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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20170047623 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a battery pack comprising:
a pack frame in which a plurality of battery modules are installed to be spaced apart from each other (Fig. 10 depicts a frame with a plurality of battery modules spaced apart from each other), the plurality of battery modules including adjacent battery modules (Fig. 10);
and a plurality of cooling members (Fig. 10 shows a plurality of cooling members [Fig. 7, item 130 ])
and a plurality of heat insulating members (Fig. 10 shows a plurality of cooling members [Fig. 7, item 103])
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 10)]
PNG
media_image1.png
662
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a cooling member of the plurality of cooling members (item 130) and a heat insulating member of the plurality of heat insulating members (item 103) are positioned under each of the battery modules (Fig. 7, the cooling member (item 130) is positioned under the battery module (item 110)), wherein the heat insulating member is positioned between the cooling member and a bottom surface of the pack frame (para. 0029, [an insulation pad 103 for reinforcing heat insulation may be additionally disposed between a lower surface of the cooling block and an inner surface of the case).
Fig. 10 of Kim does not teach wherein a number of the plurality of cooling members is equal to a
number of the plurality of battery modules. Claim 12 of Kim does teach the use of a battery module and a cooling block [member] within the high voltage battery structure.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a number of the plurality of cooling members equal to a number of the plurality of battery modules. The use of a separable structure [in this case providing one battery module per cooling member] instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art [multiple battery modules per cooling member] would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 289, F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the cooling member and the heat insulating member positioned under a first battery module of the adjacent battery modules are spaced from the cooling member and the heat insulating member positioned under a second battery module of the adjacent battery modules are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 10, depicts the cooling member and heat insulating member positioned under the battery modules which are spaced out).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the battery pack of claim 2, wherein the cooling member and the heat insulating member extend along a lower surface of the respective battery module of the adjacent battery modules (para. 0033, [an insulation pad (item 103) for reinforcing heat insulation may be additionally disposed between a lower surface of the cooling block (item 130) of the battery module (item 100) and an inner surface of the case]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the battery pack of claim 3, wherein the heat insulating member has a larger size than the cooling member (Fig. 9 shows the heat insulating member (item 103) is larger than the cooling member. The cooling member is not labeled on Fig. 9 but it is represented by the block above item 103. See Fig. 7 for the cooling member (item 130)).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of battery modules includes a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked (Fig. 10 depicts the stacking of the battery cells) and a module frame that accommodates the battery cell stack (the module frame is represented by the battery housing, item 110 shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the battery pack of claim 10, wherein a cooling member (see Fig. 7, the cooling member is disposed under the battery pack) and the heat insulating member (130) are positioned under the module frame (see Fig. 9, the heat insulating member (103) is disposed under the module frame (110). The cooling member is disposed above the heat insulating member (para. 0029)).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses a device comprising the battery pack according to claim 1 (para. 0022, the battery is mounted within a vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of heat insulating members is equal to a number of the plurality of battery modules.
Fig. 10 of Kim does not teach wherein a number of the plurality of heat insulating members is equal to the plurality of battery modules.
However it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a number of the plurality of cooling members equal to a number of the plurality of battery modules. The use of a separable structure [in this case providing one battery module per heat insulation member] instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art [in this case multiple battery modules per heat insulating member] would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 289, F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20170047623 A1) and further in view of Asai (US 20110206948 A1) .
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 3.
Kim does not teach that the cooling member and the heat insulating member have a larger size than a lower surface of the respective battery module of the adjacent battery modules.
Asai, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that the cooling member (item 7) and the heat insulating member (item 8) can be of a larger size than a lower surface of the respective battery module(para. 0071) of the adjacent battery modules (the adjacent battery modules can be seen in Fig. 4)..
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the cooling/heat insulating members of Kim larger than the lower surface of the battery module, as taught by Asai, in order to account for temperature differences between battery cells (para. 0071). Asai teaches that the contact area between the battery cells and the insulating layer/cooling plate can be designed to an optimal shape due to temperature distribution considerations (para. 0071-0072).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20170047623 A1), in view of Jeong (EP 3382774 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 3. Kim does not teach that the cooling member and the heat insulating member have a same size as a lower surface of the respective battery module of the adjacent battery modules.
Jeong, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the cooling member (Fig. 1, item 120) (para. 0058, [thermal pad … used as a medium for transferring heat generated in the battery cell to the outside, or cooling]), and the heat insulating member (Fig. 1, item 150, insulation pad) have the same size as a lower surface of the respective battery module (item 115)(see Fig.1) of the adjacent battery modules (the four adjacent battery modules are shown in Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
887
843
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the shape of the cooling and heat insulating members of Kim, to have the same size as the lower surface of the battery module, as taught by Jeong, in order for the cooling member to adequately transfer the heat generated by the battery cell stack (para. 0059), and for the heat insulating member to adequately block the heat that may be transferred from the outside to the inside of the battery pack (para. 0066), as taught by Jeong.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 3.
Kim does not teach wherein the heat insulating member has a same size as the cooling member.
Jeong, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the heat insulating member has a same size as the cooling member (Jeong, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the shape of the heat insulating member of Kim, to have the same size as the cooling member, as taught by Jeong, in order for the cooling member to adequately transfer the heat generated by the battery cell stack (para. 0059), and for the heat insulating member to adequately block the heat that may be transferred from the outside to the inside of the battery pack (para. 0066), as taught by Jeong.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20170047623 A1), in view of Lim (US 20130040180 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1. Kim does not teach wherein the cooling member is made of aluminum (Al).
Lim, in the same field of endeavor, batteries teaches wherein the cooling member is made of aluminum (Al) (0026, [the metallic plate member supports the battery cell and functions to cool the battery cell]) (0029, [the metallic plate member may be made of aluminum]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Kim’s cooling member out of aluminum, as taught by Lim, in order to use a material with good thermal conductivity that will further improve cooling performance, as taught by Lim (para. 0029).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20170047623 A1), in view of Larsson (US 20150255837 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1. Kim is silent regarding wherein the material of the heat insulating member.
Larsson, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches the use of expanded polypropylene foam (0019) for a thermal insulating member of a battery (energy storage enclosure).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Kim’s heat insulating member/insulating pad out of expanded polypropylene foam, as taught by Larsson, in order to provide the battery with sufficient thermal insulation qualities and resilient properties (para. 0018-0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/ have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Kim teaches a plurality of battery modules on one cooling member and one heat insulating member. However, one skilled in the art would have used a separable structure, wherein one battery module per cooling member and heat insulating member would have been used within the structure. See In re Dulberg, 289, F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the disclosure may be modified and altered by those skilled in the art [ para. 0035] and teaches the use of a battery module and a cooling block in claim 12 of Kim.
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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./
Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721