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
Currently, the pending Claims are 28-31, 33-35, 37-38, 40, 42-48, 50-52, with non-elected Claims 42-48, 50-52 being withdrawn from consideration. The examined Claims are 28-31, 33-35, 37-38, 40, with Claims 28-31, 33-35, 37-38 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Per the aforementioned amendments to the Claims, the previous rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Further, Applicant has mainly amended independent Claim 28 to require (1) that the outlet manifold, extending from an outlet opening of the bottom cover, is connected to a radiator, and at the radiator, heated coolant from the outlet manifold is cooled and stored in a reservoir for using in a next cycle of extraction of heat from the cells, (2) that the coolant is enabled to rise form bottom to top in each of a plurality of consecutive cell holders, (3) that the packaging member holds the coolant within each of the corresponding cell holders during usage of the battery module, and (4) that the coolant is a phase changing material which is a liquid that changes phase at elevated temperatures and solidifies at lower temperatures.
Applicant argues that the prior art references of record (i.e. Nabeshima alone or in combination with Hammerschmid or Enomoto) neither teach nor suggest the battery module of at least Claim 28 as instantly amended (Pages 8-12 of Remarks). In particular, Applicant argues that Nabeshima’s coolant is air (i.e. a gas) and is therefore distinct from the claimed liquid coolant being the instantly claimed phase changing material, that Nabeshima’s alleged “packaging member” does not seal the coolant at the ends of each of the cells to hold the coolant, and that Nabeshima is silent with regard to the presence of a radiator, a reservoir, or storage and recirculation of coolant in a next cycle of extraction of heat from the cells, as instantly claimed (Page 8 of Remarks). Applicant further argues that Hammerschmid fails to cure the deficiencies in Nabeshima, especially because Hammerschmid is directed to air cooling of cells, and is silent with regard to a liquid coolant, a radiator, a reservoir, sealing of cells, or storage and recirculation of coolant in a next extraction of heat from cells (Page 11 of Remarks). Finally, Applicant argues that Enomoto fails to cure the deficiencies in Nabeshima and Hammerschmid, especially because despite disclosing both a radiator and a reservoir, Enomoto is silent with regard to a cell holder structured in the instantly claimed manner (Pages 11-12).
Applicant’s amendments and corresponding arguments are persuasive. Accordingly, all previous prior art rejections of record are hereby withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments 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.
Claims 28-31, 33-35, 37-38, 40 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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the corresponding cell holders." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “elevated” (in the phrase “elevated temperatures”) in Claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elevated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 28 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what temperature(s), explicitly, constitute “elevated” temperatures in context of Claim 28, especially because in general, and for example, any given temperature may be described/interpreted as being an “elevated” temperature in comparison to any other temperature which is less than said any given temperature.
The term “lower” (in the phrase “lower temperatures”) in Claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 28 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what temperature(s), explicitly, constitute “lower” temperatures in context of Claim 28, especially because in general, and for example, any given temperature may be described/interpreted as being a “lower” temperature in comparison to any other temperature which is higher than said any given temperature.
Claim 28 states that, under “lower temperatures” the phase changing material (i.e. the coolant) solidifies, whereas at “elevated temperatures” the phase changing material (i.e. the coolant) is a liquid. However, Claim 28 makes references to rising of the coolant, flowing of the coolant, heating of the coolant (i.e. from the outlet manifold), and cooling of the coolant (i.e. cooled and stored in a reservoir). Accordingly, Claim 28 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how, in the scenario where the coolant is solidified, the coolant is enabled to rise, flow, be heated, and cooled in the instantly claimed manner (especially given the uncertainty of when and at what temperatures, explicitly, the coolant is a liquid or a solid, as previously described).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-31, 33-35, 37-38, 40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. It is further suggested that non-elected Claims 42-48, 50-52 be cancelled or otherwise amended so as to include, independent form, the subject matter of Claim 28 therein).
Independent Claim 28 requires, among all other limitations, (1) that the outlet manifold, extending from an outlet opening of the bottom cover, is connected to a radiator, and at the radiator, heated coolant from the outlet manifold is cooled and stored in a reservoir for using in a next cycle of extraction of heat from the cells, (2) that the coolant is enabled to rise form bottom to top in each of a plurality of consecutive cell holders, (3) that the packaging member holds the coolant within each of the corresponding cell holders during usage of the battery module, and (4) that the coolant is a phase changing material which is a liquid that changes phase at elevated temperatures and solidifies at lower temperatures.
The closest prior art references of record (i.e. Nabeshima alone or in combination with Hammerschmid or Enomoto) neither teach nor suggest the battery module of at least Claim 28 as instantly amended (See the 10/10/25 Non-Final Rejection which outlines, in detail, the relevant teachings of said prior art references.
In particular, Nabeshima’s coolant is air (i.e. a gas) and is therefore distinct from the claimed liquid coolant being the instantly claimed phase changing material, Nabeshima’s alleged “packaging member” does not seal the coolant at the ends of each of the cells to hold the coolant, and Nabeshima is silent with regard to the presence of a radiator, a reservoir, or storage and recirculation of coolant in a next cycle of extraction of heat from the cells, as instantly claimed. Hammerschmid fails to cure the deficiencies in Nabeshima, especially because Hammerschmid is directed to air cooling of cells, and is silent with regard to a liquid coolant, a radiator, a reservoir, sealing of cells, or storage and recirculation of coolant in a next extraction of heat from cells. Finally, Enomoto fails to cure the deficiencies in Nabeshima and Hammerschmid, especially because despite disclosing both a radiator and a reservoir, Enomoto is silent with regard to a cell holder structured in the instantly claimed manner.
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 MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728