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
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulinski et al, WO 2018224908 A1 (as cited in IDS, using US 20200178414 A1 for citation) and Fayemi et la, WO 2020115602 A1 (as cited in IDS, using US 20220017803 A1 for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Bulinski teaches an immersion cooling system including a housing with an interior space and a heat generating component and a working fluid disposed within the interior space, such that the heat generating component is on contact with the working fluid [Bulinski, 0003], corresponding to the thermal communication of the claim, wherein the instant specification states thermal communication may be achieved via direct contact immersion [instant specification, page 8, line 21], and the fluid has a dielectric constant of less than 2.5 [Bulinski, 0030]. However, Bulinski is silent to teach on the heat generating elements being a plurality of electrochemical cells or the working fluid having a dipole moment of less than 1.5 D.
Fayemi teaches an immersion cooling system for cooling electronics or electrochemical cells, wherein an electrochemical cell pack includes a housing including a working fluid and a plurality of electrochemical cells [Fayemi, 0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the immersion cooling system of Bulinski to include the electrochemical cells immersed in the working fluid taught by Fayemi because such modification can mitigate catastrophic thermal runaway events and provide necessary ongoing thermal management for efficient and normal operation [Fayemi, 0030], and furthermore, it is well-known to use immersion cooling for cooling electrochemical cells, therefore, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
While neither Bulinski nor Fayemi explicitly teach the working fluid to have a dipole moment of less than 1.5 D, Bulinski teaches a working fluid with a dielectric constant of less than 2.5 [Bulinski, 0009] and a hydrofluoroolefin compound with the same structural formula and dielectric constant as the working fluid compound on page 4, lines 13-17 and page 7 lines 1-5 of the instant specification, so based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Bulinski teaches the electrochemical cell pack of claim 1, wherein the working fluid comprises a compound having the structural formula IA as shown below, wherein each of Rf1 and Rf2 may independently be a linear or branched perhalogenated acyclic alkyl group having 1-6, 2-5, or 3-4 carbon atoms, or more catenated heteroatoms selected from O or N; or a perhalogenated 5-7 membered cyclic alkyl group having 3-7 or 4-6 carbon atoms, and optionally containing one or more catenated heteroatoms selected from O or N [Bulinski, 0021].
PNG
media_image1.png
183
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, modified Bulinski teaches the electrochemical cell pack of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the working fluid having an electrical conductivity (at 25 °C) of less than 1e-5 S/cm.
Fayemi teaches a fluorinated working fluid compound that exhibits a low electrical conductivity of 1e-7 S/cm [Fayemi, 0019], as measured at room temperature [Fayemi, 0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the working fluid of Bulinski to have the low electrical conductivity as taught by Fayemi, because such modification would result in a working fluid that is thermally stable and non-toxic with a low environmental impact [Fayemi, 0026].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Bulinski teaches the electrochemical cell pack of claim 1, wherein the working fluid comprises between 25 wt% to 99 wt% of the hydrofluoroolefin, corresponding to the fluorinated compound of the claim, by total weight of the composition [Bulinski, 0029].
Regarding Claim 7, Bulinski teaches a method for cooling electronic components, that may include at least partially immersing a heat generating component in a working fluid, and transferring the heat from the heat generating component using the working fluid [Bulinski, 0038], wherein the fluid has a dielectric constant of less than 2.5 [Bulinski, 0030]. However, Bulinski is silent to teach on the heat generating elements being a plurality of electrochemical cells or the working fluid having a dipole moment of less than 1.5 D.
Fayemi teaches an immersion cooling system for cooling electronics or electrochemical cells, wherein an electrochemical cell pack includes a housing including a working fluid and a plurality of electrochemical cells [Fayemi, 0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the immersion cooling system of Bulinski to include the electrochemical cells immersed in the working fluid taught by Fayemi because such modification can mitigate catastrophic thermal runaway events and provide necessary ongoing thermal management for efficient and normal operation [Fayemi, 0030], and furthermore, it is well-known to use immersion cooling for cooling electrochemical cells, therefore, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
While neither Bulinski nor Fayemi explicitly teach the working fluid to have a dipole moment of less than 1.5 D, Bulinski teaches a working fluid with a dielectric constant of less than 2.5 [Bulinski, 0009] and a hydrofluoroolefin compound with the same structural formula and dielectric constant as the working fluid compound on page 4, lines 13-17 and page 7 lines 1-5 of the instant specification, so based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Bulinski teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the working fluid comprises a compound having the structural formula IA as shown below, wherein each of Rf1 and Rf2 may independently be a linear or branched perhalogenated acyclic alkyl group having 1-6, 2-5, or 3-4 carbon atoms, or more catenated heteroatoms selected from O or N; or a perhalogenated 5-7 membered cyclic alkyl group having 3-7 or 4-6 carbon atoms, and optionally containing one or more catenated heteroatoms selected from O or N [Bulinski, 0021].
PNG
media_image1.png
183
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulinski et al, WO 2018224908 A1 (as cited in IDS, using US 20200178414 A1 for citation) and Fayemi et la, WO 2020115602 A1 (as cited in IDS, using US 20220017803 A1 for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tarlau et al, US 20180097265 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Bulinski teaches on the electrochemical cell pack of claim 1, but is silent to teach on an electrical power system comprising the cell pack or an electrical load wherein the electrochemical cell pack is electrically coupled to the electrical load.
Tarlau teaches an electrical vehicle (Tarlau, 100; figure 1) including a battery pack (Tarlau, 140; figure 1), corresponding to the electrical power system of the claim, made of battery modules, and each battery module may include a plurality of electrochemical cells and a cooling system [Tarlau, 0004], wherein the battery pack supplies electricity to power more or more of the electric motors (Tarlau, 110; figure 1) [Tarlau, 0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrochemical cell pack of Bulinski to be coupled to the electric load of Tarlau because such modification would result in an electric vehicle that promotes the use of sustainable energy and reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuel based vehicles [Tarlau, 0002].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Bulinski teaches the electrochemical cell pack of claim 5, wherein the battery pack supplies electricity to power more or more of the electric motors (Tarlau, 110; figure 1) [Tarlau, 0034]. However, modified Bulinski is silent to teach the electric load is a motor for propelling an electric vehicle.
Tarlau teaches the electric vehicle (Tarlau, 100; figure 1) may be propelled by one or more of the electric motors [Tarlau, 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrical load of Bulinski to include the application taught by Tarlau, because such modification result in an electric vehicle that promotes the use of sustainable energy and reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuel based vehicles [Tarlau, 0002].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722