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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent should refer to other claims in the alternative only. In this instance, claim 29 depends from both claim 6 and claim 24. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 29 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be a typographical error in the 2nd line which states “according to any claim 16”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As best understood, the claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors as described below.
In claim 16, Applicant, in the second indentation which begins with “at least one wall”, defines the structural and thermal relationship between the at least one wall and the cell/module. However, Applicant ends this indentation with the phrase “can be present,”. Such a phrase makes it unclear if these thermal/structural relationships are required in the claimed assembly or if they are optional (the can, but they don’t have to be). Clarification is required. For purposes of this examination, it will be assumed that these limitations are present in the assembly.
In claim 16, the last two indentations begin with “which”. It is not entirely clear what features are being referred to by each “which”. As best understood, it appears as though these phrases, that begin with “which” refer to “said at least one space” and “at least a second space”, and will be examined as such. Clarification is required.
In claim 16, Applicant claims “at least one wall…. disposed for this purpose opposite it”. It is not clear what “it” is referring to. Cell? Module? Side? Clarification is required.
In claim 16, Applicant claims “said side of said at least one cell or module facing or to which said wall extends”. This is grammatically broken and unclear. Is the wall facing a side? Is it extending to a side? both? Clarification is required.
In claim 24, Applicant claims “in at least one said wall…. said at least one first space and at least one second space contain… at the same time or at different times… respectively…”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite as it appears to have significant grammatical errors. In addition, it is not clear what the term “respectively” is referring to. Furthermore, the phrases “in at least one said wall” and “at least one said cell” lack antecedent basis as there is not antecedent basis for “said wall” or “said cell”. Perhaps Applicant meant to claim “in said at least one wall” and “in said at least one cell”, respectively. Clarification is required.
In claim 24, Applicant claims “a said side”. It is unclear if this “side” is the same “side” as previously defined in the claim, or is it a different new side. This is due to the term “a” in front of “said”. Clarification is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the nominal state" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 and 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heckenberger (US 2010/0307723).
Regarding claims 16, 23 and 24, Heckenberger discloses a vehicle that can be driven (such as the vehicle listed in the title:
comprising at least one assembly comprising:
either at least one cell of an electric battery (such as cell 23, see paragraph 61), said at least one cell having several sides (see Fig. 9 which illustrates cells 23 having several sides), or a module having several sides and containing a group of cells and
at least one wall adapted to be in thermal exchange with said at least one cell (the wall is the bottom plate 7) or with the module and disposed for this purpose opposite it, in a plane parallel to one of the sides of said at least one cell or of the module (see Fig. 9 where plate 7 is parallel to the top and bottom surface of the cell 23), said at least one wall enclosing at least one space where at least one flow of fluid adapted to be in thermal exchange with at least one cell or with the module (plate 7 is adapted to flow fluid to an enclosed space, such as tube 7b), for its thermal management, can be present (this phrase renders the claim indefinite, as described in the rejection under 35 USC §112 above),
characterized in that said at least one space comprises at least a first space for containing a first flow of fluid (the first space is the space of tube 7b where fluid flows) and at least a second space (in between fins 7d for flow of air, see paragraph 63) for containing a second flow of fluid:
which extend in two planes parallel to each other and to said side of said at least one cell or module facing or to which said wall extends (see Fig. 8 which illustrates two plates 7a, 7d parallel to each other),
which are separated by at least one partition (such as sheet 32, see paragraph 68 which discloses that the two cooling channels/ducts are separated by a sheet), so as not to communicate with each other, wherein the first flow of fluid and the second flow of fluid are not mixed together;
with several of said cells connected with an electric motor (as implied by stating that the battery is for an electric vehicle, see paragraph 12 which discloses a vehicle battery); and
in at least one said wall which extends facing a said side of at least one said cell, said at least one first space and at least one second space contain, as said first flow of fluid and second flow, at the same time or at different times of operation of the cells, respectively a first flow of fluid, present to circulate in a nominal state of operation of the cells, and a second vaporizable flow, originating from the same or a different flow of fluid and adapted to be vaporized in said second space, in case of overheating of at least one said cell which then no longer operates nominally (this limitation appears to be directed to a method of operating the claimed apparatus and does not add any structural limitations. This phrase deals with the flow of materials that are contained in the two spaces. The two spaces of Heckenberger, as described above, have the structure components (two spaces being fed with 2 different fluids) to be operated in this way.
Regarding limitations recited in claim 16 and 24 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 25, this claim defines the operational steps that occur when the temperature of the cells fall within a certain range. These operational steps are directed to whether fluid is flowing in each space. Such limitations do not further limit the claimed structure of the apparatus. Heckenberger, with its disclosed structure, contain all the structural features to be operated in such a way. As such, regarding limitations recited in claim 25 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations in this claim (the type of fluid flowing in the 2nd space) are directed to the material that is worked upon by the apparatus and does not further define the claimed apparatus. As such, regarding limitations recited in claim 26 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 27, Hackenberger further discloses said second flow of fluid is present in the second space (such as the air, as described in paragraph 15), in the overheated state of at least one said cell with which it is in thermal exchange (such a limitation is directed toward a method of operating the claimed cell and does not further provide structural detail), so that at a temperature threshold of said at least one cell said second flow of fluid reaches its vaporization temperature (such a limitation is directed toward a method of operating the claimed cell and does not further provide structural detail), and the second space is open, to allow evacuation of said second flow of fluid vaporized out of said wall, to the external atmosphere (see paragraphs 15-17 which discloses that the fluid is ambient air that is released to the atmosphere).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 27 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 28, Hackenber further discloses said circulating presence of the first flow of fluid: the first space communicates, in the wall (plate 7a) containing it, with a flow of fluid inlet and outlet (see Fig. 8 which illustrates an inlet and outlet from plate 7a), and the vehicle further comprises a recycling circuit for recycling said fluid from the outlet to the inlet and on which are disposed means for the forced circulation of the fluid and an exchanger for heat exchange between the first flow of fluid and another flow of fluid (see Fig. 10 which shows a recycle circuit for the heat exchange fluid which includes an exchanger (evaporator 5 and condenser 2) and a means for forced circulation (pump 1)).
Relevant Prior Art
US 2020/0006822 – Discloses a battery module which comprises two plates, parallel to each other, that are configured to flow two different fluids in order to regulate temperature in an adjacent battery cell/module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725