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
In response to the amendment received on 05/04/2026:
Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claim 16 is newly added.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been overcome in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 5, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 7.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walz et al (DE102015014690A1, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Walz discloses an energy storage system (battery 10 in Figs. 1 and 3; see entire disclosure and especially P19, 21, 24), comprising:
a housing in which a plurality of battery cells are arranged (housing 14 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P21),
wherein the plurality of battery cells (battery cells 12 in Figs. 1-3) are spaced with respect to each other by a device arranged between every two respective adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells, so that a space is created between each respective adjacent one of the plurality of battery cells (cell cooling lines 20 in Figs. 2-3; the cell cooling lines can be designed as a cooling plate; see entire disclosure and especially P22, 24),
wherein at least one emergency cooling channel is associated with each space (cell cooling lines 20 include cooling path 26 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P22, 24); and
a cooling apparatus having at least one cooling channel permitting a flow of cooling medium during normal operation (main cooling line 18 in Figs. 2-3; main cooling line 18 has coolant 24 flowing throughout; coolant 24 is supplied to the main line and can flow past the cell cooling line 20, therefore, it can be said the main cooling line 18 permits a flow of cooling medium during normal operation; see entire disclosure and especially P6-7, 22, 24).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the cooling medium is permitted to flow into the at least one emergency cooling channel in the event of damage”, this limitation is an intended use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Further, the Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Walz teaches valves (32 in Figs. 2-3) in the form of a temperature switch (34 in Fig. 2) connect the cooling apparatus (main cooling line 18) and the at least one emergency cooling channel (cell cooling lines 20 in Figs. 2-3) such that when at least one of the plurality of battery cells is heated to a predetermined temperature, the valves (32) open and allow the cooling medium to enter the at least one emergency cooling channel (cell cooling line 20) (see entire disclosure and especially P7, 23-24). Therefore, the structures of Walz are capable of performing the intended use of “wherein the cooling medium is permitted to flow into the at least one emergency cooling channel in the event of damage”.
Regarding claim 3, Walz discloses wherein the at least one cooling channel includes at least one closure element (valves 32 in Figs. 2-3; see entire disclosure and especially P7, 23-24).
Regarding the limitation “which opens in the event of damage and establishes a flow-conducting communication between the at least one cooling channel and the at least one emergency cooling channel”, this limitation is an intended use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Further, the Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Walz teaches valves (32 in Figs. 2-3) in the form of a temperature switch (34 in Fig. 2) connect the cooling apparatus (main cooling line 18) and the at least one emergency cooling channel (cell cooling lines 20 in Figs. 2-3) such that when at least one of the plurality of battery cells is heated to a predetermined temperature, the valves (32) open and allow the cooling medium to enter the at least one emergency cooling channel (cell cooling line 20) (see entire disclosure and especially P7, 23-24). Therefore, the at least one closure element of Walz is capable of performing the intended use of “which opens in the event of damage and establishes a flow-conducting communication between the at least one cooling channel and the at least one emergency cooling channel”.
Regarding claim 6, Walz discloses wherein the at least one emergency cooling channel is formed within the device (cooling path 26 is formed within cell cooling lines 20 designed as a cooling plates; see entire disclosure and especially P22-24).
Regarding claim 7, Walz discloses the energy storage system comprising at least two emergency cooling channels, wherein a first emergency cooling channel of the at least two emergency cooling channels is associated with one adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells and a second emergency cooling channel of the at least two emergency cooling channels is associated with another adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (the cooling path 26 comprises a first partial path 28 adjacent to the battery cell 12 shown on the right in Fig. 2 (therefore, it could be drawn to the ‘first emergency cooling channel associated with one adjacent battery cell’) and a second partial path 38 adjacent to the battery cell 12 shown on the left in Fig. 2 (therefore, it could be drawn to the ‘second emergency cooling channel associated with another adjacent battery cell’); further, there are a plurality of cell cooling lines 20 each with their own cooling path 26 in Fig. 3, therefore one cell cooling line 20 for one adjacent battery cell 12 can be drawn to the first emergency cooling channel and another cell cooling line 20 for another adjacent battery cell 12 can be drawn to the second emergency cooling channel; see entire disclosure and especially P22, 24).
Regarding claim 9, Walz discloses wherein the device is formed separately from the plurality of battery cells (see entire disclosure and especially P6-7, 22, 24).
Regarding claim 10, Walz discloses wherein the at least one emergency cooling channel is in communication with an environment on a side facing away from the at least one cooling channel (everything within the housing 14 of Walz is in thermal communication with each other, therefore the space/region/things outside of the emergency cooling channel (the environment) would be in thermal communication with the emergency cooling channel on a side facing away from the cooling channel).
Regarding claim 11, Walz discloses wherein the at least one closure element is configured to be thermally activated (valves 32 are in the form of a temperature switch 34 that open when a predetermined temperature is reached; see entire disclosure and especially P7, 23-24).
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.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walz et al (DE102015014690A1, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Girmscheid et al (US 20130014923 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Walz does not disclose wherein the device includes webs, which define the at least one emergency cooling channel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Girmscheid teaches webs can be arranged within a flow channel in rows crosswise to the direction of flow with each of the rows crosswise offset in the direction of flow by half a web distance (P41). Girmscheid teaches from this arrangement two effects follow: first, a change of a velocity of flow as the webs reduce a flow cross-section and second, a change of the direction of flow as the webs are also disposed to form flow guiding structures (P41). Girmscheid teaches both effects result in an advantageously turbulent flow (P41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Girmscheid and modified the device of Walz to include webs defining the at least one emergency cooling channel, such as utilizing the web structure as set forth in the flow channel of Girmscheid, given Girmscheid teaches this can advantageously provide turbulent flow.
Regarding claim 16, Walz discloses wherein the device comprises a central layer extending in parallel to the battery cells (intermediate wall 42 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P22).
Walz does not disclose wherein webs are attached to the central layer and are distributed over a surface of the central layer, wherein the webs define the at least one emergency cooling channel between the central layer and a sidewall of the housing of a respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells.
In a similar field of endeavor, Girmscheid teaches webs can be arranged within a flow channel in rows crosswise to the direction of flow with each of the rows crosswise offset in the direction of flow by half a web distance (P41). Girmscheid teaches from this arrangement two effects follow: first, a change of a velocity of flow as the webs reduce a flow cross-section and second, a change of the direction of flow as the webs are also disposed to form flow guiding structures (P41). Girmscheid teaches both effects result in an advantageously turbulent flow (P41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Girmscheid and modified the device of Walz to include webs attached to and distributed over the surface of the central layer, such as utilizing the web structure as set forth in the flow channel of Girmscheid, given Girmscheid teaches this can advantageously provide turbulent flow.
The webs of modified Walz direct the flow of cooling medium inside the device and the webs would be provided between the central layer and a sidewall of the housing of a respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells. Therefore, modified Walz meets the limitation “wherein the webs define the at least one emergency cooling channel between the central layer and a sidewall of the housing of a respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walz et al (DE102015014690A1, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yang (US 20070126396 A1) and Eppinger et al (DE102019215688A1 using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet)
Regarding claim 5, Walz does not disclose wherein a sidewall of the at least one emergency cooling channel is formed by a housing sidewall of an adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a flow channel (170 in Figs. 2-3) can be formed between a first cartridge (101 in Figs. 2-3) and a second cartridge (102 in Figs. 2-3) that batteries (unit cells 200/201) sit thereon (P8, 13). Yang teaches the cartridges are constructed in a frame structure in which outer surfaces of the batteries are almost fully exposed (see Figs. 1-2; P13). Yang teaches, as a result, the coolant flowing through the flow channel is brought into direct contact with the outer surfaces of the batteries, and, consequently, the coolant takes heat generated from the batteries, while the coolant flows through the flow channel, and then discharges the heat out of a battery module the batteries are within (P9-10, 13).
Also in a similar field of endeavor, Eppinger teaches to cool energy storage units, either indirect or direct cooling is used (P2). Eppinger teaches direct cooling has a significantly higher efficiency than indirect cooling and is therefore preferred (P2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Yang and Eppinger and modified Walz such that a sidewall of the at least one emergency cooling channel is formed by a housing sidewall of an adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells in order to provide the cooling medium in direct contact with the outer surface of the adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells, given Yang teaches this allows coolant to directly contact batteries while taking their heat and discharging said heat outside of a module and Eppinger teaches direct cooling has a significantly higher efficiency than indirect cooling and is therefore preferred.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walz et al (DE102015014690A1, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ogata et al (US 20010007728 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Walz does not disclose wherein the device is formed of plastic, of metal or of ceramic (given the materials of the walls of the cell cooling line 20 are not stated in Walz).
In a similar field of endeavor, Ogata teaches spacers between battery cells provide cooling medium passages (P20, 23). Ogata teaches the spacers can be made of a metal such as aluminum or aluminum alloy (P20), and the cooling performance can be ensured owing to the high heat transfer coefficient of the metal (P21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ogata and selected the material forming the device to be metal, such as aluminum or an aluminum alloy, given Ogata teaches these metals can ensure cooling performance and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walz et al (DE102015014690A1, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Behlen et al (DE102019131386A1 using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claims 12-13, Walz does not disclose wherein the at least one closure element is formed as a molded part such as a foil or as a plug.
In a similar field of endeavor, Behlen teaches the melting away of a plug can allow coolant to flow from a cooling circuit to a damaged area (P7). Behlen teaches a melt plug as a type of passive valve (P31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Behlen and substituted the at least one closure element of Walz with the melt plug of Behlen, given Behlen teaches a melt plug as a type of valve and the melting away can allow coolant to flow from a cooling circuit to a damaged area. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walz et al (DE102015014690A1, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Takagi et al (US 20080318121 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Walz does not disclose wherein a cooling medium discharged from the at least one emergency cooling channel on a side opposite the at least one cooling channel is mixed with a pollutant gas discharged from one or more of the plurality of battery cells.
In a similar field of endeavor, Takagi teaches a power storage unit (1 in Figs. 1-2) including a plurality of batteries (122 in Figs. 1-2), a housing (case 13 in Figs. 1-2), and a coolant (23 in Figs. 1-2, P26). Takagi teaches, typically, a gas-release valve is provided at each battery cell to discharge the gas produced by electric decomposition of electrolyte solution upon overcharging of the battery cell, or the like, preventing an excessive increase in the internal pressure of the battery cell (P7).
Takagi teaches a breaker valve (16a in Fig. 2) is provided within the housing (P28-29). Takagi teaches the breaker valve breaks in response to an internal pressure within the housing can allow both gas and coolant to be discharged from the housing (P55, 60, 66-67). Takagi teaches this prevents an excessive increase in the internal pressure of the power storage unit (P16, 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Takagi and provided to Walz a gas-release valve to each battery cell and a breaker valve to the housing, given Takagi teaches this can prevent an excessive increase in the internal pressure of a battery cell and prevent an excessive increase in the internal pressure of the system itself by discharging both coolant and gas from the housing.
While modified Walz does not meet the limitation wherein the breaker valve is on a side of emergency cooling channel opposite the at least one cooling channel, this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Walz. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of modified Walz such that the at least one cooling channel sat atop the upper end of the battery cells and emergency cooling channel while the breaker valve sits on the lower end of the battery cells and emergency cooling channel in order to, for example, allow for easier discharge of the coolant and gas together due to gravity because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the at least one cooling channel of the cooling apparatus is in the space, wherein the at least one cooling channel is separated from the at least one emergency cooling channel by webs, and wherein the webs melt in the event of damage and permit the cooling medium to flow into the at least one emergency cooling channel.”
None of the prior art of record described above, nor any other prior art found through further search and consideration, describe the limitations as set forth in claim 15.
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 Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights