a battery array ([0033]). Wang 1 teaches a further cooling fluid manifold ([0026]; Fig. 5).
Wang 1 does not teach where the battery module housing further comprises: a further housing inner wall, arranged to spatially separate the housing inner space from the housing outer wall, and a further cooling fluid manifold arranged between the further housing inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein the further housing inner wall comprises at least one further opening configured and arranged to enable the cooling fluid to flow out of the housing inner region.
However, Kind teaches where a battery module housing further comprises a still further housing inner wall, and between the further housing inner wall and a further housing outer wall, and wherein the further housing inner wall comprises at least one further opening configured and arranged to enable the cooling fluid to flow out of the housing inner region ([0015] “one flow distributor element is arranged in front of the battery module group and one flow distributor element is arranged behind the battery module group”, distributer element is considered an inner wall). Kind teaches that two inner walls with holes results in a reduction in turbulent flow ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module housing of Wang 1 by adding a further plate (inner wall) as taught by Kind.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery module housing of Wang 1 by adding a further plate (inner wall) as taught by Kind to further reduce turbulent cooling fluid flow ([0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang 1 teaches where the further cooling fluid manifold further comprises a cooling fluid drain configured to enable the cooling fluid to flow out of the further cooling fluid manifold ([0026]).
Claim(s) 11-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 1 (US 20160315366 A1) in view of Tanjo et al. (JPH11329517A) hereinafter “Tanjo”, reference is made to the enclosed machine translation, in further view of Sun (US Pat. No. 9093727 B2) hereinafter "Sun".
Regarding claim 11, Wang 1 teaches a battery module, comprising: a first battery module housing comprising: a housing inner space configured to accommodate at least one battery module element therein ([0025]), a housing inner wall arranged to spatially separate the housing inner space from a housing outer wall of the battery module housing ([0027]), a first cooling fluid manifold arranged between the housing inner wall and the housing outer wall, a cooling fluid distributor arranged between the housing inner wall and the housing outer wall ([0027]; Fig. 4; Fig. 5), and wherein the housing inner wall comprises at least one opening configured and arranged to enable a cooling fluid to flow from the cooling fluid distributor into the housing inner space ([0028]-[0029]; Fig. 4).
Wang 1 does not teach a second battery module housing spatially distinct form the first battery module housing, comprising a second fluid manifold; and wherein a cooling fluid manifold of the first battery module housing is fluidly connected via conduit to a second cooling fluid manifold.
However, Tanjo teaches a battery pack configured by connecting a plurality of modules, for example two modules, each housed in a separate module case, with 24 cells each ([0023]; Fig. 1; [0009]). Tanjo teaches wherein a cooling duct provides air to both modules, thereby providing cooling for cells in each respective module ([0010]; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
469
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Battery modules comprising a cooling fluid manifold arranged between the housing inner wall and the housing outer wall and wherein the housing inner wall comprises at least one opening configured and arranged to enable a cooling fluid to flow from the cooling fluid distributor into the housing inner space are known in the art (Wang 1 [0028]-[0029]; Fig. 4; Fig. 5). Cooling multiple battery module units via a cooling fluid manifold that is fluidly connected between battery modules is known in the art (Tanjo Fig. 1; [0009]-[0010]; [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery module taught by Wang 1 by including a second battery module housing (for example duplicating the disclosed battery module housing of Wang 1) spatially distinct form the first battery module housing wherein a cooling fluid manifold of the first battery module housing is fluidly connected via conduit to a second cooling fluid manifold as taught by Tanjo.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the battery module taught by Wang 1 by including a second battery module housing (for example duplicating the disclosed battery module housing of Wang 1) spatially distinct form the first battery module housing wherein a cooling fluid manifold of the first battery module housing is fluidly connected via conduit to a second cooling fluid manifold as taught by Tanjo to achieve the predictable result of cooling multiple connected battery modules. Cooling of multiple connected battery modules via a fluidly connected manifold is known in the prior art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that increasing modules increases total battery pack capacity.
Wang 1 in view of Tanjo does not teach wherein a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold of the first battery module housing is larger than a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold of the second battery module housing.
However, Sun teaches a cooling system for a battery assembly containing a plurality of battery units where each battery unit contains a first and second battery cell (column 1, lines 53-54; column 3, line 5). Sun teaches a second battery module housing comprising fluid manifold (Fig. 1, annotated below; element 22); and wherein the cooling fluid manifold of the first battery module housing is connected to the cooling fluid manifold of the second battery module housing (column 3, lines 52-55; element 22 is considered to be a second battery module housing comprising a fluid manifold); and wherein a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold of the first battery module housing is larger than a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold of the second battery module housing (column 3, lines 37-42; column 3, lines 60-63; Fig. 1 annotated below; element 20 considered to be a manifold). Sun teaches that the use of a variable cross-sectional area of cooling fluid manifolds is advantageous to minimize the variations in pressure between cooling fluid channels formed between battery units, thereby maintain uniform cooling (column 5, lines 51-60).
PNG
media_image4.png
292
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module taught by Wang 1 in view of Tanjo by using variable cross-sectional areas for the cooling fluid manifolds as taught by Sun and described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery module taught by Wang in view of Tanjo by using variable cross-sectional areas for the cooling fluid manifolds as taught by Sun to maintain appropriate fluid flow and minimize the variations in pressure between cooling fluid channels formed between battery units, thereby maintaining uniform cooling (column 1, lines 13-16; column 5, lines 51-60).
Regarding claim 12, Wang 1 further teaches wherein the cooling fluid manifold of the first battery module housing further comprises a cooling fluid inlet configured and arranged to enable the cooling fluid to flow into the cooling fluid manifold of the first battery module housing ([0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 14, Wang 1 further teaches wherein the flow is inhibited by the at least one battery module element so as to enable a uniform flow of the cooling fluid around the housing interior (Fig. 5, once the air flows into the air pocket it is subsequently inhibited by the battery cells).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 1 (US 20160315366 A1) in view of Tanjo (JPH11329517A) in further view of Sun (US Pat. No. 9093727 B2) in further view of Wang 2 (Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume 168, Issue 3, Pages 1331-1345 "Theory of flow distribution in manifolds") and Huazhao (US 20110017438 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wang 1 in view of Tanjo and Sun teaches the battery module of claim 11.
Wang 1 in view of Tanjo and Sun does not teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the cooling fluid manifold is greater by √2 than the sum of all cross-sectional areas of the plurality of openings.
However, Wang 2 teaches the theory of flow distribution and pressure drop and their importance in controlling flow in manifolds. Wang 2 teaches that uniform flow distribution can be found only when the ratio (M) of the sum of all the ports areas to the area of the manifold is smaller (Section 6.3, page 1339). At the extreme condition (i.e., M= 0), there is no the effect of the flow branching (Section 6.3, Page 1339). The equation for M is given as 𝑀 = 𝐹𝑐 𝑛/𝐹 where F and Fc are the cross-sectional areas of the manifold and the port, respectively (Section 6.3, Page 1339). Utilizing a large manifold size in relation to the size of the holes in the inner wall would allow for even and consistent fluid flow that can then be controlled by the hole sizing. The claimed difference in cross-sectional area of √2 would result in a M value always less than 1, which limits the effects flow branching and aids in maintaining a uniform fluid flow (Section 6.3, Page 1339).
Further, Huazhao teaches a multi-channel heat exchanger in which distribution of refrigerant can be improved by balancing the ratio of the total area of the openings in a distributor tube to the cross-sectional area of the distributor tube with a given distributor tube length ([0030]-[0032]). Specifically, controlling a ratio between total opening area and distributor tube cross-sectional area allows control over uniformity of fluid flow ([0032]).
Huazhao discloses that there is an art recognized relationship between the cross-sectional area of the manifold and port which affects the overall uniformity of fluid flow. Therefore, the cross-sectional area of both the manifold and openings are considered result effective variables, wherein the selection of the particular values thereof would be considered a matter of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art and as such the relative difference in area between the manifold and openings would likewise be a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP §2144.05 II).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the cross-sectional area of the manifold and the cross-sectional area of the fluid exits taught by Wang 1 in view of Tanjo and Sun, in order to minimize the effects of cooling fluid flow branching while maintaining a compact design.
Claim(s) 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 1 (US 20160315366 A1) in view of Wang 2 (Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume 168, Issue 3, Pages 1331-1345 "Theory of flow distribution in manifolds").
Regarding claim 15, Wang 1 teaches a battery module housing comprising: a housing interior configured to receive at least one battery module element ([0025]), a housing inner wall arranged to spatially separate housing inner space from a housing outer wall of the battery module housing ([0027]), and a cooling fluid manifold arranged between the housing inner wall and the housing outer wall ([0027]; Fig. 4; Fig. 5), wherein the housing inner wall comprises at least one opening configured to facilitate flow of a cooling fluid from the cooling fluid manifold into the housing inner space, wherein the housing inner wall further comprises a plurality of openings distributed and disposed in the housing inner wall ([0028]-[0029]; Fig. 4).
Wang 1 does not teach wherein a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as a sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings such that the cooling fluid is distributed uniformly into the housing interior through passive flow impedance caused by the battery module elements.
However, Wang 2 teaches the theory of flow distribution and pressure drop and their importance in controlling flow in manifolds. Wang 2 teaches that uniform flow distribution can be found only when the ratio (M) of the sum of all the ports areas to the area of the manifold is smaller (Section 6.3, page 1339). At the extreme condition (i.e., M= 0), there is no the effect of the flow branching (Section 6.3, Page 1339). The equation for M is given as 𝑀 = 𝐹𝑐 𝑛/𝐹 where F and Fc are the cross-sectional areas of the manifold and the port, respectively (Section 6.3, Page 1339). Utilizing a large manifold size in relation to the size of the holes in the inner wall would allow for even and consistent fluid flow that can then be controlled by the hole sizing. The claimed limitation of “cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as a sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings” would result in a M value equal to or less than 1, which limits the effects of flow branching and aids in maintaining a uniform fluid flow (Section 6.3, Page 1339). The uniformity of the flow distribution in a manifold system often determines efficiency, durability and cost of the units (Section 1, page 1331).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery module housing taught by Wang 1 such that a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as a sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings as taught by Wang 2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery module housing taught by Wang 1 such that a cross-section of the cooling fluid manifold is at least as large as a sum of all cross-sections of the plurality of openings as taught by Wang 2 to increase the uniformity of fluid distribution (Section 6.3, page 1339; Section 1, page 1331).
Modified Wang 1 does not explicitly teach that the cooling fluid is distributed uniformly into the housing interior through passive flow impedance caused by the battery module elements.
However, Wang 1 teaches wherein a plate (inner wall) may be spaced apart from a battery array to create an air pocket between a first longitudinal side and the plate ([0027]; Fig. 5) and teaches wherein air flow uniformity is desired ([0028]; [0032]-[0033]). Fig. 5 of Wang 1 illustrates a fluid flow path around battery cells (Fig. 5 annotated below). Once the air flows into the air pocket it is subsequently passively inhibited by the battery cells. Therefore, the structure taught by modified Wang 1 meets the limitations of claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
353
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Wang 1 in view of Wang 2 does not explicitly teach wherein the flow is inhibited by the at least one battery module element so as to enable a uniform flow of the cooling fluid around the housing interior.
However, Wang 1 teaches wherein a plate (inner wall) may be spaced apart from a battery array to create an air pocket between a first longitudinal side and the plate ([0027]; Fig. 5) and teaches wherein air flow uniformity is desired ([0028]; [0032]-[0033]). Fig. 5 of Wang 1 illustrates a fluid flow path around battery cells (Fig. 5 annotated below). Once the air flows into the air pocket it is subsequently inhibited by the battery cells. Therefore, the structure taught by Wang 1 in view of Wang 2 meets the limitations of claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
353
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 1 (US 20160315366 A1) in view of Wang 2 (Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume 168, Issue 3, Pages 1331-1345 "Theory of flow distribution in manifolds") in further view of Huazhao (US 20110017438 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Wang 1 in view of Wang 2 does not teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the cooling fluid manifold is greater by √2 than the sum of all cross-sectional areas of the plurality of openings.
However, Wang 2 teaches the theory of flow distribution and pressure drop and their importance in controlling flow in manifolds. Wang 2 teaches that uniform flow distribution can be found only when the ratio (M) of the sum of all the ports areas to the area of the manifold is smaller (Section 6.3, page 1339). At the extreme condition (i.e., M= 0), there is no the effect of the flow branching (Section 6.3, Page 1339). The equation for M is given as 𝑀 = 𝐹𝑐 𝑛/𝐹 where F and Fc are the cross-sectional areas of the manifold and the port, respectively (Section 6.3, Page 1339). Utilizing a large manifold size in relation to the size of the holes in the inner wall would allow for even and consistent fluid flow that can then be controlled by the hole sizing. The claimed difference in cross-sectional area of √2 would result in a M value always less than 1, which limits the effects flow branching and aids in maintaining a uniform fluid flow (Section 6.3, Page 1339).
Further, Huazhao teaches a multi-channel heat exchanger in which distribution of refrigerant can be improved by balancing the ratio of the total area of the openings in a distributor tube to the cross-sectional area of the distributor tube with a given distributor tube length ([0030]-[0032]). Specifically, controlling a ratio between total opening area and distributor tube cross-sectional area allows control over uniformity of fluid flow ([0032]).
Huazhao discloses that there is an art recognized relationship between the cross-sectional area of the manifold and port which affects the overall uniformity of fluid flow. Therefore, the cross-sectional area of both the manifold and openings are considered result effective variables, wherein the selection of the particular values thereof would be considered a matter of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art and as such the relative difference in area between the manifold and openings would likewise be a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP §2144.05 II).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the cross-sectional area of the manifold and the cross-sectional area of the fluid exits taught by modified Wang 1, in order to minimize the effects of cooling fluid flow branching while maintaining a compact design.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oda et al. (US 20020051340 A1) teaches a battery module housing comprising: a housing interior configured to receive at least one battery module element, a housing inner wall arranged to spatially separate housing inner space from a housing outer wall of the battery module housing, and a cooling fluid manifold bounded between the housing inner wall and the housing outer wall (Fig. 3, [0013]; p0039]) wherein the housing inner wall comprises at least one opening configured to facilitate flow of a cooling fluid from the cooling fluid manifold into the housing inner space and around the at least one battery module element (Fig. 3; [0039]), and wherein the flow is passively inhibited by the at least one battery module element so as to enable a uniform flow distribution of the cooling fluid around the housing interior ([0051]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights