DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted March 1, 2023, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 8, 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zagrodnik US PG Publication 2021/0143492.
Regarding Claim 8, Zagrodnik discloses a battery heat exchange structure in which a heat exchange panel (thermal regulating unit) 40 and a battery cell 30 are closely arranged side by side (battery cell 30 is inside the panel 40) so that a heat exchange wall (flexible outer covering) 42 of the heat exchange panel in which a heat exchange fluid circulates follows a side surface of the battery cell, and a heat exchange wall following the side surface of the battery cell is formed of a flexible material since it is a “flexible outer covering” of 40 (para 0054) (see entire disclosure and especially all Figs and paras 0052-0058, 0062-0072).
Regarding Claim 12, Zagrodnik disloses wherein the heat exchange panel 40 and the battery cell 30 are elastically urged so as to be compressed in the arrangement direction since 40 is pressed against the battery cell 30 in face-to-face contact (see e.g. para 0013).
Regarding Claims 16 and 20, Zagrodnik disloses wherein a battery body including the battery cell 30 and the heat exchange panel 40 and a support portion (scaffold) 70 supporting the battery body (see Figs 6-8, paras 0070) are housed in an insulating container which comprises insulating foam 74 and casing 80 (see Figs 8-10 and paras 0070-073).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 9, 13, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zagrodnik US PG Publication 2021/0143492.
Regarding Claim 9, Zagrodnik further discloses a flow path wall (spacer element) 48 defining a flow path (channels) 50 through which the heat exchange fluid circulates along the heat exchange wall 42 is provided in the heat exchange panel 40 (see para 0054), and while Zagrodnik does not specifically recite that the flow path wall is provided so as to be able to expand and contract in an erecting direction, Zagrodnik teaches in e.g. para 0057 that this heat exchange wall 40 is specifically designed to expand and press against the adjacent battery to reduce thermal impedance and preserve cycle life (see e.eg para 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the flow path wall of Zagrodnik such that it is able to expand and contract in an erecting direction in order to support the ultimate goal of the heat exchange wall of Zagrodnik which is to optimally press against the adjacent battery to reduce thermal impedance and preserve cycle life since the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 13, Zagrodnik disloses wherein the heat exchange panel 40 and the battery cell 30 are elastically urged so as to be compressed in the arrangement direction since 40 is pressed against the battery cell 30 in face-to-face contact (see e.g. para 0013).
Regarding Claims 17 and 21, Zagrodnik disloses wherein a battery body including the battery cell 30 and the heat exchange panel 40 and a support portion (scaffold) 70 supporting the battery body (see Figs 6-8, paras 0070) are housed in an insulating container which comprises insulating foam 74 and casing 80 (see Figs 8-10 and paras 0070-073).
7. Claims 10-11, 14-15, 18-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagrodnik US PG Publication 2021/0143492, as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of Zhai CN208873850.
Regarding Claim 10, Zagrodnik discloses the claimed battery heat exchange structure as described in the rejection of Claim 9, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Zagrodnik further discloses use of a refrigerant such as water-glycol mixture (para 0018) and teaches wherein the heat exchange panel having flexibility in order to allow for the panel to press into the battery (see discussion of flexibility above), but Zagrodnik fails to specifically disclose wherein an elastic storage portion forming the flow path wall is filled with a latent heat storage material that undergoes a phase change at a temperature lower than the temperature of the refrigerant when the refrigerant is supplied. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module/pack thermal control, Zhai discloses that a cooling plate is filled with refrigerant including first and second refrigerants, and an additional cavity contains e.g. a phase change material such a paraffin to prevent high battery temperature and battery failure (see e.g marked sections of Zhai on pp 3-4, corresponding w/ Figs 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide an elastic storage portion forming the flow path wall is filled with a latent heat storage material that undergoes a phase change at a temperature lower than the temperature of the refrigerant when the refrigerant is supplied because Zagrodnik teaches that their structure is beneficially formed of elastic material to press upon the adjacent battery and because Zhai teaches that a cooling plate having a cavity filled with phase change material contributes to prevention of high battery temperature and battery failure in conjunction with other refrigerants. Although Zhai and Zagrodnik do not specifically disclose wherein the latent heat storage material (paraffin) undergoes phase change at a temperature lower than the temperature of the refrigerant when the refrigerant is supplied, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to ensure that the temperature of the refrigerant of Zagrodnik is sufficient such that it can carry out its purpose while allowing the phase change material to also be effective. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, the workable range is the temperature of the refrigerant as it is supplied.
Regarding Claim 11, Zagrodnik shows four branch flow paths (four lengths of the flow path) which is at least three branch flow paths (Fig. 3) and each of the four branch flow paths circulates refrigerant along the flow path along the heat exchange wall. Zagrodnik modified by Zhai doesn’t specifically teach that the latent heat storage material is provided at least between the branch flow paths, but it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the cavity in which the latent heat storage material is provided at least between the branch flow paths in order to ensure its even distribution and optimum activity since this would require only a mere rearrangement of parts, which, 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).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Zagrodnik disloses wherein the heat exchange panel 40 and the battery cell 30 are elastically urged so as to be compressed in the arrangement direction since 40 is pressed against the battery cell 30 in face-to-face contact (see e.g. para 0013).
Regarding Claims 18-19 and 22-23, Zagrodnik disloses wherein a battery body including the battery cell 30 and the heat exchange panel 40 and a support portion (scaffold) 70 supporting the battery body (see Figs 6-8, paras 0070) are housed in an insulating container which comprises insulating foam 74 and casing 80 (see Figs 8-10 and paras 0070-073).
8. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagrodnik US PG Publication 2021/0143492 and further in view of Ciaccio US PG Publication 2017/0256833.
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, Zagrodnik discloses the claimed battery heat exchange structure as described in the rejections previously laid out, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Zagrodnik further discloses that a refrigerant such as water-glycol mixture is used as a heat exchange fluid (liquid coolant, para 0018) and describes use of a temperature sensor to detect temperatures in the system for temperature control purposes (paras 0074-0082), and recites a refrigerant control unit supplying the refrigerant having the required temperature (e.g. see Fig. 11 which shows the refrigerant control unit and see para 0079-0082) and the skilled artisan would appreciate that the refrigerant control unit would be capable of supplying the refrigerant having a required temperature to the heat exchange panel of Zagrodnik. Zagrodnik does not specifically disclose wherein a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of the battery cell is provide close to the battery cell. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module thermal control design, Caccio discloses wherein thermal control of a battery system is carried out by placing a temperature sensor adjacent to battery cells such that a sensor is used for each battery (see e.g. para 0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of the battery cell is provide close to the battery cell of Zagrodnik because Caccio teaches that this is a known effective approach to operating a battery heat exchange system and structure and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
9. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagrodnik US PG Publication 2021/0143492 in view of Zhai CN208873850, as applied to Claims 10 and 11, and further in view of Ciaccio US PG Publication 2017/0256833.
Regarding Claims 26 and 27, Zagrodnik modified by Zhai discloses the claimed battery heat exchange structure as described in the rejections previously laid out, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Zagrodnik further discloses that a refrigerant such as water-glycol mixture is used as a heat exchange fluid (liquid coolant, para 0018) and describes use of a temperature sensor to detect temperatures in the system for temperature control purposes (paras 0074-0082), and recites a refrigerant control unit supplying the refrigerant having the required temperature (e.g. see Fig. 11 which shows the refrigerant control unit and see para 0079-0082) and the skilled artisan would appreciate that the refrigerant control unit would be capable of supplying the refrigerant having a required temperature to the heat exchange panel of Zagrodnik. Zagrodnik modified by Zhai does not specifically disclose wherein a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of the battery cell is provide close to the battery cell. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery module thermal control design, Caccio discloses wherein thermal control of a battery system is carried out by placing a temperature sensor adjacent to battery cells such that a sensor is used for each battery (see e.g. para 0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of the battery cell is provide close to the battery cell of Zagrodnik and Zhai because Caccio teaches that this is a known effective approach to operating a battery heat exchange system and structure and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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 Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729