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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102007010742. Regarding claim 11, the reference is directed to a battery device comprising a plurality of cells (7) contained in a housing (3, 5) (Fig. 1, [0019]). The batteries rest on a thermally conductive potting compound (9), and the potting compound rests on a structural component (4, 5) of the battery device so that heat dissipates from the cells to the structural component through the potting compound. Regarding claim 12, the structural component is the housing (5) of the battery device. Regarding claim 13, each cell of the plurality of cells rests via the potting compound on the structural component (4, 5). Regarding claim 18, at least one cell (each cell) rests at opposite sides on the thermally conductive potting compound (that is, opposite sides of each cell are in contact with the potting compound) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 19, at least two cells rest via respective potting compounds (potting compound 9 in respective spaces) on opposite sides of the structural component (4) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 20, the battery device is used in a motor vehicle ([0001]). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
Claims 11-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111446397. Regarding claim 11, the reference is directed to a battery device comprising a plurality of cells contained in a housing (10, 11, 12, 13) (Figs. 1 and 2, page 5 of machine translation). The batteries rest on a thermally conductive pad or potting compound (glue), which rests on a structural component (bottom plate 13) of the battery device so that heat dissipates from the cells to the structural component through the potting compound or pad (page 7, Figs. 2 and 5). Regarding claim 12, the structural component is the housing (13) of the battery device. Regarding claim 13, each cell of the plurality of cells rests via the potting compound or pad on the structural component (page 7, Fig. 1). Regarding claim 15, each of the cells are thermally insulated from at least one other cell by an insulation element (64) (Fig. 1, page 8). Regarding claim 16, each of the cells rests on a first side (bottom side) on the compound or pad, and rests on a second side (lateral side) on the insulation element, where the first side is different than the second side (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 20, the battery device is used in a motor vehicle (page 2). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102007010742.
The reference is applied to claims 11-13 and 18-20 for the reasons stated above. However, it is not expressly taught that the potting compound has a thermal conduction coefficient of at least 1.5 W/m2K, as recited in claim 17.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would have been motivated to use a compound with a high thermal conductivity in order to effectively dissipate heat from the batteries to the structural component. Accordingly, the claimed range is rendered obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102007010742 in view of DE 102015008510.
DE ‘742 is applied to claims 11-13 and 18-20 for the reasons stated above. Further, each of the cells can be considered “lowermost” cells, and a cooling device different than the structural component can be defined as cooling plate “3.” However, it is not expressly taught that the cells rest via a thermally conductive element on the cooling device as recited in claim 14.
DE ‘510 teaches a battery pack wherein a thermally conductive pad (9) is arranged between a heat sink (cooling plate 10) and an underside of the battery module (3) (abstract, Fig. 3).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would have been motivated to use the pad of DE ‘510 underneath the cells of DE ‘742 to further augment the heat dissipation properties of DE ‘742. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
February 11, 2026