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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/5/26 has been entered.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are amended. Claim 18-19 are added. The rejections of claims 1 and 10 over Yum in view of Takahashi and Yamamoto is withdrawn in light of the amendment; however, a new rejection is made over Kenney. Claims 1, 8-11, and 16-19 are rejected for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection under 112(a) is withdrawn in light of the arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yum et al. (US 2016/0164148) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2018/0309152), Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0288020), and Kenney et al. (US 2016/0204486).
Regarding claim 1, Yum teaches a battery module comprising:
a battery cell stack, or battery module (24), in which a plurality of battery cells (450, 452, 454, etc.) are stacked;
a module frame, or supporting frame (20) and support plates (44, 46), for housing the battery cell stack;
end plates, or end support plates (40, 42), for covering front and rear surfaces of the battery stack (see Figures 1, 2, and 12).
Yum further teaches a heat sink, or cooling plate assembly (22), attached to a bottom part of the module frame (22) (Figure 1);
a cooling port, or first tubular port (90), configured to supply a coolant to the cooling plate assembly (Figures 3-9, [0045]);
wherein the module frame comprises a module frame protrusion part that extends from a bottom part of the module frame (20) beyond the end plate (40) (Figure 12), and
wherein the cooling port (90) protrudes upward from an upper surface of the module frame protrusion part (Figure 12).
It is seen in Figures 1-3, 8, and 12 of Yum that the inner portion of the coolant port forms a coolant tube located in the center of the cooling port. Further, Yum teaches a heat sink connection port, or aperture (360), located on the module frame protrusion port (Figure 12). It is noted that instant Figure 6 depicts a refrigerant tube (511), considered to be analogous to a coolant tube, provided in the center of the port (500).
Regarding claim 10, Yum teaches a battery module including end plates, or end support plates (40, 42), on front and rear ends of a module frame, or supporting frame (20) and support plates (44, 46), and a cooling port, or first tubular port (90), protrudes upward from an upper surface of the module frame protrusion part (Figures 1, 3-9, 12; see also above rejection of claim 1).
Yum fails to teach specifically the manufacturing method of assembling the parts discussed above; however, the examiner finds that the skilled artisan will easily agree that the parts discussed above are necessarily coupled together in the claimed order so as to form the battery module taught by Yum. Additionally, it is clearly seen in Figure 12 that the end plate is attached in a direction perpendicular to the attachment of the cooling ports as shown in Figures 4 and 9.
As to the order in which the end plates and cooling part are attached to the module, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to attach the cooling port after the end plates in order to ensure that the cooling port does not interfere with proper alignment of the end plate as shown in annotated Figure 12 below, and further because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 IV C
Further regarding claims 1 and 10, Yum teaches the claimed heat sink having a lower plate, or pan member (80), having an integrated bent portion, or central rib portion (124), for forming a coolant flow passage part, or depressed plate portions (120, 122) (Figures 6-9, [0018]). However, Yum teaches a separate coolant flow structure, or corrugated support members (82, 84).
Kenney teaches a battery module, or battery unit (100), including a heat sink, or battery cooling heat exchanger (10), having a lower plate, or formed base plate (24), attached to a bottom plate of a module frame, or general planar region (29) on which the individual battery cell containers (12) are stacked (Figures 2-3, [0058]). Kenney further teaches that the lower plate (24) has an integrated bent portion, or flow dividers (72), forming the entirety of a flow passage structure, or flow passages (40, 42), for flow of a coolant (Figure 9, [0068]-[0069]). The skilled artisan will easily understand that the lower plate of Kenney is made in one piece without a separate coolant flow structure therein.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the coolant flow passages of Yum as integral to the lower plate such as suggested by Kenney in order to eliminate the need for an extra component (i.e., corrugated support members), thereby adding weight and inefficiency to the battery module. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V B
With further regard to claims 1 and 10, Yum fails to teach some of the claimed structural elements.
Takahashi and Yamamoto are directed to connection structures of coolant pipes (90a of Takahashi; 92 of Yamamoto) for fuel cells. The teachings of Takahashi and Yamamoto are found to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. providing coolant to an electrochemical device.
Takahashi teaches the claimed structural elements as depicted in annotated Figure 9, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
714
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Takahashi does not teach that the cooling port is perpendicular to the module frame protrusion part (or the frame part of the module to which the cooling port is connected); however, Yamamoto teaches a cooling port provided perpendicularly to the module structure, wherein the cooling port (92) is connected to the module frame by a fastening member (95) (Figure 8).
Takahashi teaches that the structure as discussed above is desirable for attaching cooling fluid manifolds, or cooling ports, in order to suppress damage to the manifolds while ensuring tight coupling between the parts ([0017]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known connection structural elements of Takahashi and Yamamoto in the module of Yum in order to ensure tight coupling while suppressing damage to the component parts.
As for claim 8, it is noted that both Yum and Yamamoto teach tubular ports; therefore any gaskets of Yum in view of Takahashi and Yamamoto would necessarily be annular. The combination does not suggest changing the shape of the elements of Yum, merely using the structural elements of Takahashi such as a bracket and gasket in order to ensure tight coupling.
Further regarding claims 1 and 10, as to the relative location of the components discussed above compared to the lower edge of the end plate, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide the cooling port, coolant tube, and bracket at a position above the lower edge of the end plate in order to provide easier accessibility for maintenance and/or repair. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI C)
As for claim 16, Yum teaches a battery pack (10) comprising the module discussed above ([0015]).
With regard to claim 17, Yum teaches that the heat sink, or cooling plate assembly (22), includes:
a lower plate, or pan member (80) that contacts the frame (20) (Figures 1 and 4);
an inlet, or first internal region (345), to supply coolant to the interior and an outlet, or second internal region (347), to remove coolant (Figure 9; [0045]);
and a flow passage part, or depressed plate portion (120), to allow coolant to flow (Figures 4-9).
As for claims 14 and 15, again the relative directions of assembly of the end plate and port are seen in Figure 12 of Yum:
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1033
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 18 and 19, concerning the orientation of the stacking direction relative to other components of the module, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to change the stacking direction of the batteries of Yum in view of Kenney, Takahashi, and Yamamoto relative to the cooling ports and other components such as claimed, and such as seen in Figure 2 of Kenney. Such a rearrangement may be preferred for better access to individual cells or to maximize the number of cells that can be provided on the module frame. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI C
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/5/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of newly amended claim(s) 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kenney, see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights