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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended, claims 2-12 are as previously presented. Claims 1-12 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralph (KR20180064298A) in view of Hu (CN109103383A) and Chi ().
In regards to claim 1, Ralph discloses a battery pack [fig. 1, Ralph] comprising: a pack frame (10) in which a plurality of battery modules (30) are mounted [0008, 0037, fig. 1-2, Ralph]; wherein each battery module of the plurality of battery modules comprises a battery cell stack (40) where a plurality of battery cells are stacked [0004-0005, 0012-0019, fig. 2, Ralph], a module frame (30, 31, 32, 33, 34) that accommodates the battery cell stack [0042-0049, fig. 1-3, Ralph], and a heat sink (in 32)that is positioned in a bottom portion of the module frame [0011, 0018, 0021, 0043, fig. 3, Ralph ], wherein the bottom portion of the module frame forms an upper plate of the heat sink [fig. 3, Ralph], and wherein the bottom portion of the module frame (32) is in contact with refrigerant (321) supplied in the heat sink [0043, fig. 3, Ralph].
Ralph discloses a central segment (18) extending parallel to the longitudinal segment (16) and dividing the carrier frame into two sub-spaces [0037, fig. 1, Ralph]. This reads on the applicant’s claim limitation of a plurality of battery modules are mounted to be spaced apart from each other. Similarly, Hu (see below) teaches spacing modules by providing reinforcing ribs (14, Hu) that separates the battery modules and provides reinforcement to the frame structure [0014, 0060, Hu].
Ralph is silent to 1) a bottom surface of the pack frame. 2) The use of an insulating member positioned between a bottom surface of at least one of the battery modules of the plurality of battery modules and a bottom surface of the pack frame. 3) a module frame protruding portion and a heat sink protruding portion. 4) wherein the module frame and heat sink protruding portion define a refrigerant port.
In regards to 1) and 2), Hu discloses a battery pack (10) comprised of a pack frame (10) holding a plurality of battery modules in a battery module mounting area (18) and spaced apart from each other (14, made possible by the reinforcing ribs) and cooled by a cooling plate (30) designed to remove heat from the modules [0008, 0014, 0060, 0071-0074, Hu]. Hu additionally discloses the use of a plurality of thermal insulation material (20) with sufficient elasticity and separated by the reinforcing ribs and adhered to the surface of the module installation area (18) forming an elastic floating structure in which the cooling plate and module are placed on top [0017, 0020-0023, 0071-0074, fig. 11, Hu].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Ralph such that the battery pack frame included a designated module mounting area (18 in Hu) and to include an insulation material in each module installation area between such that the cooling plate (heat sink) sits on the thermal insulation material having sufficient elasticity. Doing so provides 1) a designated spaces for battery modules to be installed [0060, Hu], and 2) a thermally elastic insulated material (20) that may support the weight of the cooling plate and any object placed upon it such that stress conditions are improved [0073, Hu]. The modification results in the insulating material placed on top of the mounting area (20 on 18).
In regards to 3) and 4) Chi discloses a battery module (100) with a base plate (121, “heat sink”) with a flow path for cooling water to flow and cool the battery cells [0042, 0047-0048, fig. 3-6, Chi]. Wherein the battery module has an end plate (125, “module frame”) with a protrude portion protruding from a side of the module frame and a base plate (“heat sink”) with a protrude portion (121b) protruding from the heat sink and coupled to the module frame protrude portion [0047-0049, 0064, fig. 3 and 6-7, Chi]. Wherein, the module frame protrude portion and the heat sink protrude portion define a refrigerant port (121a) [0064, fig. 3 and 6-7, Chi].
PNG
media_image1.png
419
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3, Chi depicting the protruding portions of the module frame and heat sink being defined by a refrigerant port.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Ralph such that the module frame and heat sink had a protrusion portion that defines a refrigerant port. Doing so would provide one with the opportunity to vertically mount a refrigerant port so that a cooling pipe may be mounted in a vertical direction [0022, 0064, Chi].
Regarding claim 2, modified Ralph discloses a battery pack wherein the at least one insulating member is a pair of insulating members (20 above 18) respectively positioned under each adjacent battery module among the plurality of battery modules [0071-0072, fig. 11, Hu teaches that each insulating material is placed in its corresponding module installation area].
Regarding claim 3, modified Ralph discloses a battery pack, wherein the pair of insulating members are spaced apart from each other [0071-0072, fig. 11, Hu teaches that each insulating member is placed in the non-ribbed area of the module insulation area resulting in them being spaced apart].
Regarding claim 4, modified Ralph discloses a battery pack, wherein the at least one insulating member (20) extends along a bottom surface of at least one battery module of the plurality of battery modules [0023, 0071-0073, 0078-0081, fig. 11, Hu teaches the insulating member extending along the module installation area].
Regarding claim 12, modified Ralph discloses a device comprising the battery pack of claim 1 [0001, 0025, 0055, Ralph].
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ralph as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lim (US20140356684A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ralph is silent to the size of the insulating material in comparison to the battery module.
However, Lim discloses a battery module (100) mounted to a support portion (31) supporting the battery module [0037, fig. 2-3, Lim], wherein an elastic member (120, equivalent to foam material taught by Hu) may be provided to completely overlap the bottom surface of the battery module (17) [0046, Lim].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Ralph such that the insulating member completely overlapped the battery module as this can improve assembly tolerance when the battery module are fixed to the surface of the pack frame [0047, Lim].
Regarding claim 6, modified Ralph is silent to the size of the insulating material in comparison to the battery module.
However, Lim discloses a battery module (100) mounted to a support portion (31) supporting the battery module [0037, fig. 2-3, Lim], wherein an elastic member (120, equivalent to foam material taught by Hu) may be provided to correspond to the bottom surface of the battery module [0021, Lim], such that the elastic member (“insulating member”) has the same size as the bottom of the battery module (17) [fig. 2-3, Lim].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Ralph such that the insulating member was the same size as the battery module as this can improve assembly tolerance when the battery module are fixed to the surface of the pack frame [0047, Lim].
Regarding claim 7, modified Ralph teaches of a battery module in which the heat sink (cooling plate) defines the base of the battery module, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. But is silent to the size of the heat sink in relation to the insulating member.
However, Lim discloses a battery module (100) mounted to a support portion (31) supporting the battery module [0037, fig. 2-3, Lim], wherein an elastic member (120, equivalent to foam material taught by Hu) may be provided to completely overlap (size is larger than therefore reads on claimed different) the bottom surface of the battery module (17) [0046, Lim].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Ralph such that the insulating member completely overlaps (reads on different size) the battery module as this can improve assembly tolerance when the battery module are fixed to the surface of the pack frame [0047, Lim].
Regarding claim 8, modified Ralph teaches of a battery module in which the heat sink (cooling plate) defines the base of the battery module, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. But is silent to the size of the heat sink in relation to the insulating member.
However, Lim discloses a battery module (100) mounted to a support portion (31) supporting the battery module [0037, fig. 2-3, Lim], wherein an elastic member (120, equivalent to foam material taught by Hu) may be provided to correspond to the bottom surface of the battery module [0021, Lim], such that the elastic member (“insulating member”) has the same size as the bottom of the battery module (17) [fig. 2-3, Lim].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Ralph such that the insulating member was the same size as the battery module as this can improve assembling tolerance when the battery module are fixed to the surface of the pack frame [0047, Lim].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ralph as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US20120107664A1) and as evidenced by EPP-SDS.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ralph discloses the use of a thermally insulative material with sufficient elasticity [0072, Ralph], but is silent to the insulating material being made of expanded polypropylene foam.
However, Lee discloses a battery module comprised of a stack of battery cells with insulative and cooling members disposed at the interface between the respective battery cells [abstract, Lee]. Wherein the insulative member exhibits elasticity, as a concrete example, the insulative member may be formed of expanded polypropylene [0023, 0061, Lee].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Ralph such that the thermally insulative material with sufficient elasticity was an expanded polypropylene. Doing so would provide a known insulative material that can provide structural stability to the battery cell stack [0061, Lee].
The examiner notes that prior to the effective filing date EPP was known to be an elastic material with thermally insulative properties as evidenced by its safety data sheet [see attached EPP-SDS for more information].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ralph as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kopp (US20190115641A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ralph discloses an embodiment where the heat sink is integral with the bottom portion of the module frame. But is silent to the heat sink being coupled with the bottom portion of the module frame and including a lower plate where a recess portion is formed.
However, Kopp discloses a battery module in which in which a temperature controlling device (3, equivalent to heat sink) is coupled with the bottom portion of the module frame (5) [0043-0045, fig. 1, Kopp], and includes a lower plate (6) where a recess portion is formed (6 + 9) [0043-0045, fig. 1-2, Kopp], and wherein a refrigerant flows between the recess portion and the bottom portion of the module frame [0015-0016, 0055-0059, Kopp]. The temperature controlling device as disclosed by Kopp additionally possess “spacer elements” attached to the bottom of the module frame (5) and/or above the lower plate (6) [0011-0013, 0055-0056, 0059-0061, 0065-0068, Kopp].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Ralph such that the heat sink is coupled with the bottom portion of the module frame and forms a recess portion with spacer elements attached to the bottom of the module frame and/or above the lower plate. Doing so would allow for a coolant to flow through and experience turbulence making it is possible to allow a more even distribution of the cooling fluid in the entire flow chamber [0015, Kopp].
Regarding claim 11, modified Ralph discloses a battery pack, wherein a protrude pattern (11) is formed in the recess portion [0045, 0055, fig. 1-2, Kopp].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments for allowability center around the prior art cited in the previous office action not teaching the amended limitation. However, in response to the amendment of claim 1 the examiner has introduced Chi which does teach the claimed limitations.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guo (CN109148771A).
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724