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 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, 3, 6, 7, 9, 15-17, 26, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. (DE 102014220848 A1, hereinafter Lange, cited by applicant) in view of Polyolefin (https://www.malvernpanalytical.com/en/learn/knowledge-center/insights/what-are-polyolefins, 3/26/17).
Re Claim 1. Lange teaches a battery cooling element (Fig. 1, item 10) for a traction battery, the battery cooling element comprising:
a main body (item 12), and
a multilayer composite film (item 14) including:
a first outwardly oriented plastic material layer (P4, outer layer),
a metal material layer (P4, aluminum foil) covered by the first plastic material layer, the metal material layer to improve electromagnetic compatibility, and
a second plastic material layer (P4, inner layer) facing an interior of the battery cooling element, wherein the main body and the multilayer composite film at least partially enclose the interior of the battery cooling element for receiving a cooling medium (Fig. 1), the interior being connected to a cooling medium inflow (item 22) and a cooling medium outflow (item 24),
wherein the multilayer composite film is three-dimensionally shaped (Fig. 1)
, wherein the second plastic material layer includes polyolefin (P4).
Lange fails to specifically teach that at least one of the first plastic material layer or the second plastic material layer includes one or more of polyethylene (PE), polyamide (PA), or polypropylene (PP).
Polyolefin discloses that polyethylene and polypropylene are the most common polyolefins.
In view of Polyolefin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lange to employ PE or PP for the second plastic material layer, since using common polyolefins is within purview of one skill in the art.
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein the multilayer composite film has a welding region (Lange, item 18).
Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein the metal material layer has aluminum as an alloy component (Lange, P4), the metal material layer having an aluminum content of 100 wt.% (P4).
Re Claim 7. The combination teaches wherein a region of the multilayer composite film is configured for contact with a battery module and/or a battery cell (Lange, P5).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches wherein a region of the second plastic material layer corresponds substantially to a contact region with the main body, at least one of the second plastic material layer being weldable to the main body (Lange, P6).
Re Claim 15. The combination teaches wherein the main body is configured as a load-bearing element of a battery module unit (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.
Re Claim 16. The combination teaches wherein the main body is configured as a component of a housing of a battery module unit (functional limitation).
Re Claim 17. The combination teaches wherein the battery cooling element is embodied in a battery module unit (Lange, P5).
Re Claim 26. The combination teaches wherein at least one of the first plastic material layer or the second plastic material layer includes PE (Lange, P4 with Polyolefin).
Re Claim 28. The combination teaches wherein at least one of the first plastic material layer or the second plastic material layer includes PP (Lange, P4 with Polyolefin).
Re Claim 29. The combination teaches wherein the second plastic material layer includes one or more of PE or PP (Lange, P4 with Polyolefin), but fails to specifically teach that the first plastic material layer includes one or more of PE, PA, or PP.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lange in view of Polyolefin to employ PE or PP for the first plastic material layer, to simplify the manufacturing process by using the same material for both the first and second plastic material layers.
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange in view of Polyolefin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deser et al. (DE 102011075820 A1, hereinafter Deser, cited by applicant).
The teachings of Lange in view of Polyolefin have been discussed above.
Lange fails to specifically teach that: (re Claim 2) the main body has a groove and/or an indentation; (re Claim 5) a first region of the multilayer composite film facing the interior and having the metal material layer on a surface facing the interior has a higher heat transfer coefficient than a second region of the multilayer composite film facing the interior and having the metal material layer on the surface, the second region adjoining the first region; and (re Claim 14) the main body has a fastening element for fastening a battery cell and/or a battery module.
The invention of Deser encompasses traction battery. Deser teaches that the main body has a groove (Fig. 5a-5f, item 31) and a fastening element for fastening a battery cell and/or a battery module (P4).
In view of Deser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lange in view of Polyolefin to employ the main body with a groove, since using a well-known configuration for the main body is within purview of one skill in the art, and a fastening element, since Deser teaches the advantage of using it, which is to press the cooling element against the battery (P4).
As Deser teaches that one would add aluminum in a plastic matrix to increase the thermal conductivity of the multilayer composite film (P6), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lange in view of Polyolefin and Deser to have the first region of the multilayer composite film facing the interior and having the metal material layer on a surface facing the interior has a higher heat transfer coefficient than a second region of the multilayer composite film facing the interior and having the metal material layer on the surface, the second region adjoining the first region, so that it can transfer heat from the battery more efficiently.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange in view of Polyolefin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naud et al. (FR 2782399 A1, hereinafter Naud, previously cited).
Lange in view of Polyolefin fails to specifically teach that the plastic material is pseudoplastic.
The invention of Naud encompasses device and procedure for thermal regulation of items. Naud teaches to use pseudoplastic (P2, viscous plastic) to hold the batteries to the cooler casing.
In view of Naud, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lange in view of Polyolefin to employ pseudoplastic, since Naud teaches the advantage of using it, which is to ensure the function of holding the batteries to the cooler casing (P2).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange in view of Polyolefin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berge et al. (GB 2561211 A, hereinafter Berge, previously cited).
Lange in view of Polyolefin fails to specifically teach that the main body consists of LDPE, PE, PA, or PP.
The invention of Berge encompasses cooling system. Berge teaches that the main body is made of polyamide (P6, PA).
In view of Berge, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lange in view of Polyolefin to have the main body consists of PA, since using a well-known material for the cooling element body is within purview of one skill in the art.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 15-17, 27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. (DE 102014220848 A1, hereinafter Lange, cited by applicant) in view of Deser.
Re Claim 1. Lange teaches a battery cooling element (Fig. 1, item 10) for a traction battery, the battery cooling element comprising:
a main body (item 12), and
a multilayer composite film (item 14) including:
a first outwardly oriented plastic material layer (P4, outer layer),
a metal material layer (P4, aluminum foil) covered by the first plastic material layer, the metal material layer to improve electromagnetic compatibility, and
a second plastic material layer (P4, inner layer) facing an interior of the battery cooling element, wherein the main body and the multilayer composite film at least partially enclose the interior of the battery cooling element for receiving a cooling medium (Fig. 1), the interior being connected to a cooling medium inflow (item 22) and a cooling medium outflow (item 24),
wherein the multilayer composite film is three-dimensionally shaped (Fig. 1)
, wherein the second plastic material layer includes polyolefin (P4).
Lange fails to specifically teach that at least one of the first plastic material layer or the second plastic material layer includes one or more of polyethylene (PE), polyamide (PA), or polypropylene (PP).
The invention of Deser encompasses battery and housing. Deser teaches a battery cooling element (Fig. 5a-5f, item 30) comprising a main body (item 31), a multilayer composite film (item 31) including a plastic material layer (P6) and a metal material layer covered by the plastic material layer (P6), wherein the plastic material layer includes polyamide (P6).
In view of Deser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lang to employ polyamide in place of polyolefin is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Re Claims 3, 6, 7, 9, and 15-17. See rejections of claims 3, 6, 7, 9, and 15-17 above.
Re Claim 27. The combination teaches wherein at least one of the first plastic material layer or the second plastic material layer includes PA (Deser, P6).
Re Claim 29. The combination teaches wherein the second plastic material layer includes PA (Deser, P6), but fails to specifically teach that the first plastic material layer includes one or more of PE, PA, or PP.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lange in view of Deser to employ PA for the first plastic material layer, to simplify the manufacturing process by using the same material for both the first and second plastic material layers.
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 reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited reference, Polyolefin address the new limitations.
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.
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
2/3/2026