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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 12/19/25. Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are pending. Claim 12 has been amended to be dependent from claim 8 and thus directed to the elected invention, and has been rejoined. Claims 1-7 remain withdrawn as being directed to non-elected Invention.
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) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oweis et al (US 2002/0177035, cited in IDS filed 2/06/23) in view of Fuhrmann et al (US 2010/0009248, cited in IDS filed 12/07/22).
Regarding claim 8, Oweis et al teaches a battery module (figs 1-4), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (figs 1-4, battery cells 12);
a flexible cooling passage (figs 1-5, thermal blanket or tube 13, paragraph [0027], material can be flexible) between the battery cells (figs 1-5, paragraph [0024], wound through the casing to make contact with each cell);
a cooling fluid supply part connected to one side of the flexible cooling passage (figs 1-5, intake 14) and configured to supply a cooling fluid into the flexible cooling passage (paragraph [0030], fluid);
a cooling fluid discharge part connected to the other side of the flexible cooling passage (figs 1-5, exit 15, construed as other side as the exit is at the other end of the tube 13, alternatively note fig 6A-6B) and configured to discharge the cooling fluid of the flexible cooling passage (paragraph [0030], fluid);
wherein the flexible cooling passage is disposed in a space between the upper ends and the bottom ends of the battery cells (figs 1-5, 7, the thermal blanket or tube 13 is wrapped around the cells 12, to cover as much of the length as possible, paragraph [0026]).
Oweis et al is quiet to a first blocking part on upper ends of the battery cells so that the battery cells are spaced apart from each other and supported; and a second blocking part between lower ends of the battery cells so that the battery cells are spaced apart from each other and supported; wherein the flexible cooling passage is disposed in a space between the first blocking part and the second blocking part, wherein the first blocking part and the second blocking part are formed along a shape of a space between the battery cells, wherein the first blocking part comprises a first fixing groove formed at a lower surface of the first blocking part, and a first supporting portion of an upper portion of the flexible cooling passage is inserted into the first fixing groove so that the upper portion of the flexible cooling passage is supported by the first blocking part, and wherein the second blocking part comprises a second fixing groove formed at an upper surface of the second blocking part, and a second supporting portion of a lower portion of the flexible cooling passage is inserted into the second fixing groove so that the lower portion of the flexible cooling passage is supported by the second blocking part.
Furhmann et al teaches a battery assembly having a plurality of battery cells (abstract) and at least one cooling fin (16) planarly abutting the cell housings (12) to remove heat by way of coolant from canals (28) (abstract, fig 1-2 and 7). Furhmann et al further teaches fastening means, plug in clamps in particular, can also be provided (paragraph [0020]). These fastening means can be very easily and cost-effectively manufactured as well as mounted (paragraph [0020]). It is preferable that the fastening means contribute to the positional fixing of the cooling fins or fin sections, thereby ensuring and/or indirectly generating a clamping effect of the cooling fins on the battery cell (paragraph [0020]). The fastening means can be attached from above and/or below, and may optionally engage the cooling fins or fin sections and can laterally pretension them (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify Oweis et al to further include the fastening means of Fuhrmann et al (construed as blocking parts), attached from both above and below (construed as first and second blocking parts), as an easy and cost-effective means to provide additional positional fixing of the cooling device and the battery cells (Fuhrmann, paragraph [0020], [0058]) to achieve a play-free mounting of the cells (paragraph [0008]).
Note that in the combination, the first blocking part and the second blocking part are disposed along a shape of the space between the battery cells (see combination, where Fuhrmann et al shows in figure 7 the fastening means 38 disposed along a shape of the space between battery cells), wherein the first blocking part comprises a first fixing groove formed at a lower surface of the first blocking part (see combination, where the fastening means 38 shown in Fuhrmann et al, fig 1, include a groove that provides the engaging of the cooling fins or fin sections, paragraph [0058]), and a first supporting portion of an upper portion of the flexible cooling passage is inserted into the first fixing groove so that the upper portion of the flexible cooling passage is supported by the first blocking part (see combination, see fig 1 of Fuhrmann where upper portion of cooling fin is inserted into a groove portion of the fastening member 38), and wherein the second blocking part comprises a second fixing groove formed at an upper surface of the second blocking part, and a second supporting portion of a lower portion of the flexible cooling passage is inserted into the second fixing groove so that the lower portion of the flexible cooling passage is supported by the second blocking part (note combination, where Fuhrmann discloses the fastening members can be above and below, thus suggesting the same structure of a groove and the cooling fins inserted within the groove).
Regarding claim 11, the combination is quiet to wherein a width of a cooling fluid moving path defined by the flexible cooling passage is between 0.15 mm and 0.25 mm.
However, Oweis teaches that the thickness of the tube or blanket walls is to be as thin as possible to ensure the best possible heat transfer characteristics, while also balancing the need for having a wall thickness large enough to ensure proper manufacturing of the tube at reasonable cost, and to prevent seepage or leakage of the thermal liquid from the tube or blanket, and that the optimal thickness will vary depending on the material to be used (paragraph [0026]).
In light of the teachings of Oweis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to determine an optimum thickness of the flexible cooling passage and fluid moving path, in order to balance heat transfer characteristics with sufficient thickness to prevent leakage and ease of manufacturing and costs (Oweis, paragraph [0026]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flannery (US 2022/0384880) in view of Harris (US 2022/0302561).
Regarding claim 8, Flannery teaches a battery module (abstract, battery pack), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (fig 5-6, cells 20);
a flexible cooling passage between the battery cells (figs 5-6, paragraph [0260], flexible duct 10);
a cooling fluid supply part connected to one side of the flexible cooling passage and configured to supply a cooling fluid into the flexible cooling passage (fig 9a-9b, note parallel straight ducts 11, paragraph [0250], note that the duct has an inlet side);
a cooling fluid discharge part connected to the other side of the flexible cooling passage and configured to discharge the cooling fluid of the flexible cooling passage (fig 9a-9b, note parallel straight ducts 11, paragraph [0250], note that the duct has an outlet side);
a first blocking part on upper ends of the battery cells so that the battery cells are spaced apart from each other and supported (fig 7, paragraph [0266], note that there is an upper clamshell which is similar to lower clamshell 30 that is used to locate and retain cells 20); and
a second blocking part between lower ends of the battery cells so that the battery cells are spaced apart from each other and supported (fig 7, paragraph [0266], lower clamshell 30 used to locate and retain cells 20),
wherein the flexible cooling passage is disposed in a space between the first blocking part and the second blocking part (fig 7, see duct 10).
Flannery additionally teaches providing a potting means, which can additionally be construed as a blocking part, at least partially surrounding at least a part of the duct, so as to reinforce the battery pack and securely hold components therein (paragraph [0216]), wherein the potting means can be any suitable potting material such as an epoxy or expandable foam (paragraph [0281]), and is poured into the pack and surrounds the duct (paragraph [0281]) and is cured or hardened (paragraph [0282]).
However, Flannery is quiet to the specifics of the potting material, such as wherein the first blocking part and the second blocking part are formed along a shape of a space between the battery cells, wherein the first blocking part comprises a first fixing groove formed at a lower surface of the first blocking part, and a first supporting portion of an upper portion of the flexible cooling passage is inserted into the first fixing groove so that the upper portion of the flexible cooling passage is supported by the first blocking part, and wherein the second blocking part comprises a second fixing groove formed at an upper surface of the second blocking part, and a second supporting portion of a lower portion of the flexible cooling passage is inserted into the second fixing groove so that the lower portion of the flexible cooling passage is supported by the second blocking part.
Harris teaches a battery module (paragraph [0002]) wherein a potting material 132 (e.g., an epoxy resin or equivalent) occupies space between the cells (paragraph [0043]). The potting material can occupy space around at least a top portion of each of the plurality of cells, providing additional holding of the cells, which is critical to maintaining thermal transfer to and from the cells (paragraph [0043]). Note that the potting material 134 shown in figure 4 of Harris is formed along a shape of a space between the cells.
In view of the teachings of Flannery who suggests a potting means and Harris who teaches a potting material around at least a top portion of each of the cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a potting material to occupy at least a top portion of each of the plurality of cells as shown in figure 4 of Harris, so as to provide additional holding of the cells, which is critical to maintaining thermal transfer to and from the cells. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a potting material to occupy at least a lower portion of each of the plurality of cells, to similarly provide the predictable function of additional holding of the cells.
Note that in the combination, the hardened potting means at the top portion is construed as the first blocking part, and the hardened potting means at the lower portion is construed as the second blocking part. Furthermore, note that as the potting material is intended to further at least partially surround the duct (Flannery, paragraph [0216]), the portion of the potting material that surrounds the duct is construed as a groove in which a supporting portion of the duct is inserted, in the same fashion as applicant’s invention (see applicant’s specification, p.31 lines 20-27 disclosing the blocking parts formed by the glue).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches wherein the first blocking part and the second blocking part are formed by curing glue applied to be in contact with the battery cells (note combination, Flannery teaching potting means such as an epoxy, paragraph [0281], which is cured or hardened (paragraph [0282])).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flannery as modified by Harris as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Oweis et al.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Flannery as modified by Harris is quiet to wherein a width of a cooling fluid moving path defined by the flexible cooling passage is between 0.15 mm and 0.25 mm.
Oweis teaches a thermal blanketing system used to manage the temperature of individual electrochemical cells within the modules of a single battery system (abstract). Oweis teaches that the thickness of the tube or blanket walls is to be as thin as possible to ensure the best possible heat transfer characteristics, while also balancing the need for having a wall thickness large enough to ensure proper manufacturing of the tube at reasonable cost, and to prevent seepage or leakage of the thermal liquid from the tube or blanket, and that the optimal thickness will vary depending on the material to be used (paragraph [0026]).
In light of the teachings of Oweis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to determine an optimum thickness of the flexible cooling passage and fluid moving path, in order to balance heat transfer characteristics with sufficient thickness to prevent leakage and ease of manufacturing and costs (Oweis, paragraph [0026]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights