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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kohno et al. (US 20130260212 A1) and is provided in the applicants IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Kohno teaches an electricity generating element with electrodes (0008) that is surrounded by a casing that has cylindrical protrusions (13A and 13B in fig. 4 and fig. 2) that are mechanically integrated to a battery case via brazing (0059) and the case is effectively a rectangular box that has lateral surfaces that are supported in pairs in which the lateral surfaces are parallel opposite one another (fig. 1 and 2, 0034).
Regarding claim 2, Kohno teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the faces of the casing are normal to adjacent faces (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kohno teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there are two cylindrical protrusions and that they are on opposite sides of the case.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kohno teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that
The case has the battery cell inside (fig. 2, 0034).
Regarding claim 5, Kohno teaches claim 4 as described above and further teaches that the cylindrical end portions do not contain the electrode stack (fig. 2 shows 13A does not contain the electricity generating element).
Regarding claim 6, Kohno teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there is a positive electrode terminal (pole), labelled 4A (fig. 2, 0036).
Regarding claim 8, Kohno teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there are fixed special clearances formed between cases (fig. 6, 0088).
Regarding claim 9, Kohno teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there are portions around the cylindrical protrusions that are airtight (0067) and that there is air flow around the cells via special clearances (0088).
Regarding claim 10, Kohno teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there can be multiple cells set up parallel to each other that form gaps through which air is blown through for temperature control (fig. 6, 0088).
Regarding claim 11, Kohno teaches the battery cell of claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there can be multiple cells set up parallel to each other that form gaps between which air is blown through for temperature control (fig. 6, 0088).
Regarding claim 16, Kohno teaches claim 2 as described above and further teaches that there are two cylindrical protrusion and they are on opposite sides of the case.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Kohno teaches claim 16 as described above and further teaches that
The case has the battery cell inside (fig. 2, 0034).
Regarding claim 18, Kohno teaches claim 17 as described above and further teaches that the cylindrical end portions do not contain the electrode stack (fig. 2 shows 13A does not contain the electricity generating element).
Regarding claim 19, Kohno teaches claim 16 as described above and further teaches that there is a positive electrode terminal (pole), labelled 4A (fig. 2, 0036).
Regarding claim 20, Kohno teaches claim 19 as described above and further teaches that there are portions around the cylindrical protrusions that are airtight (0067) and that there is ducting for temperature control via air within the batteries (0088).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohno.
Regarding claim 7, while Kohno does not teach the case having walls of the same size, it is obvious to change the dimensions as it does not change the performance of the battery see MPEP 2144.04 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 12, Kohno teaches claim 10 as described above and further teaches that there is an external blower that blows air through the gaps between cells. The instant application explains that a collecting channel is used for supplying and discharging the temperature-control fluid which can be described as an external blower, as it receives the air and forces it through multiple channels which extend in all directions along the battery cell walls. In this case since it is understood that the blower blows air through multiple pathways of the parallel cells so it necessarily extends perpendicular (transversely) to the height (longitudinal direction) and the channels are along the height and separate from the blower.
Regarding claim 13, Kohno teaches claim 12 as described above but does not explicitly teach that the temperature-control channels constitute a total pressure loss within the flow channel of 60-99%. It is described such that the flow channel is the overall area which air is blown through and the cells are contained in, and the temperature control channels are the spaces between the individual cells. As there is nowhere else described for the fluid to go other than back into the blower itself, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that most if not all of the pressure loss would be within the temperature-control channel as the only other place to lose pressure is around the surface of the module and it is known that volume increases faster than surface area. This means, as the number of cells in the module increases, there is an increase in pressure loss in the temperature-control channels vs around the perimeter and could reasonably result in a pressure loss between 60-99% therein.
Regarding claim 14, Kohno teaches claim 11 as described above and further teaches that there is an external blower that blows air through the gaps between cells. The instant application explains that a collecting channel is used for supplying and discharging the temperature-control fluid which can be described as an external blower, as it receives the air and forces it through multiple channels which extend in all directions along the battery cell walls. In this case since it is understood that the blower blows air through multiple pathways of the parallel cells so it necessarily extends perpendicular (transversely) to the height (longitudinal direction) and the channels are along the height and separate from the blower.
Regarding claim 15, Kohno teaches claim 14 as described above but does not explicitly teach that the temperature-control channels constitute a total pressure loss within the flow channel of 60-99%. It is described such that the flow channel is the overall area which air is blow through and the cells are contained in, and the temperature control channels are the spaces between the cells. As there is nowhere else described for the fluid to go other than back into the blower itself, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that most if not all of the pressure loss would be within the temperature-control channel as the only other place to lose pressure is around the perimeter of the module and it is known that volume increases faster than area. This means, as the number of cells in the module increases, there is an increase in pressure loss in the temperature-control channels vs around the perimeter and could reasonably result in a pressure loss between 60-99% therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743