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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 appears to have a typographical error and the limitation, “wherein said protective layer if formed from a heat-resistant and/or acid-resistant material” should likely read “wherein said protective layer is formed from a heat-resistant and/or acid-resistant material” (emphasis added) as supported by the instant specification [0075].
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 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 9 recites, “said protective layer”. Since Claim 1 and Claim 8 each recite a protective layer (Claim 1: “said at least one degassing channel having a protective layer”; Claim 8: “said at least one temperature control channel has a protective layer”), it is unclear which protective layer is referenced in Claim 9. Accordingly, Claim 9 is rendered indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that Claim 9 refers to the protective layer of Claim 8 (i.e. the protective layer of the temperature control channel), as recited in the previously presented claims (e.g. Claims filed 08/28/2024).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 14, 16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascianica et al. (US-20170077566-A1) in view of Janarthanam et al. (US-20220158146-A1) and in further view of Kuroda et al. (US-20220059883-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mascianica discloses a temperature control and degassing configuration for energy storage cells (corresponds to array of battery cells 12) of an energy storage device (traction battery assembly 10), the temperature control and degassing configuration comprising:
a support structure (center bar assembly 208, Fig. 4) having at least one temperature control channel (coolant channels 224, Fig. 4) for conducting a fluid for controlling a temperature of the energy storage device [0022],
said support structure having a first side facing the energy storage device and a second side facing away from the energy storage device (see annotation of Mascianica Fig. 4, below),
said support structure further having at least one degassing channel (vent chamber 258, Fig. 4) integrated into said support structure for discharging gases escaping from the energy storage cells [0025].
PNG
media_image1.png
685
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Mascianica Fig. 4.
Mascianica does not teach that an inner side of said at least one degassing channel has a protective layer.
Janarthanam teaches a battery pack including a plurality of battery cells [0015, 0043]. The battery pack includes a venting system that is configured to vent byproducts from the interior of the battery pack when a battery cell venting event occurs [0046]. The venting system includes one or more vent exhaust channels (70, Fig. 3) which are fluidly connected to the venting ports of the battery cells [0046-0048, 0051]. The vent exhaust channel of Janarthanam corresponds to the degassing channel.
Janarthanam teaches that the interior surface of each vent exhaust channel may be coated with a thermal protective coating [0052]. Advantageously, the protective coating is designed to prevent damage to the vent exhaust channels and reduce heat dissipation to surrounding components of the battery [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a protective coating to the interior surface of the degassing channel of Mascianica with a reasonable expectation that the addition of a protective coating would result in a successful degassing channel capable of preventing damage to the degassing channel and capable of reducing heat dissipation to surrounding components of the energy storage device. The protective coating reads on the recited limitation of a protective layer, and therefore modified Mascianica renders obvious that “an inner side of said at least one degassing channel having a protective layer”.
Mascianica discloses cell connectors (busbars 262) provided for electrically connecting the energy storage cells [0018, 0025], said cell connectors (busbars 262) and said support structure (center bar assembly 208) are connected (Fig. 6; [0003]) to form a module (combination of center bar assembly 208 and busbar assembly 210; Figs. 4, 6).
The recitation of a module “that can be mounted collectively” is an intended use limitation. The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Mascianica teaches that the support structure (center bar 208) and the cell connectors (busbars 262) are connected [0003] and therefore the resulting module (combination of center bar assembly 208 and busbar assembly 210) is capable of being mounted collectively.
Mascianica discloses that the at least one temperature control channel (coolant channels 224) are formed as hollow structures (Figs. 4, 6) such that cooling fluid can flow longitudinally within [0022]. Mascianica further discloses that the cell connectors (busbars 262) are secured to the temperature control unit (coolant channel 224) [0003, 0025].
Mascianica does not teach that the temperature control channel has through-openings formed therein and disposed laterally along a longitudinal axis of said at least one temperature control channel, said through openings receiving said cell connectors and/or overmolded cooling geometries of said cell connectors.
Kuroda teaches a storage battery device including a plurality of battery cells (12, Fig. 6), bus bars (16, Fig. 6) and a radiator (14, Fig. 6) [0023-0024]. Kuroda teaches that the radiator can have a coolant which flows through the hollow part [0063-0064]. The radiator of Kuroda is defined by a battery management unit (13, Fig. 6) on the lower side and a converter (15, Fig. 6) on the upper side (see Fig. 6), and therefore these structures are interpreted as corresponding to a portion of the radiator. The radiator of Kuroda corresponds to the temperature control channel (coolant channels 224) of Mascianica, and the bus bars of Kuroda correspond to the cell connectors (busbars 262) of Mascianica.
Kuroda teaches that the bus bars can include a projecting part (heat dissipation connections 16IC, Fig. 6) which projects through a corresponding through-hole (13TH, Fig. 6). The projecting part reads on the recited limitation of an overmolded cooling geometry. Advantageously, Kuroda teaches that such a configuration allows for effective cooling of the bus bars which can lead to downsizing of the battery storage device [0019, 0065-0066]. Kuroda also notes that increasing the surface area of the bus bars can allow for the dissipation of more heat [0100].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have formed the temperature control channel of Mascianica with through holes and to have formed the cell connectors (busbars 262) with overmolded cooling geometries such that the overmolded cooling geometries are accommodated in the through holes of the temperature control channel as taught by Kuroda with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in the successful cooling of the cell connectors and battery cells of Mascianica.
Although modified Mascianica teaches that the overmolded cooling geometries of the busbars are accommodated in through holes provided in the bottom surface of the temperature control unit (see Kuroda: Fig. 6), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the through holes laterally along a longitudinal axis such that overmolded cooling geometries of the cell connectors (busbars) are received in corresponding lateral through holes (i.e. though openings) on the side surface of the temperature control unit (see annotation of Mascianica Fig. 4, below), since such a configuration represents a mere rearrangement of parts, which normally requires only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that rearranging the location of the connection between the overmolded cooling geometries of the cell connectors (busbars) and the through openings of the temperature control unit would not alter the outcome of effective cooling of the busbars and battery cells.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Mascianica Fig. 4.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Mascianica renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Mascianica further discloses that the degassing channel and the temperature control channel are each molded into the support structure (Figs. 4, 6; [0022, 0025]) (MPEP 2125, I).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Mascianica renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Mascianica discloses that the degassing channel is open on the first side such that the degassing channel captures any gases exiting from the battery cells [0025]. This is interpreted as reading on a degassing channel which “is configurable to be open on said first side of said support structure”.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Mascianica renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Mascianica discloses that the support structure has a wall (corresponds to bridge 226, Fig. 6). The wall (bridge 226) includes an upper side which faces away from the energy storage device, and a lower side which constitutes a portion of the degassing channel (Fig. 6; [0022, 0025]). The upper side of the wall reads on “a side which is opposite the energy storage device”. A bus bar assembly (210, Fig. 6) can be disposed on the upper side of the wall (Fig. 6; [0003]), and therefore the upper side of the wall “serves as a mounting base”.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, modified Mascianica renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Mascianica discloses that a thermal interface layer may optionally be mounted between the temperature control channels (i.e. coolant channels) and the array of battery cells to create a dielectric boundary between the two structures [0023].
Therefore, although Mascianica does not disclose a specific embodiment which includes a thermal interface layer, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation that providing a thermal interface layer between the temperature control channels and the array of battery cells would result in a successful temperature control channel capable of cooling an array of battery cells. The thermal interface layer provides a dielectric boundary, and therefore reads on a protective layer on an underside of the temperature control channel as required by Claim 8.
The thermal interface layer (protective layer) will inherently provide an amount of heat-resistivity and an amount of acid-resistivity. Since the claim does not require a specific degree of heat-resistance / acid-resistance or a specific material, the material of the thermal interface layer is interpreted as reading on a material which is heat-resistant and/or acid-resistant as required by Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Mascianica renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Mascianica discloses (see annotation of Mascianica Fig. 6, below) that said at least one temperature control channel is at least two temperature control channels (coolant channels 224) and said wall (bridge 226) extends between two or at least two said temperature control channels.
PNG
media_image3.png
770
820
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Mascianica Fig. 6.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Mascianica renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. The instant specification does not appear to provide a special definition for “a shaped part” as required in Claim 14. Therefore, the recitation of a support structure which “is formed as a shaped part” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since shaped is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “spatial form or contour”, a “shaped part” is interpreted as a part which has a spatial form or contour. Mascianica discloses that the support structure (center bar assembly 208) has a shape (Figs. 4, 5A, 6) and therefore the support structure of Mascianica reads on a support structure which is formed as a shaped part.
Regarding Claims 16 and 19, modified Mascianica renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Examiner notes that the instant specification [0026, 0074] does not appear to provide a special definition for a “profile structure” or “a hollow profile structure”. Absent a special definition, the terms “profile structure” and “hollow profile structure” are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Since profile is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “a representation of something in outline”, Mascianica is understood to disclose a support structure which has a profile (e.g. Fig. 4) and which includes hollow portions (temperature control channels 224). Therefore, the support structure disclosed by Mascianica is interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of Claims 16 and 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Mascianica discloses an energy storage device (traction battery assembly 200, Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of energy storage cells (battery cells 212; [0021]) disposed in a row (Fig. 6); and the temperature control and degassing configuration according to Claim 1 (see Figs. 2, 6).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascianica et al. (US-20170077566-A1) in view of Janarthanam et al. (US-20220158146-A1) and in view of Kuroda et al. (US-20220059883-A1) as applied to Claim 4, and in further view of Nagamine et al. (US-20150295215-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Mascianica renders obvious the product of Claim 4. Mascianica discloses that the support structure (center bar assembly 208) is secured to each of the endplates to assist in retaining the array of battery cells [0020]. Mascianica does not disclose how the support structure is secured, and therefore fails to disclose fastening and/or centering means and/or through-openings formed within the support structure.
Nagamine teaches a power storage device comprising a partitioning structure including joining sections (42, Fig. 1) placed above an array of battery cells (Fig. 1). The joining sections partially define a gas passage (S1, Fig. 2) therebetween [0034, 0037]. As such, the joining sections correspond to the support structure of Mascianica.
Restraining members (46, Fig. 1) are included in the joining sections (see Fig. 1; [0037]). Nagamine teaches that the restraining member can be attached to the end plate using any fixing method, such as a bolt or a rivet [0033].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have secured the support structure of Mascianica to each of the endplates using a fixing method such as a bolt or a rivet as taught by Nagamine, with a reasonable expectation that such a fixing method would successfully secure the two structures. In order to use a bolt or a rivet to attach the support structure to each endplate, the support structure would necessarily comprise through-openings or fastening means as required by Claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascianica et al. (US-20170077566-A1) in view of Janarthanam et al. (US-20220158146-A1) and in view Kuroda et al. (US-20220059883-A1) and in further view of Nagamine et al. (US-20150295215-A1), as applied to Claim 5, and in further view of Watanabe et al. (US-20120082875-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Mascianica renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including a fastening means and/or through-openings which allow the support structure to be securely attached to each end plate (see rejection of Claim 5, above). Mascianica further discloses that the battery is mounted within a vehicle [0020]. Modified Mascianica does not teach that the wall has an offset forming a mounting recess.
Watanabe teaches a battery pack which can uniformly cool a plurality of electric cells (Abstract). The battery pack can be used in an electric or hybrid vehicle [0065]. Watanabe teaches linkage sections (41, Fig. 11; see insert below) which can be used to join two structure [0135]. The linkage sections include a suspending piece (410, Fig. 11) and a fixation piece (411, Fig. 11) [0137]. Through holes for insertion members such as bolts are formed in the fixation piece [0137]. Advantageously, Watanabe teaches that the linkage section provides flexibility and is capable of mitigating impacts such as vibration [0137].
PNG
media_image4.png
150
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Insert of Watanabe Fig. 11 showing linkage section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the wall of the support structure with a linkage section as taught by Watanabe in order to attach the support structure to each end plate with a reasonable expectation that attaching the wall of the support structure to the end plate via a linkage section would result in a successful connection between the two structures capable of mitigating impacts such as vibration.
Recess is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as “indentation, cleft”. Therefore, the linkage section reads on an offset forming a mounting recess, since it is offset from the wall, forms a recess, and the fixing means and/or through holes are provided within the recess (i.e. within the fixation piece).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Mascianica renders obvious the product of Claim 6. Mascianica further discloses that the support structure (center bar assembly 208) includes sidewalls which serve to space the busbar assembly (210) from the battery cell (see annotation of Mascianica Fig. 4, below). Therefore, the sidewalls of the support structure are interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of “spacers”, thereby reading on the recited limitation of “wherein said support structure includes spacers”.
PNG
media_image5.png
252
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Mascianica Fig. 4.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Mascianica renders obvious the product of Claim 7. Modified Mascianica teaches a fastening means and/or through-openings which allow the support structure to be securely attached to each end plate (see rejection of Claim 5, above). In order to secure the support structure to each endplate the fastening means and/or through-openings are necessarily provided at each end of the support structure.
Modified Mascianica further teaches that the fastening means and/or through-openings are disposed in a region of said wall corresponding to the mounting recess (see rejection of Claim 6, above). The portion of the mounting recess where the fastening means and/or through-openings are disposed reads on the recited limitation of “a region” and therefore “said fastening and/or centering means and/or said through-openings and/or said spacers is disposed in a region of said wall and/or said mounting recess”.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascianica et al. (US-20170077566-A1) in view of Janarthanam et al. (US-20220158146-A1) and in view Kuroda et al. (US-20220059883-A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 14, above, and in further view of Yatskov et al. (WO-2011149868-A1).
Regarding Claims 15 and 18, modified Mascianica renders obvious the product of Claims 1 and 14 (see 103 rejections, above). Mascianica discloses that the temperature control channels (coolant channels 224) are used to assist in managing the thermal conditions of the battery cells [0022]. The temperature control channels form a portion of the support structure (see rejection of Claim 1, above). The energy storage device disclosed by Mascianica can be applied to a vehicle [0020]. Mascianica does not teach the material which is used to form the temperature control channels or the support structure and therefore fails to teach that the support structure is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum and an aluminum alloy a required by Claim 15 or that the support structure (i.e. shaped part, see rejection of Claim 14 above) is an injection-molded part or is an extruded part a required by Claim 18.
Yatskov discloses a cooling system which is used to cool devices such as ultra-capacitor cell used in hybrid electric vehicles [0021]. Yatskov discloses that the cooling system includes cold plates (24, Fig. 4) and cold plate retainers (84, Fig. 4) through which tubing (22, Fig. 4) is secured [0027]. The combination of the cold plates, the cold plate retainers, and the tubing corresponds to the coolant channels of Mascianica.
Yatskov teaches that the good contact between the cold plates and the objects to be cooled results in good heat transfer [0029-0033]. Yatskov also teaches that the cold plates and the cold plate retainers can be formed of aluminum [0031, 0034] and that the aluminum may be extruded aluminum [0034]. Advantageously, Yatskov teaches that aluminum has high thermal conductivity which provides additional heat transfer [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the support structure, including the temperature control channels, of Mascianica of extruded aluminum as taught by Yatskov with a reasonable expectation that forming the support structure and the temperature control channels of extruded aluminum would result in a successful support structure / temperature control channels capable of successfully managing the thermal conditions of the battery cells and capable of providing additional heat transfer between the battery cells and the temperature control channels of Mascianica.
Forming the support structure of aluminum corresponds to the recited limitations of Claim 15, and forming the support structure (i.e. the shaped part – see rejection of Claim 14, above) of extruded aluminum corresponds to the recited limitations of Claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has argued that the underside of the coolant channels of Mascianica are in direct contact with the battery cells except for the interface layer that is positioned between them, and that the underside of the coolant channels is not exposed to gas discharged by the battery cells (Remarks, Pg. 11 of 15). Instead, Applicant notes that gas is directed into the vent chamber, which does not have a protective layer (Remarks, Pg. 11 of 15). Applicant has argued that the thermal interface layer of Mascianica does not come into contact with the damaging heat or the acids of the gas, but only the heat of the battery cells’ surface and, accordingly, Applicant submits that the thermal interface layer disclosed by Mascianica differs significantly from the protective layer of the present invention, and Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to add a protective layer to the inside of the degassing chamber based on the disclosure of Mascianica (Remarks, Pg. 11 of 15).
Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. Examiner notes that Claim 1 has been amended to require a protective layer on an inner side of the degassing channel, and this limitation is rendered obvious by newly cited Janarthanam (see rejection of Claim 1, above). The thermal interface layer taught by Mascianica is not relied upon to coat the inner side of the degassing channel, and therefore arguments equating the thermal interface layer to the protective layer of the degassing channel are moot.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the other cited references (Kuroda, Nagamine, Watanabe, Yatskov) do not teach a degassing channel having a protective layer on an inner side therefor (Remarks, Pgs. 11-14 of 15), Examiner notes that these references are not relied upon to teach a protective layer of a degassing channel. Instead, newly cited Janarthanam is relied upon to render this limitation obvious (see rejection of Claim 1, above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/16/2025