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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/03/2026:
Claims 1, 6-14, 17-20, and 22-25 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 14, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 22-25 are new.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been overcome due to the amendment to the claim. However, a new rejection has been set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 6, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and the cancellation of claim 16.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
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.
Claim 1, and thus claims 7-14, 17-20, and 22-25, claim 6, and thus dependent claim 7, claim 8, and thus dependent claim 9, claim 12, and thus dependent claim 13, claim 19, and claims 22-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the heat conducting member is not provided between adjacent battery modules”.
The claim sets forth “a heat conducting member” in relation to “a battery” in line 3 and then later sets forth “at least one heat conducting member” in relation to when the battery comprises a plurality of battery modules” in line 12.
The recitation of “the heat conducting member” is unclear because it is not clear if “the heat conducting member” not provided between adjacent battery modules is the “a heat conducting member” or one of the “at least one heat conducting member”(s).
Similar issues can be found in claims 6, 8, 12, 19, and 22-25, which each recite “the heat conducting member”, but it is unclear if it refers to the “a heat conducting member” in line 3 or the “at least one heat conducting member” in line 12.
Due to claims 7-14, 17-20, and 22-25 depending on claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons. Due to claim 7 depending on claim 6, it is rejected for the same reason. Due to claim 9 depending on claim 8, it is rejected for the same reason. Due to claim 13 depending on claim 12, it is rejected for the same reason.
Note: claim 10 specifies that “the heat conducting member” refers to “the heat conducting member connected to the first wall of the plurality of battery cells”, and, therefore, appears to be referring to “a heat conducting member” in line 3. Therefore, a specific rejection under U.S.C. 112(b) (not due to its dependence upon claim 1) is not set forth for claim 10. Similarly, claim 17 refers to N-1 heat conducting member(s) in relation to each battery module, and, therefore, appears to be referring to “at least heat conducting member” in line 12. Therefore, a specific rejection under U.S.C. 112(b) (not due to its dependence upon claim 1) is not set forth for claim 17.
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.
Claims 1, 14, 17, 20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721).
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Wang ‘2008 discloses a battery, comprising: a plurality of battery cells arranged along a first direction (at least one battery cell 111 in battery module 1 in Fig. 1; the first direction is drawn to the “X” direction in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P57);
a heat conducting member extending along the first direction and connected to a first wall of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells, the first wall being a wall with the largest surface area in each battery cell, the heat conducting member being configured to conduct heat of each battery cell (heat exchange member 3 in Fig. 1; two first side walls 113a in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P66, 74), and
wherein the battery comprises a plurality of battery modules, a battery module of the plurality of battery modules comprises at least one column of the plurality of battery cells arranged along the first direction and at least one heat conducting member (“The battery module 1 may be one or more modules. When a plurality of battery modules 1 are provided, the battery modules 1 may be arranged in a length direction X or in a width direction Y”, P56; see Fig. 1)
the at least one column of the plurality of battery cells and the at least one heat conducting member are provided alternately in a second direction perpendicular to the first wall (the second direction is drawn to the “Z” direction in Fig. 1), and
the heat conducting member is not provided between adjacent battery modules (as recited above, Wang teaches the battery module can be one or more modules, and the modules can be arranged in a length direction X or a width direction Y in Fig. 1, P56; since the heat exchange members 3 are arranged between the columns of battery cells in a “Z” direction, there would not be a heat exchange member between adjacent battery modules in the “X” or “Y” direction).
However, Wang ‘2008 does not disclose a surface of the heat conducting member connected to the first wall being an insulating surface, wherein a dimension of the heat conducting member in a second direction is 0.1~100mm, or wherein the heat conducting member is a non-metallic material plate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wang ‘721 teaches a cold plate arranged along a bottom surface of a battery pack coupled to a bottom panel (P6, 24, 35). Wang ‘721 teaches the cold plate can have a main intake channel to receive a coolant and a main outtake channel to circulate the coolant throughout the cold plate (P19, 65, 67). Wang ‘721 teaches the bottom panel includes an outlet port and inlet port to move coolant to and from the cold plate (P40-42, 46-47).
Wang ‘721 teaches the cold plate and bottom panel can be made of a ceramic material such as silicon nitride (P23, 35). Wang ‘721 teaches the cold plate can have a thickness ranging between 2.2 mm to 10.2 mm (P35). Wang ‘721 teaches the thickness of the bottom panel ranges between 2 mm to 6 mm (P24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang ‘721 and selected the heat conducting member of Wang ‘2008 to be made of silicon nitride having a thickness of 4.2 to 16.2 mm, given Wang ‘721 teaches a cooling plate of silicon nitride having a thickness of 4.2 to 16.2 mm is known to be utilized to provide cooling to battery cells and allow coolant to flow therethrough, and 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). Further, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Therefore, modified Wang ‘2008 meets the limitation wherein the heat conducting member is a non-metallic material plate (silicon nitride for both the cooling plate and bottom panel), and a surface of the heat conducting member connected to the first wall is an insulating surface (silicon nitride is a known to be electrically insulating). Further, modified Wang ‘2008 provides a dimension of the heat conducting member in a second direction (thickness) is 4.2 to 16.2 mm, which lies within the range of 0.1-100 mm.
Regarding claim 14, Wang ‘2008 discloses wherein each battery cell further comprises two first walls provided opposite to each other in the second direction and further comprises two second walls provided opposite to each other in the first direction, and wherein the second walls of two adjacent battery cells are opposite (two first side walls 113a and two second side walls 113b in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P74; see also Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Wang ‘2008 discloses wherein each battery module comprises N columns of battery cells and N-1 heat conducting member(s), the heat conducting member(s) is provided between two adjacent columns of battery cells, and N is an integer greater than 1 (as seen in Fig. 1, there are 2 columns of batteries and 1 heat conducting member).
Regarding claim 20, Wang ‘2008 discloses wherein the battery is within a power consumption device (vehicle) and configured to provide electric energy (P53).
Regarding claims 24-25, modified Wang ‘2008 meets the limitation wherein a cavity is provided in the heat conducting member, and wherein the cavity is configured to accommodate a fluid to adjust a temperature of each battery cell (given Wang ‘721 teaches the cold plate can have a main intake channel to receive the coolant and a main outtake channel to circulate the coolant throughout the cold plate (P19, 65, 67)).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721) as applied to claim 1, further in view of He et al (US 20220416343 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang ‘2008 meets the limitation a dimension T2 of the heat conducting member in the second direction is 4.2 to 16.2 mm (see the rejection of claim 1). However, Wang ‘2008 is silent to the dimensions of each battery cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, He teaches battery cells having a thickness of 10 mm to 90 mm (P25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the battery cells of modified Wang ‘2008 with the battery cells of He in order to provide modified Wang ‘2008 with battery cells having a dimension T1 in the second direction of 10 mm to 90 mm, given He teaches these are known battery cells of this dimension and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
This modification allows the range of T2/T1 to be calculated as (2.2/90)< T2/T1 ≤ (16.2/10), which equals 0.02444 < T2/T1 ≤ 1.62.
This range of 0.02444 < T2/T1 ≤ 1.62 lies within, and therefore meets, the claimed range of 0 < T2/T1 ≤ 7.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang ‘2008 includes wherein 0.02444 < T2/T1 ≤ 1.62 which overlaps the claimed range of 0 < T2/T1 ≤ 1 and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ramamurthi et al (US 20120301768 A1) and Chiu et al (US 20130309531 A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein a weight M1 of the battery cell and a weight M2 of the heat conducting member satisfy: 0<M2/M1<20 and wherein 0.1<M2/M1<1.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ramamurthi teaches an invention wherein there are less cathode materials in a core area of the battery cell giving it a lighter weight (P24).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the weight of a battery cell is a result-effective variable based upon the amount of electrode materials (in Ramamurthi’s case, cathode materials) within a battery cell. Therefore, it is up to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the weight of the battery cell based upon the amount of electrode materials a manufacture decides to use within the battery cell, and “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
However, modified Wang ‘2008 does not give a weight for the heat conducting material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chiu teaches a cooling plate has a reduced weight thereby decreasing its cost by using fewer materials (P2, 10).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the weight of a heat conducting member is a result-effective variable based upon the desired cost and amount of materials a manufacturer wishes to use. Therefore, it is up to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the weight of the heat conducting member based upon the desired cost and amount of materials a manufacturer wishes to use, and “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, the ratio of the weight M1 of the battery cell and the weight M2 of the heat conducting member of modified Wang ‘2008 is dependent upon the optimization of the amount of electrode materials used in a battery cell and the desired cost and amount of materials a manufacturer wishes to use in a heat conduction member.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Khan Academy (What is thermal conductivity?, hereinafter referred to as “Khan”).
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein an area S1 of the first wall and an area S2 of a surface of the heat conducting member connected to the first wall of the plurality of battery cells satisfy: 0.2 < S2/S1 < 30 and 2 < S2/S1 < 30.
Khan teaches the transfer of heat between two objects in contact is thermal conduction (page 1). Khan teaches there are four factors that affect the rate at which heat is conductive through a material (Q/t): the thermal conductivity constant for the material (k), a cross-sectional area of the material transferring heat (A), the difference in temperature between one side of the material and another (T1-T2), and the thickness of the material (d, page 3). Khan gives the equation for the rate of thermal conduction:
Q
t
=
k
A
(
T
h
o
t
-
T
c
o
l
d
)
d
(page 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would not only recognize this equation, but be able to rearrange the equation to:
A
=
d
*
(
Q
/
t
k
)
(
T
h
o
t
-
T
c
o
l
d
)
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the rearranged thermal conductivity equation that the cross-sectional surface areas of the materials transferring heat (the cross-sectional area of the first wall surface and the cross section area of the heat conduction member connected to the first wall) are result-effective variable of the: the thermal conductivity constant for the objects (k), the thickness of the materials (d), the difference in temperature between one side of the object and another object (T1-T2), and the rate at which heat is conductive through an object (Q/t). Therefore, it is up to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relationship between the surface areas of the first wall and heat conduction member connected to the first wall based upon the factors listed above, and “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sugita et al (US 20120171529 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein an area S1 of the first wall and an area S2 of a surface of the heat conducting member connected to the first wall of the plurality of battery cells satisfy: 0.2 < S2/S1 < 30.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sugita teaches that covering an entire surface of a battery with a cooling member allows the cooling member to more effectively respond to abnormal heat generation in the battery (P49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Sugita and modified the heat conducting member of modified Wang ‘2008 to cover the entire surface of the first wall, given Sugita teaches this would allow a more effective response to abnormal heat generation in a battery cell.
If the entire surface of the first wall is covered by the first heat conducting member then S2/S1 is 1 which lies within the claimed range of 0.2 < S2/S1 < 30.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Xiao et al (US 20210028425 A1), as evidenced by Accuratus (Aluminum Oxide, Al2O3 Ceramic Properties), and Chiu et al (US 20130309531 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein a specific heat capacity Q of the heat conducting member and a weight M2 of the heat conducting member satisfy: 0.02 KJ/(kg2*°C)<Q/M2<100 KJ/(kg2*°C) and 0.3 KJ/(kg2*°C)<Q/M2<20 KJ/(kg2*°C).
In a similar field of endeavor, Xiao teaches a insulation thermal-dissipation member can be made of an aluminum oxide ceramic as it has electrical insulation and a large thermal conductivity (P19, 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Xiao and selected the heat conducting member of modified Wang ‘2008 to be made of an aluminum oxide ceramic material rather than silicon nitride, given Xiao teaches this can provide a heat dissipation structure with electrical insulation and a large thermal conductivity and 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).
Accuratus states that 94%, 96%, and 99.5% Aluminum Oxide has specific heat of 880 J/Kg•°K / 0.21 Btu/lb•°F. Therefore, the specific heat of the heat conducting member of modified Wang ‘2008 is 880 J/Kg•°K / 0.21 Btu/lb•°F.
However, modified Wang ‘2008 does not give a weight for the heat conduction member.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chiu teaches a cooling plate has a reduced weight thereby decreasing its cost by using fewer materials (P2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the weight of a heat conducting member is a result-effective variable based upon the desired cost and amount of materials a manufacturer wishes to use. Therefore, it is up to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the weight of the heat conducting member based upon the desired cost and amount of materials a manufacturer wishes to use, and “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, while the specific heat of the heat conducting member of modified Wang ‘2008 is 880 J/Kg•°K / 0.21 Btu/lb•F°, the ratio of the specific heat capacity Q of the heat conducting member and the weight M2 of the heat conducting member is dependent upon the optimization of the weight of the heat conduction member based upon the desired cost and amount of materials a manufacturer wishes to use.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tan et al (US 20180294452 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein the heat conducting member is bonded to the first wall.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tan teaches a single cell is directly adhered to an inner surface of a bottom plate of a tray by using an electrically insulative and thermally conductive adhesive (P9).Tan teaches, in this way, the single cell is simply and reliably fastened, space utilization is higher, and heat produced by the single cell is directly transferred to the bottom plate of the tray by the electrically insulative and thermally conductive adhesive, so that heat transfer efficiency is higher (P9). Tan teaches a heat dissipation channel is formed on the tray, and cooling liquid is injected into the heat dissipation channel (P6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Tan and provided wherein the heat conducting member of modified Wang ‘2008 is bonded to the first wall of modified ‘Wang 2008 via an electrically insulative and thermally conductive adhesive, given Tan teaches utilizing the electrically insulative and thermally conductive adhesive can simply and reliably fashion a cell to a heat conducting tray while providing high space utilization and high heat transfer efficiency.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Knape et al (US 20180301765 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein there is a gap between adjacent battery modules.
In a similar field of endeavor, Knape teaches thermally insulating element can be arranged between battery modules in order to prevent heat from being exchanged between adjacent battery modules in the module assembly (P46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Knape and provided a thermally insulating element between the adjacent battery modules of modified Wang ‘2008, given Knape teaches this can prevent heat from being exchanged between adjacent modules.
While modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein the plurality of battery modules are arranged along the second direction, this is merely rearranging parts of the battery to have a plurality of battery modules stacked in a Z-direction. It would have been obvious to rearrange the parts of the battery as claimed in order to, for example, minimize the space taken up by the battery in the horizontal direction in order to place the battery in an area with little horizontal space (in either the “X” direction or “Y” direction), given the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As seen in the Examiner’s interpretation of modified Wang ‘2008 below, stacking the battery modules as shown in Fig. 2 of Wang ‘2008 provides the heat conducting member of one of the battery modules to be provided between both battery modules (therefore, not meeting the limitations of claim 1).
However, this is merely another rearrangement of the parts of modified Wang ‘2008. Wang ‘2008 discloses the battery modules are included in a case (P55). Wang ‘2008 also teaches the case is made of aluminum (P55). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that heat from the heat conducting member would further be conducted/radiated out of the case, given aluminum is a known heat conductor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would also realize that the heat conducting member being adjacent to the case provides further cooling efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of modified Wang such that the heat conducting member between the battery modules (for example module A’s heat conducting member is the one provided between the battery modules) would be placed on the side of the battery module (module A) adjacent to the case, in order to, for example allow the heat from the heat conducting member to be conducted/radiated out from the case to improve the cooling of the battery, given the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
See below the Examiner’s interpretation of modified Wang ‘2008.
PNG
media_image1.png
607
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s interpretation of modified Wang ‘2008
Claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN112072008B, using US 20210265679 A1 as an English equivalent; hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘2008) in view of Wang et al (Wang et al (US 20200161721 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘721) in view of Wiepen (US 20090186260 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Wang ‘2008 discloses a battery, comprising: a plurality of battery cells arranged along a first direction (at least one battery cell 111 in battery module 1 in Fig. 1; the first direction is drawn to the “X” direction in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P57);
a heat conducting member extending along the first direction and connected to a first wall of each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells, the first wall being a wall with the largest surface area in each battery cell, the heat conducting member being configured to conduct heat of each battery cell (heat exchange member 3 in Fig. 1; two first side walls 113a in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P66, 74), and
wherein the battery comprises a plurality of battery modules, a battery module of the plurality of battery modules comprises at least one column of the plurality of battery cells arranged along the first direction and at least one heat conducting member (“The battery module 1 may be one or more modules. When a plurality of battery modules 1 are provided, the battery modules 1 may be arranged in a length direction X or in a width direction Y”, P56; see Fig. 1)
the at least one column of the plurality of battery cells and the at least one heat conducting member are provided alternately in a second direction perpendicular to the first wall (the second direction is drawn to the “Z” direction in Fig. 1), and
the heat conducting member is not provided between adjacent battery modules (as recited above, Wang teaches the battery module can be one or more modules, and the modules can be arranged in a length direction X or a width direction Y in Fig. 1, P56; since the heat exchange members 3 are arranged between the columns of battery cells in a “Z” direction, there would not be a heat exchange member between adjacent battery modules in the “X” or “Y” direction).
However, Wang ‘2008 does not disclose a surface of the heat conducting member connected to the first wall being an insulating surface, wherein a dimension of the heat conducting member in a second direction is 0.1~100mm, or wherein the heat conducting member comprises a metal plate and an insulating layer, and wherein the heat conducting member also comprises an insulating layer, and the insulating layer is provided on a surface of the metal plate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wang ‘721 teaches a cold plate arranged along a bottom surface of a battery pack coupled to a bottom panel (P6, 24, 35). Wang ‘ 721teaches the cold plate can have a main intake channel to receive the coolant and a main outtake channel to circulate the coolant throughout the cold plate (P19, 65, 67). Wang ‘721 teaches the bottom panel includes an outlet port and inlet port to move coolant to and from the cold plate (P40-42, 46-47).
Wang ‘721 teaches the cold plate and bottom panel can be made of a metal (P23, 35). Wang ‘721 teaches the cold plate can have a thickness ranging between 2.2 mm to 10.2 mm (P35). Wang ‘721 teaches the thickness of the bottom panel ranges between 2 mm to 6 mm (P24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang ‘721 and substitute the heat conducting member of Wang ‘2008 with the cold plate plus bottom panel of Wang ‘721 to provide a heat conducting member made of metal that has a thickness of 4.2 to 16.2 mm and includes a cavity to circulate coolant throughout and inlet/outlet ports to move coolant to and from the cavity, given Wang teaches this provides cooling to battery cells and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Therefore, modified Wang ‘2008 meets the limitation wherein the heat conducting member includes a metal plate, and a dimension of the heat conducting member in a second direction (thickness) is 4.2 to 16.2 mm which lies within the range of 0.1-100 mm.
However, modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein a surface of the heat conducting member connected to the first wall is an insulating surface, and wherein the heat conducting member also comprises an insulating layer, and the insulating layer is provided on a surface of the metal plate, the insulating layer is an insulating film bonded to a surface of the metal plate or an insulating varnish coated on the surface of the metal plate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wiepen teaches for insulation purposes, rechargeable batteries can be coated with a plastic film, a shrink sleeve or an insulating varnish (P52). Wiepen teaches this prevents the metallic walls of the rechargeable batteries from touching to avoid shorts (P85).
While Wiepen is drawn to providing insulating films/varnishes on batteries rather than a heat conducting member, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a metal heat conducting member would also have the possibility of shorts occurring and an insulating film/varnish would be beneficial to prevent this. If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilizing an insulating film/varnish on a metal battery wall to prevent shorts), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilizing an insulating film/varnish on a metal heat conducting member to prevent shorts), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wiepen and provided wherein the heat conducting member of Wang ‘2008 comprises a metal plate with an insulating layer, and the insulating layer is provided on a surface of the metal plate, the insulating layer is an insulating film bonded to a surface of the metal plate or an insulating varnish coated on the surface of the metal plate, given Wiepen teaches this can avoid shorts occurring.
Therefore, modified Wang ‘2008 meets the limitation wherein the heat conducting member comprises a metal plate and an insulating layer, and the insulating layer is provided on a surface of the metal plate, and wherein a surface of the heat conducting member connected to the first wall is an insulating surface (via the insulating film or varnish).
While Wiepen is silent to the thickness of the insulating coat, given modified Wang ‘2008 sets forth the thickness of the heat conducting member to be 4.2 to 16.2 mm, it can be said that the thickness of the heat conducting member in the second direction is at least 4.2mm, which overlaps with the claimed range, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding claim 21, while modified Wang ‘2008 does not meet the limitation wherein the insulating layer is provided on two opposite surfaces of the metal plate, this is merely a change in the form/shape of the insulating layer to cover two surfaces of the metal plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the form/shape of modified Wang ‘2008 as claimed in order to, for example, provide electrical insulation to both the side in contact with the battery and the side opposite to the battery such that electrical shorts could be prevented on both sides, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1729