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
Applicant cancelled claim 7 and added new claim 22. claims 1, 11, 17-19, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-22 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3-6, and 8-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2020/0411815, of record) in view of Deser (US 2017/0346143), and Magunia (EP 3754744), hereinafter Shin, Deser, and Magunia.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 21, Shin suggests a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells; a module case (100, 200, 300, 400) in which the plurality of battery cells (20) are accommodated (Fig. 3); a thermal transfer pad (700) provided inside the module case, and configured to cool the plurality of battery cells ([0050]); and buffer spaces provided inside the module case and facing each other (see Fig. 3), the thermal transfer pad (700) being between the buffer spaces, wherein the thermal transfer pad (700) is located under the plurality of battery cells except for (at least portions of) outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells, and wherein the buffer spaces are located under the outermost battery cells inside the module case. Moreover, the length of the thermal transfer pad (700) would be an obvious matter of design choice for the following reasons. Deser shows the thermal pad (106, 406) does not extend to the outermost cell (i.e., cell 604 adjacent wall 102) but heat dissipation of multiple cells (604) is still expected ([0012]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the thermal transfer pad is located under a plurality of cells except for the outermost cells, as suggested by Deser, with the expectation of transferring heat from the cells. In selecting a thermal transfer pad size such that the thermal transfer pad of Shin is located under the plurality of battery cells except for the outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells, the buffer spaces are located under the outermost battery cells inside the module case. Moreover, adjusting the size of the thermal pad in Shin would be obvious further in view of Magunia, which will be detailed once the resin stopper feature is addressed.
Shin suggests the thermal transfer pad can be any material so long as it has a property capable of promoting thermal conductivity; a thermal resin is not disclosed. However, Deser suggests a thermal conductive transfer pad (106, 108, [0051]) between a cooling plate 102 and battery unit 104, comprising a thermal resin (e.g., polyimide, [0052]), which allows effective heat transfer resulting in improved heat dissipation ([0017-0019]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the thermal transfer pad of Shin is a thermal resin with the expectation of achieving heat dissipation of the cells.
Shin does not suggest the buffer spaces comprise air and resin stoppers of elastic material, or that each resin stopper has a top surface, a bottom surface, an inner surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface, and an outer surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface, the inner surface directly contacting the thermal resin. However, Deser suggests the thermal coupling of the cells to the cooling plate is achieved by injecting a liquid/paste filler between the cells and cooling plate, thereby eliminating air gaps and improving heat transfer, [0024, 0056, 0069]. Magunia (EP 3754744) describes forming a thermal interface between a battery (10) and cooling plate (28) by injecting a gap filler/TIM therebetween, thereby forming a heat transfer interface, providing heat dissipation to the battery ([0014]). Overfilling of the thermal conductivity material involves high material input, hence high cost and waste, and considering the high density of such materials, their inclusion should be minimized from a cost and waste perspective and to avoid negatively impacting the energy balance when used in a vehicle ([0007]). Magunia places flexible resin stoppers (42, seal, i.e., polymer, polyurethane, silicone, [0019]) in the buffer spaces filled with air located on opposite ends of the battery module (see figures); each resin stopper (seal 42) has a top surface, a bottom surface, an inner surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface, and an outer surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface, the inner surface directly contacting the thermal resin (46). The resin stoppers (seals 42) form a cavity (34) that holds the thermally conductive material between the cells and cooling plate and prevent the thermally conductive material from oozing out, Figs. 1-3, [0012, 0032-0039, 0041]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include resin stoppers in the buffer spaces of Shin as modified by Deser to ensure the thermally conductive material is efficiently filled/used (thereby reducing costs, waste, and weight of the battery), to form the heat transfer surface between the cells and cooling plate, and to avoid oozing of the filler outside the battery housing.
The modification of Shin with Deser and Magunia suggests the resin stoppers at opposite ends of the battery stack. Provided Magunia suggests the stopper themselves include thermally conductive properties ([0039]), placement of the stoppers below the outermost cells provides thermal conductivity to the outermost cells, thereby obviating the need for the thermal pad to extend to the outermost cells. Thus, in modifying Shin with Deser and Magunia with the resin stopper, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to control the length of the thermal pad under the cells except for the outermost cells with the understanding that the resin stopper, having thermal conductivity, provides any necessary heat dissipation properties to the outermost cells.
As set forth above, the resin stopper in the buffer spaces are elastic that compensate various tolerances of the battery (see [0039] of Magunia), hence are configured to relieve tensile force applied to the lower portions of the outermost battery cells during swelling.
Regarding Claims 3-4, Shin suggests buffer pads (600) provided on inner walls (300, 400) of the module case, and contacting outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells, see Fig. 3; the buffer spaces are provided between lower end portions of the buffer pads (600) and an inner bottom surface of the module case, see Fig. 3.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “thermal resin is applied … when the battery module is manufactured” and “the thermal resin is injected into the module case through an injector from outside of the module case when the battery module is manufactured”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim appears to require thermal resin on an inner bottom surface of the module case and the thermal resin inside the module case. Shin, as modified by Deser and Magunia, suggests the thermal resin inside the module case on an inner bottom surface of the module case, see Fig. 3 of Shin and [0050], and Fig. 7 of Deser, and Fig. 3 of Magunia.
Regarding Claim 11, Shin, as modified by Deser and Magunia, suggests the resin stoppers (in the buffer spaces under the outermost cells) are between the thermal resin and sidewalls (300, 400) of the module case.
Regarding Claim 12, Shin suggests the buffer spaces are located directly under outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells, see Fig. 3 (see also rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Shin, as modified by Deser and Magunia, suggests the thermal resin is on an inner bottom surface of the module case, and wherein resin stoppers (as suggested by Magunia) are between the thermal resin and sidewalls (300, 400) of the module case (provided Magunia’s suggestion of placing the seals 42 in the buffer spaces at opposite ends of the module of Shin).
Regarding Claim 14, Shin, as modified by Deser and Magunia, suggests the buffer pads (600) provided on the sidewalls (300, 400) of the module case and contacting outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 3 of Shin), wherein the buffer spaces are provided between lower end portions of the buffer pads and the inner bottom surface of the module case (Fig. 3 of Shn).
Regarding Claim 15, Shin, as modified by Deser and Magunia, suggests the buffer spaces comprise empty spaces directly under lower end portions of the buffer pads (see e.g., Fig. 3 of Shin, see also empty spaces with resin stoppers 42 installed in Fig. 3 of Magunia), such that in placing the resin stoppers (suggested by Magunia) in the spaces of Shin, one would expected the resin stopper directly under the outermost battery cells of Shin.
Regarding Claim 16, Shin, as modified by Deser and Magunia, suggests the buffer spaces are empty spaces directly under the outermost battery cells (see e.g., Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Shin suggests the module case (Fig. 3 of Shin) includes a top wall (100), a bottom wall (200) and side walls (300, 400), and wherein each of the resin stoppers (e.g., seal 42 in Magunia) is spaced from the side walls (in view of the spacing of seal 42 in Fig. 3 of Magunia).
Regarding Claims 18-19 and 22, Shin does not suggest a height of the inner wall of each resin stopper is less than a height of the outer wall, a width of each resin stopper is equal to a width of outermost battery cells, or that the top surface is inclined downwardly from the inner surface to the outer surface; however, Magunia suggests the flexible resin stoppers include various shapes, e.g., circular, semicircular, oval, rectangular, triangle ([0019, 0037]); thus, one would expect a height of the inner wall of each resin stopper is less than a height of the outer wall. Further, Magunia suggests depending on the flow patten of the thermal resin the shape of the seal can be individually adapted, and the seal is designed to flexibly adapt in its shape, height, and design to accommodate respective tolerances of shapes of the battery and mounting structure ([0019]); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to design the resin stopper such that a height of the inner wall of each resin stopper is less than a height of the outer wall, a width of each resin stopper is equal to a width of outermost battery cells, and the top surface is inclined downwardly from the inner surface to the outer surface, to accommodate the flow pattern of the thermal resin, or to accommodate respective tolerances of shapes of the battery and mounting structure, as suggested by Magunia.
Regarding Claim 20, Shin, as modified by Deser and Magunia, suggests the thermal resin directly contacts the plurality of battery cells from the standpoint of forming a thermal interface to dissipate heat from the cells, see e.g., Fig. 3 and [0014 0035] of Magunia.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, Deser and Magunia (cited above) in view of Thurmeier (US 201903414593, of record), hereinafter Thurmeier.
Regarding Claims 9-10, Shin suggests the battery module in an electric vehicle (e.g., [0078]) but does not suggest a battery pack comprising the battery module and a pack case for packaging the battery module. However, Thurmeier suggest battery modules (2) are packaged and arranged/delimited in a pack case (e.g., tray, housing, 200, Fig. 1, [0002, 0014-0015]), thereby enabling electrical energy to be provided to the vehicle. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art an electric vehicle includes multiple battery modules in a pack case with the expectation of arranging/delimiting battery modules and providing electrical energy to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 11-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welke (DE 102013021205, of record, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kimura (US 2009/0035648, of record), hereinafter Welke and Kimura.
Regarding Claim 1, Welke suggests a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells (i.e., 2, see e.g., Fig. 15); a module case (e.g., 3, 4, 5, 8) in which the plurality of battery cells are accommodated; a thermal resin (e.g., 10 and/or 11/13, i.e., silicone gel [0066] and/or thermoplastic [0045], the heat conducting elements are intended for temperature control of the cells, see abstract, [0006]) provided inside the module case, and configured to cool the plurality of battery cells (see e.g., abstract, claim 1, etc.); and buffer spaces (see spaces adjacent recess 3.1 in Figs. 7, 13-15) provided inside the module case and facing each other (Fig.14), the thermal resin being between the buffer spaces (Figs. 13, 15). Further, Welke suggests the thermal resin (10 and/or 11/13) being between the buffer spaces, wherein the thermal resin (e.g., 10) is located under the plurality of battery cells except for (at least portions of) outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 15), and wherein the buffer spaces are located under the outermost battery cells inside the module case (see Fig. 15). Further, the length of the thermal resin would be an obvious matter of design choice for the following reasons. Kimura suggests cells in the center of the stack are more likely to keep heat therein since they are arranged at a position far from the outer shell of the stack hence have a low cooling efficiency, thereby necessitate more active cooling; in contrast cells positioned close to the outer shell of the stack (i.e., outermost cells) are more likely to release heat and have higher cooling efficiency, thereby necessitate less active cooling. In view of the different cooling efficiencies of the cells in the stack, Kimura varies the thickness of the heat exchange sheets in association with the outermost cells and innermost cells; specifically, the heat exchange sheets in association with the cell in the outermost position are thinner than the heat exchange sheets associated with cells located in the innermost position, thereby preventing a temperature difference between the cells of the stack. In recognizing the innermost cells need more active cooling, while the outermost cells already having high cooling efficiency since they are close to the outer shell of the stack, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the length of the thermal resin such that only the innermost cells are located under the thermal resin (while the outermost cells are not located under the thermal resin since they already have high cooling efficiency) and there would be an expectation of preventing a temperature difference between the plurality of cells, as suggested by Kimura. In view of the foregoing, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the thermal resin of Welke is located under the plurality of battery cells except for outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (provided these cells already have high cooling efficiency), wherein the buffer spaces are located under the outermost battery cells inside the module case, with the expectation of preventing a temperature difference between the plurality of cells, as suggested by Kimura.
Welke suggests the buffer spaces comprise resin stoppers (e.g., edges of film 13 at opposite sides of the cells stack), thereby delimiting the thermal resin (10); each resin stopper (edges of film 13, see Fig. 15) has a top surface, a bottom surface, an inner surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface, and an outer surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface, the inner surface directly contacting the thermal resin (10), annotated in Fig. 14 of Welke below.
PNG
media_image1.png
441
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Welke suggests buffer pads (3) provided on inner walls of the module case, and contacting outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells, see Figs. 1-3.
Regarding Claim 4, Welke suggests the buffer spaces are provided between lower end portions of the buffer pads and an inner bottom surface of the module case, see Fig. 15.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “thermal resin is applied to an inner bottom surface of the module case when the battery module is manufactured”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, claim is interpreted such that the thermal resin is located on an inner bottom surface of the module case, as implied by the process recited in the claim. Welke suggests the thermal resin is located on an inner bottom surface of the module case.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “the thermal resin is injected into the module case through an injector from outside of the module case when the battery module is manufactured”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, the process recited in claim 6 appears to suggest the thermal resin in the module case; Welke suggests the thermal resin in the module case, see e.g., Fig. 15.
Regarding Claim 8, Welke suggests the buffer spaces are filled with air, see figs.
Regarding Claim 11, Welke suggests resin stoppers (e.g., e.g., ends of film 11/13) between the thermal resin (e.g., 10) and sidewalls (e.g., 3.1) of the module case, see Figs. 13-14.
Regarding Claim 12, Welke suggests the buffer spaces are located directly under outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells, see Figs. 14-15, see also the rejection of claim 1 in view of Kimura.
Regarding Claim 13, Welke suggests the thermal resin (10) is on an inner bottom surface of the module case, and the resin stoppers (e.g., ends of 11/13) are between the thermal resin (10) and sidewalls (3.1) of the module case, see Figs. 13-14.
Regarding Claim 14-16, Welke suggests buffer pads (i.e., 3) provided on the sidewalls of the module case and contacting outermost battery cells from among the plurality of battery cells (see Figs. 1-3, 15), wherein the buffer spaces are provided between lower end portions of the buffer pads and the inner bottom surface of the module case, see e.g., Figs. 14-15. Welke suggests the buffer spaces comprise empty spaces directly under lower end portions of the buffer pads (i.e., 3, Fig. 15), and wherein the resin stoppers (i.e., ends of film 11/13) are directly under the outermost battery cells (Fig. 14-15, see also rejection of claim 1 in view of Kimura), and the buffer spaces are empty spaces directly under the outermost battery cells (see Fig. 15, see also rejection of claim 1 in view of Kimura).
Regarding Claim 17, Welke suggests the module case includes a top wall (4), a bottom wall (8), and side walls (3, 5) and the resin stoppers (i.e., ends of 11/13) are spaced from the side walls (3, see space S between 11 and 3.1 in Fig. 7, see also space between 5 and edge of film 11/13 in Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 18, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Welke suggests a height of the inner wall of each resin stopper (e.g., edge of film 13) is about the same as a height of the outer wall; when the claimed height difference is very small (i.e., a height of the inner wall of each resin stopper is less than a height of the outer wall by a very small amount), the height difference approaches the value suggested by Welke (i.e., a height of the inner wall is the same as a height of the outer wall). Thus, Welke suggests a value that approaches that claimed value, hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 19, Welke does not explicitly suggests a width of the resin stoppers (edges of film 13) is equal to the width of the outermost battery cells of the plurality of battery cells. However, the width of the resin stoppers (i.e., edges of film 13) would be an obvious matter of design choice for the following reason. Welke suggests the edges of film 13 (interpreted as the resin stoppers) are used to glue film 13 to the control device 8 thereby holding thermal resin 10 therein. It would be understood that increasing the surface area (hence the width) of the glued edge of film 13 would increase the attachment strength of the film 13, thereby more securely holding the thermal resin 10 therein. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the width of the edges of film 13 are varied to ensure sufficient gluing of the film 13 to plate 8, thereby securing the location of the thermal resin 10 to the cells in need of cooling.
Regarding Claim 21, Welke suggests the resin stoppers (i.e., edges of film 13) are formed of flexible casing 11 ([0045]), hence an elastic material.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welke and Kimura, in view of Thurmeier (US 201903414593, of record), hereinafter Thurmeier.
Regarding Claims 9-10, Welke suggests a vehicle (e.g., electric vehicle, [0037]) comprising a battery pack comprising the battery module detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Welke does not suggest a pack case for packaging the battery module. However, Thurmeier suggest battery modules (2) are packaged and arranged/delimited in a pack case (e.g., tray, housing, 200, Fig. 1, [0002, 0014-0015]), thereby enabling electrical energy to be provided to the vehicle. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art an electric vehicle includes battery modules in a pack case with the expectation of arranging/delimiting battery modules and providing electrical energy to the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bachmann (DE 102013015757) Fig. 3-4, heat conducting material 6 on the outermost cells reads on the stoppers and heat conducting material 6 on the innermost cells reads on the thermal resin; the inner surface of the outermost material 6 does not directly contact the thermal resin under the inner most cells. However, Shin (US 20180375077, or record) suggests removing the air layer between cells and the cooling plate using a resin thermal adhesive N, thereby improve cooling performance [0080-0087]; Shin shows stoppers K (Fig. 10) to controls the flow of the thermal conductive adhesive N. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include thermal resin in association with the inner most cells such that the inner surface of the outermost material 6 directly contacts the thermal resin under the inner most cells with the expectation of improved cooling performance. The stopper K conforms to the shape of the cell body 100 and cooling plate 200.
Kuno (JP 2015207541) suggests stoppers 220 and thermal resin 300; when the thermal resin 300 is pushed and spread, the stoppers 220 prevents the resin from flowing out.
Lee KR 10 2378539 wedge shaped heat pipe 170 conforms to shape of the cell body, Fig. 8.
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/
Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights