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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 09/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 29 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/25/2025.
Status of the Claims
The preliminary amendment submitted 12/16/2022 and response submitted 09/25/2025 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 16-29 are new. Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Claim 29 is withdrawn. Claims 16-28 are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, the claim is structured in an unconventional manner. The preamble recites “A battery module with air cooling capability comprising.” The claim then recites features a to h. However, some of these features would best be rewritten with wherein clauses (e.g. b-d and f-g). For example, feature b in combination with the preamble reads “A battery module with air cooling capability comprising: b. the battery blocks each comprise a plurality of cylindrical round cells arranged in corresponding receptacles of a cell holder, wherein longitudinal axes of the cylindrical round cells lie parallel to one another.” As structed within the claim with “comprising,” one would expect the clause to start with a further element; however, the element further specifies a previously recited element. Claims 17-28 depend from claim 16 and are objected to for the same reason.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites in feature e “a housing comprising the stack made up of the battery blocks.” A different word or phrase should be used instead of “comprising” here. The housing doesn’t comprise the stack, but rather contains it. Other similar language may be used as well. Claims 17-28 depend from claim 16 and are objected to for the same reason.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, the limitations “the air inlet” and “the air outlet” should be amended to recite “the at least one air inlet” and “the at least one air outlet,” respectively, to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “at least one stack intermediate space” in feature g should be amended to recite “the stack intermediate space” to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, the claims each contain periods in the list of elements (e.g. “a.”). Periods may not be used in the claims except at the end of the claim and abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995) and MPEP 608.01(m). Claims 17-28 depend from claim 16 and are objected to for the same reason.
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 24 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 24 recites the limitation "the nozzle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This renders the claim indefinite. As claim 23 recites “a nozzle,” the instant claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 23 for the purpose of this Office action.
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 16-18, 20, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0059299 A1 (“Hoermandinger”) in view of KR 10-2018-0101668 (“Kim” – attached machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 16, Hoermandinger discloses a battery arrangement 1 (“battery module”) (Abstract; Fig. 1). The battery arrangement has air cooling capability (Abstract).
The battery arrangement comprises at least two battery cell packs 2, 3 (“battery blocks”). The battery cell packs are stacked on one another with spacing such that a tunnel 7 (“stack intermediate space”) results between adjacent battery cell packs in the stack (Fig. 1; [0009], [0020]).
The battery arrangement further comprises a common battery housing 4. The battery cell packs are disposed within the battery housing, wherein the stack is spaced apart from walls of the battery housing so that two terminal free spaces result between terminal battery blocks of the stack and the walls (see annotated Fig. 1 below). The battery housing has at least one first opening 5, 5’ (“air inlet”) and at least one second opening 6, 6’ (“air outlet”) (Fig. 1; [0009]-[0011], [0019]-[0022]).
The battery arrangement further comprises a fan 9, 9’ capable of generating an airflow between the first opening and the second opening (Fig. 1; [0013], [0024]).
While air must flow through the battery cell packs in the direction indicated by the arrows in Fig. 1, Hoermandinger does not expressly disclose the battery blocks each comprise a plurality of cylindrical round cells arranged in corresponding receptacles of a cell holder, wherein longitudinal axes of the cylindrical round cells lie parallel to one another; or air passage openings are provided in the cell holders, through which air can flow through the battery blocks in parallel to the longitudinal axes of the round cells.
Kim discloses a battery pack module comprising a plurality of cylindrical batteries 201, a heat dissipating member 220, and a pair of packing holders 210 (at least one of the heat dissipating member and the pair of packing holders corresponds to the “cell holder”) (Abstract; Figs. 3, 8, 9; [0023], [0025]-[0034]). Each battery is arranged in a cylindrical insertion tube 222 in the heat dissipating member and a battery insertion hole 215 in the packing holders (Figs. 3, 4; [0023], [0027], [0030]-[0032], [0037], [0041]). As shown in Fig. 3, longitudinal axes of the unit batteries lie parallel to one another. A plurality of central ventilation holes 223 are provided in the heat dissipating member and a plurality of external ventilation holes 213 are provided in the packing holders (at least one of the plurality of central ventilation holes and the plurality of external ventilation holes corresponds to the “air passage openings”), through which air is capable of flowing through battery pack modules 200 in parallel to the longitudinal axes of the batteries (Figs. 4-8; [0029], [0033]-[0043]). The heat dissipation structure of Kim cools heat generated from a battery cell when the battery pack is used, providing an effect of maintaining the output of the battery constant and extending the life of the battery ([0017], [0055]). The structure of Kim makes it possible to easily expand the battery pack according to the required battery capacity, and also to minimize the volume and weight of the entire battery pack ([0016], [0039], [0054]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery pack module structure of Kim.
Hoermandinger discloses a guiding means (see annotated Fig. 1 below) that ensures the airflow is guided starting from the tunnel 7 (Fig. 1; [0010]-[0011], [0021]). In the combination, the airflow is then guided through the central ventilation holes 223 of Kim and through the two terminal free spaces of Hoermandinger.
PNG
media_image1.png
270
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Hoermandinger, annotated
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 16. Modified Hoermandinger is silent regarding the specific configuration of guiding means as recited in the instant claims. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the guiding member as claimed in view of the desired flow configuration of the first opening 5 of Hoermandinger. The flow direction through the first opening 5, as shown schematically in Fig. 1, is parallel to the tunnel 7. This necessitates an annular-type configuration for the guiding means. However, if due to space considerations, for example, the flow direction in the first opening 5 is perpendicular to the flow direction in the tunnel 7, this would necessitate a different configuration of the guiding means so that the airflow can be distributed as needed. Moreover, it is the opinion of the Office that the shape of the guiding member is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 16. As discussed above, Kim discloses the cell holder includes a pair of packing holders 210, each of which enclose an opposing end face of the batteries (Figs. 2, 3, 8, 9).
Regarding claim 22, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 16. Kim further discloses the pair of packing holders 210 have recesses to facilitate contacting the batteries (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 25, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 16. Kim further discloses the pair of packing holders 210 have connecting projections 217a, 217c (“spacers”) that are capable of spacing apart the stack from walls of the housing (Figs. 8, 9; [0037]-[0038]).
Claims 19, 23-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0059299 A1 (“Hoermandinger”) in view of KR 10-2018-0101668 (“Kim” – attached machine translation cited herein) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2006/0073378 A1 (“Hamery”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 16. Modified Hoermandinger is silent regarding the guiding means are sealing means formed from a flexible material or a foamed plastic.
Hamery discloses a device for cooling batteries (Abstract). Hamery discloses a compartment 1 having columns of batteries 28 disposed therein (Fig. 7). Hamery teaches foam gaskets 9 are inserted between the walls of the first and second compartments 1, 2 near intake 3, 3' openings ([0033], [0067]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flexible material of foamed plastic as the guiding means because Hamery teaches foam gaskets are known as sealing materials ne air intakes and one would expect the combination to yield predictable results in view of the disclosure of Hamery.
Regarding claim 23, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 16. Modified Hoermandinger is silent regarding regions of the air passage openings of a cell holder are each formed by a nozzle that forms air entry and air exit channels, and one nozzle adjoins three round cells of the respective battery block.
Hamery discloses a device for cooling batteries (Abstract). Hamery discloses columns of batteries are housed inside respective sleeves which are of variable thickness, reducing from their downstream end toward their upstream end. These arrangements are such that the heating-up of the air upon contact with the batteries is compensated for by an increase in the air speed toward the downstream end of the sleeves, so as to make the efficiency with which the batteries are cooled by the air more uniform (Figs. 8, 9, 10, 15; [0018]). The narrowing cross-section of the air passages reads on the claimed nozzles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nozzles taught by Hamery to provide more efficient cooling.
In the combination, as shown in Figs. 5-9 of Kim, each nozzle (formed in central ventilation hole 223 or external ventilation hole 213) adjoins three round cells of the battery block.
Regarding claim 24, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 23. Kim further discloses a pair of conducting members 230 (“perforated disk”) having communication cut holes 233 (i.e. perforations) arranged at an end of the nozzle facing away from the batteries (Figs. 3, 10 of Kim).
Regarding claim 28, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 20. Modified Hoermandinger is silent regarding the round cells being secondary lithium-ion cells. However, this type of battery is well known in the art. See, for example, Hamery which discloses lithium-ion batteries are known to supply the electrical energy in electrically or hybrid powered vehicles ([0002]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide secondary lithium-ion cells as the batteries because they are well known in the art and would yield predictable results in view of Hamery.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0059299 A1 (“Hoermandinger”) in view of KR 10-2018-0101668 (“Kim” – attached machine translation cited herein) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of WO 2013/134808 A1 (“Hammerschmid” – attached machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 20. Modified Hoermandinger is silent regarding the battery module further comprising screw connections or screw connections having self-tapping screws provided to fix the first cell holder part and the second cell holder part.
Hammerschmid discloses a battery pack comprising a plurality of round cells 2 and spacers 7 disposed between electrically insulating support plates 13 (Fig. 5; [0018], [0031]-[0033]). Connecting means 16’ are provided to firmly connect the support plates 13 to spacers 7. The connecting means 16’ are screw connections ([0037]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the screw connections of Hammerschmid to firmly connect the pair of packing holders 210.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0059299 A1 (“Hoermandinger”) in view of KR 10-2018-0101668 (“Kim” – attached machine translation cited herein) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2017/0018750 A1 (“Wintner”).
Regarding claim 26, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 16. Kim is silent regarding the cell holders being manufactured from plastic or from a polycarbonate or a mixture with polycarbonate.
Wintner discloses a battery assembly comprising a plurality of cylindrical batteries 401 disposed between upper tray member 403 and lower tray member 703 and within battery separating member 705 (Fig. 7). The tray members and battery separating member are fabricated from an electrically insulating material, preferably a plastic such as polycarbonate ([0037], [0040], [0043]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plastic such as polycarbonate for the material of the cell holders because Wintner discloses it is a known material for such members and is electrically insulating. Furthermore, one would expect the combination to yield predictable results in view of the disclosure of Wintner.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0059299 A1 (“Hoermandinger”) in view of KR 10-2018-0101668 (“Kim” – attached machine translation cited herein) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2020/0076022 A1 (“Kawakami”).
Regarding claim 27, modified Hoermandinger discloses the battery module of claim 16. Kim does not expressly disclose the round cells of a battery block are arranged in offset rows and the round cells of adjacent rows with opposing polarity are located adjacent to one another.
Kawakami discloses a battery pack having a battery holder 2 that arranges battery accommodating portions 4 in a staggered (or zigzag) arrangement so that space is used efficiently and the amount of material is reduced, thereby reducing manufacturing cost and weight ([0046]-[0048]). Batteries within columns are connected in parallel and adjacent columns of batteries are connected in series ([0062]). As one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, this arrangement allows for the selection of the desired voltage and capacity for each battery block. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the claimed configuration because it is space and material efficient as taught by Kawakami and allows for the selection of the desired voltage and capacity for each battery block.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0268328 A1 (“Lee”) discloses a battery module having a housing 200 forming an external form, a frame 230 having holes 232, and unit batteries 236 inserted into the holes 232. The housing includes an inlet 210 between frames 230, and two outlets 220. Air travels through the inlet, along the longitudinal axes of the unit batteries, then to the outlets (Fig. 3).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-5:45PM Eastern.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727