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
Claim 14 has been canceled.
Claims 1-13 and 15 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 122(b), see Fig. 4, where the examiner believes 122(b) should read 121(b). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3 is 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.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear to what element “an inner side” refers to. For examination, “an inner side” is interpreted as “an inner side of the cooling plate”.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear from the limitation “wherein the cooling plate further includes an outer peripheral surface at an opposite side of a surface contacting the module case has a flexural structure” what element has the flexural structure. For examination, the opposite side is interpreted as having the flexural structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klimek (US20170025655A1).
Regarding claim 1, Klimek discloses a battery module (Fig. 4) comprising: at least one battery cell (Fig. 4; 102);
a module case (Fig. 2; 12; Fig. 4; 3, 5, 8, 9, 65; “MC”) having a receiving portion (Fig. 5; space occupied by 102; “RP”) for accommodating the at least one battery cell (102) therein; and a cooling plate (Fig. 4; 4, 16, 27) formed at an external side (annotated Fig. 4; ES) of a first surface (annotated Fig. 4; 1S) of the module case (MC), wherein the module case (MC) is fastened with the cooling plate (4, 16, 27) by welding (“brazed”; [0043]) and a reinforcement beam (Fig. 4; 44), wherein the reinforcement beam (44) extends through the module case (MC) and cooling plate (4) in a first direction (annotated Fig. 4; Y) and is elongated (annotated Fig. 4; 2E) in a second direction (annotated Fig. 4; X) perpendicular to the first direction (Y), and wherein a first end (annotated Fig. 4; 1E) of the reinforcement beam (44) is inside (Fig. 4) the module case (5).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Klimek discloses wherein the reinforcement beam (44) is fastened along an edge region (annotated Fig. 4; E indicates edge of through hole of 4) of the cooling plate (4, 16, 27).
PNG
media_image2.png
559
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Klimek discloses wherein in the welding ([0048]), the module case (MC) is fastened with the cooling plate (4, 16, 27) by a braze ([0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Klimek discloses wherein the at least one battery cell (102) is oriented in a direction (annotated Fig. 4; Y) perpendicular (Fig. 4) to the cooling plate (4, 16, 27).
PNG
media_image3.png
578
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Klimek discloses wherein the module case (MC) includes: a U-shaped frame (Fig. 4; 3, 8, 65) having a structure (Fig. 4; 3, 8, 65) which covers a lower surface (annotated Fig. 4; LS1) and opposite side surfaces (annotated Fig. 4; SS) of the receiving portion (RP); and a top plate (Fig. 4; 9) which covers an upper surface (annotated Fig. 4; US) of the U-shaped frame (3, 8, 65).
PNG
media_image4.png
586
597
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Klimek discloses wherein the cooling plate (4, 16, 27) is fastened at an external side (annotated Fig. 4; ES) of a lower surface (annotated Fig. 4; LS2) of the U-shaped frame (3, 8, 65).
Regarding claim 11, Klimek discloses wherein the module case (MC) includes: a bottom plate (Fig. 4; 3) which forms a lower surface (annotated Fig. 4; LS1) of the receiving portion (RP); and a U-shaped frame (Fig. 4; 8, 19, 9) having a structure (Fig. 4; 8, 19, 9) which covers an upper surface (annotated Fig. 4; US) and both side surfaces (annotated Fig. 4; SS) of the receiving portion (RP), wherein the cooling plate (4, 16, 27) is fastened at an external side (annotated Fig. 4; ES) of a lower surface (annotated Fig. 4; ES) of the bottom plate (3).
PNG
media_image5.png
559
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Klimek discloses wherein the module case (MC) further includes an end plate (Fig. 2; 12) which covers an open side surface (annotated Fig. 2; OSS) of the U-shaped frame (3, 8, 65).
PNG
media_image6.png
480
557
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Klimek discloses a battery pack (Fig. 1; 1) comprising the battery module (Fig. 4) according to claim 1.
PNG
media_image7.png
579
610
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Klimek discloses wherein a second end (annotated Fig. 4; 2E) of the reinforcement beam (44) contacts an external surface (annotated Fig. 4; ES2) of the cooling plate (4, 16, 27).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimek (US20170025655A1) in view of Geskes (US20200112071A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Klimek discloses wherein the cooling plate (4, 16, 27) has a plate-shaped structure (Fig. 4; 27; “cooling channels”; [0043]) for forming a fluid-move path (““cooling channels”; [0043]) but fails to disclose having a flexural structure.
Geskes discloses wherein the cooling plate (7) has a plate-shaped structure (“cover plate 7”; [0033]; Fig. 1; element 7) having a flexural structure (“meandering shape”; [0040]; Fig. 6; element 10) for forming a fluid-move path (“cooling channel”; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Klimek by substituting the flexural structure of Geskes for the fluid move path of Klimek, such that the flexural structure formed a fluid move path, as a simple substitution of one known element for another to predictably obtain cooling as disclosed by Geskes ([0032]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimek (US20170025655A1) in view of Sohn (KR20200084404A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Watanabe (JPH1061622A, machine translation used for rejection below, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Klimek discloses wherein the cooling plate (4, 16, 27) includes a fluid-move path (Fig. 4; 27; “cooling channels”; [0043]) at an inner side (annotated Fig. 4; IS) contacting the module case (MC), wherein the cooling plate (4, 16, 27) further includes an outer peripheral surface (annotated Fig. 4, OPS) at an opposite side (annotated Fig. 4; OS) of a surface (annotated Fig. 4; IS) contacting the module case (MC) but fails to disclose has a flexural structure including a separation region spaced apart from the module case, and an adhesion region attached to the module case, and wherein the fastening by the welding and the reinforcement beam is formed at the adhesion region of the cooling plate.
PNG
media_image8.png
563
678
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sohn discloses a flexural structure (Fig. 3; 10) that has a separation region (annotated Fig. 3; SR) spaced apart (Fig. 3) from a module case (Fig. 3; 3), and an adhesion region (annotated Fig. 3; AR) attached to the module case (3), and wherein fastening by welding ([0044, 0046]) is formed at the adhesion region (AR) of a fluid move path (Fig. 3; 10) of a cooling plate (Fig. 3; 10).
PNG
media_image9.png
367
569
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Klimek by substituting the fluid move path and welding of Klimek for the fluid move path and welding of Sohn, such that the outer peripheral surface has a flexural structure including a separation region spaced apart from the module case, and an adhesion region attached to the module case, and wherein the fastening by the welding is formed at the adhesion region of the cooling plate, in order to improve the cooling efficiency of the cooling plate as suggested by Sohn ([0001]).
Klimek in view of Sohn fails to disclose the fastening by the reinforcement beam is formed at the adhesion region of the cooling plate.
Watanabe discloses fastening (Fig. 3) by a reinforcement beam (Fig. 3; 5) and welding (Fig. 3; 6).
Watanabe, Klimek and Sohn are analogous art as they each relate to the art of brazing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Klimek in view of Sohn by adding the reinforcement beam of Watanabe to Klimek in view of Sohn and substituting the welding of Klimek in view of Sohn for the welding taught by Watanabe, such that fastening by welding and a reinforcement beam is formed at the adhesion region of the cooling plate, in order to secure unprecedented strength and airtightness in the joint between the module case and cooling plate as suggested by Watanabe ([0060]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimek (US20170025655A1) in view of Mahe (US 20160049705 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Klimek discloses a cross-section (Fig. 3; cross section of 44) of the reinforcement beam (44) but fails to disclose a H-shaped beam structure.
Mahe discloses where a cross section (Fig. 1; cross section of 36) of a reinforcement beam (Fig. 1; 36) has a h-shaped beam structure (Fig. 1; 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Klimek by substituting the reinforcement beam of Klimek for the reinforcement beam of Mahe in order to predictably fix ([0047]) the cooling plate to the module case as taught by Mahe.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimek (US20170025655A1) in view of Watanabe (JPH1061622A, machine translation used for rejection below, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Klimek discloses wherein the reinforcement beam (44) penetrates the first surface (1S) of the module case (MC) and a surface (annotated Fig. 4; of the cooling plate (4, 16, 27), and a through hole (Fig. 3; hole for 44 in 4) of the cooling plate and a hole (Fig. 3; 55) of the module case, but fails to disclose wherein the welding is performed by filling an empty space between the reinforcement beam and each through hole of the module case and the cooling plate.
Watanabe discloses a reinforcement beam (Fig. 3; 5) and welding (Fig. 3; 6), wherein the welding (6) is performed by filling an empty space (Fig. 3; space occupied by 6) between the reinforcement beam (5) and each through hole (Fig. 3; hole in 1 and 2).
Watanabe and Klimek are analogous art as they both relate to the art of joining techniques. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Klimek by substituting the reinforcement beam, through hole and hole of Klimek for the reinforcement beam, welding and through holes of Watanabe such that the welding of Klimek in view of Watanabe also includes filling an empty space between the reinforcement beam and each through hole of the module case and the cooling plate in order to secure unprecedented strength and airtightness in the joint between the module case and cooling plate as suggested by Watanabe ([0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights