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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/26 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maier et al. (DE 102012222689 A1, hereinafter Maier, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 24. Maier teaches an energy storage system, the energy storage system comprising at least two storage cells (Fig. 1 & 2, items 12 & 14 with item 18),
wherein the at least two storage cells are each provided, at least in sections, with a casing (item 20 and plastic sheets or plastic film and electrically insulating shrink tubing, Page 8),
wherein each casing comprises plastic (Page 7 & 8),
wherein each casing is formed from elastomeric material (Page 7 & 8) with an endothermically-acting filler (Page 7, aluminum hydroxide) being introduced into the elastomeric material.
Re Claim 25. Maier teaches wherein the endothermically-acting filler (Page 7, aluminum hydroxide) is configured to absorb thermal energy into the elastomeric material (functional limitation).
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bannai (WO 2020/031467 A1, previously cited).
Re Claim 24. Bannai teaches an energy storage system (Fig. 1 & 2), the energy storage system comprising at least two storage cells (item 5),
wherein the at least two storage cells are each provided, at least in sections, with a casing (items 2a & 2b), wherein each casing comprises plastic (Page 4),
wherein each casing is formed from elastomeric material (Page 4, aluminum hydroxide) with an endothermically-acting filler (Page 4) being introduced into the elastomeric material.
Re Claim 25. Bannai teaches wherein the endothermically-acting filler (Page 4, aluminum hydroxide) is configured to absorb thermal energy into the elastomeric material (Page 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Leuthner et al. (WO 2010/023064 A1, hereinafter Leuthner, previously cited) and Okajima et al. (US 6,309,776 B1, hereinafter Okajima, previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Maier teaches an energy storage system, the energy storage system comprising at least two storage cells (Fig. 1 & 2, items 12 & 14 with item 18),
wherein the at least two storage cells are each provided, at least in sections, with a casing (item 20 and plastic sheets or plastic film and electrically insulating shrink tubing, Page 8),
wherein each casing comprises plastic (Page 7 & 8),
wherein each casing is formed from elastomeric material (Page 7 & 8) with an endothermically-actin filler (Page 7, aluminum hydroxide) being introduced into the elastomeric material, and
wherein each casing has a circular cross-section (Page 5) that is contoured on an outside (Fig. 2).
Maier fails to specifically teach that each casing has longitudinal ribs that project in a radially outward direction relative to a center of the circular cross-section of a respective casing, the longitudinal rebs each extending in the radially outward direction from a radially outer periphery of the circular cross-section, wherein the longitudinal ribs are arranged evenly distributed about a circumference of each casing, and wherein at least one of the longitudinal ribs of a first of the at least two storage cells is arranged between at least two of the longitudinal ribs of a second of the at least two storage cells.
The invention of Leuthner encompasses battery module. Leuthner teaches that each casing has longitudinal ribs (Fig. 5, item 7) that project in a radially outward direction relative to a center of the circular cross-section of a respective casing, the longitudinal rebs each extending in the radially outward direction from a radially outer periphery of the circular cross-section (Fig. 5), wherein the longitudinal ribs are arranged evenly distributed about a circumference of each casing (Fig. 5).
In view of Leuthner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Maier to employ longitudinal ribs of Leuthner and configuration, since Leuthner teaches the advantage of using them, which is to achieve high cooling performance (abstract).
The invention of Okajima encompasses assembled storage battery unit. Okajima teaches that each casing has longitudinal ribs (Fig. 2 & 3, items 16a-16h & 26a-26h), and wherein at least one of the longitudinal ribs of a first of the at least two storage cells (Fig. 2 & 3, items 16f) is arranged between at least two of the longitudinal ribs of a second of the at least two storage cells (items 26a & 26b).
In view of Okajima, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Maier in view of Leuthner to have at least one of the longitudinal ribs of a first of the at least two storage cells arranged between at least two of the longitudinal ribs of a second of the at least two storage cells, since Okajima teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to from a plurality of ventilation spaces (abstract).
Re Claim 2. The combination teaches wherein the casing is configured to be elastic (Maier, Page 8).
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein the at least one storage cell is a round cell (Maier, Page 5).
Re Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the casing surrounds a sheath of the at least one storage cell at least in sections (Maier, Fig. 1).
Re Claim 5. The combination teaches wherein the casing is configured to be electrically insulating (Maier, Page 8).
Re Claim 7. The combination teaches wherein the casing is configured to be tubular (Maier, Page 5 & 8).
Re Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein the casing is formed from sheeting (Maier, Page 8).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches wherein the casing abuts with pretension on a sheath of the at least one storage cell (Maier, Page 8).
Re Claim 10. The combination teaches wherein the material for increasing the thermal conductivity is an electrically-insulating, inorganic filler (Maier, Page 7).
Re Claim 12. The combination teaches wherein each casing is contoured on a side facing a respective storage cell of the at least two storage cells (Maier, P5 & Leuthner, Fig. 5).
Re Claim 14. The combination teaches a cooler (Maier, Fig. 1 & 2, item 22), wherein the casing is configured to transmit heat emitted by the at least one storage cell to the cooler (Page 8).
Re Claim 15. The combination teaches wherein the casing lies flat against the cooler (Maier, Fig. 2).
Re Claim 16. Maier teaches an energy storage system comprising:
at least one storage cell (Fig. 1, items 12 & 14 with item 18); and
a casing (item 20) and, plastic sheets or plastic film and electrically insulating shrink tubing, P8), disposed on at least one storage cell at least in sections and comprising plastic (P8) and a further material with a greater thermal conductivity than the plastic (P7),
wherein each casing has a circular cross-section (P5) that is contoured on an outside (Fig. 2).
Maier fails to specifically teach that each casing has longitudinal ribs that project in a radially outward direction relative to a center of the circular cross-section of a respective casing, the longitudinal rebs each extending in the radially outward direction from a radially outer periphery of the circular cross-section, wherein the longitudinal ribs are arranged evenly distributed about a circumference of each casing, and wherein at least one of the longitudinal ribs of a first of the at least two storage cells is arranged between at least two of the longitudinal ribs of a second of the at least two storage cells.
The invention of Leuthner encompasses battery module. Leuthner teaches that each casing has longitudinal ribs (Fig. 5, item 7) that project in a radially outward direction relative to a center of the circular cross-section of a respective casing, the longitudinal rebs each extending in the radially outward direction from a radially outer periphery of the circular cross-section (Fig. 5), wherein the longitudinal ribs are arranged evenly distributed about a circumference of each casing (Fig. 5).
In view of Leuthner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Maier to employ longitudinal ribs of Leuthner and configuration, since Leuthner teaches the advantage of using them, which is to achieve high cooling performance (abstract).
The invention of Okajima encompasses assembled storage battery unit. Okajima teaches that each casing has longitudinal ribs (Fig. 2 & 3, items 16a-16h & 26a-26h), and wherein at least one of the longitudinal ribs of a first of the at least two storage cells (Fig. 2 & 3, items 16f) is arranged between at least two of the longitudinal ribs of a second of the at least two storage cells (items 26a & 26b).
In view of Okajima, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Maier in view of Leuthner to employ longitudinal ribs that project radially outward, and have at least one of the longitudinal ribs of a first of the at least two storage cells arranged between at least two of the longitudinal ribs of a second of the at least two storage cells, since Okajima teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to from a plurality of ventilation spaces (abstract).
Re Claim 21. The combination teaches wherein the endothermically-acting filler (Maier, Page 7, aluminum hydroxide) is configured to absorb thermal energy into the elastomeric material (functional limitation).
Re Claim 22. The combination teaches wherein the endothermically-acting filler (Maier, Page 7, aluminum hydroxide) is configured to undergo an endothermic reaction at temperatures above 100°C.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112- 2112.02.
Re Claim 23. The combination teaches does not explicitly teach that the endothermic reaction is triggered by recrystallization or release of crystal water.
However, since Maier in view Leuthner and Okajima and the claimed system employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (the endothermic reaction is triggered by recrystallization or release of crystal water) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Maier in view Leuthner and Okajima. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view Leuthner and Okajima as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bannai.
The teachings of Maier in view of Leuthner and Okajima have been discussed above.
Re Claim 17. Maier in view of Leuthner and Okajima fails to specifically teach that each casing is contoured with longitudinal ribs on a side facing a respective storage cell of the at least two cells.
The invention of Bannai encompasses battery holder and battery pack. Bannai teaches that casing is contoured with longitudinal ribs on a side facing a respective storage cell of the at least two cells (Fig. 3 & 4).
In view of Bannai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Maier in view of Leuthner and Okajima to have each casing contoured with longitudinal ribs on a side facing a respective storage cell of the at least two cells, since Bannai teaches the advantage of using them, which is to cool the battery effectively (Page 5).
Re Claim 18. The combination teaches wherein the longitudinal ribs form channels (Bannai, Fig. 3 & 4) through which a cooling medium is configured to flow.
Regarding “through which a cooling medium is configured to flow”: since the system of Maier in view of Leuthner, Okajima, and Bannai and the claimed system are structurally indistinguishable, the channel of Maier in view of Leuthner, Okajima, and Bannai is capable of performing the clamed function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, regarding claims 1, 16, and 24, applicant argued that Maier fails to teach an endothermically-acting filler.
The examiner disagrees with this because Maier explicitly teaches using aluminum hydroxide as a thermal conductivity additive (Page 7), which applicant uses as an endothermically-acting filler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
1/31/2026