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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the instant application was effectively filed on 30 June 2023, but claims priority to Application No. JP 2022-057585, filed on 30 Mar 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 Mar 2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “…in the vehicle width direction of the vehicle”.
This should read “in the vehicle width direction” to be consistent with other instances of the terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “wherein the battery unit is disposed below a seat provided in the vehicle” is indefinite. This is because applicant is seemingly positively reciting the seat and vehicle in claim 9, where in claim 1, the vehicle is not positively recited.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation is interpreted to mean “wherein the battery unit is configured to be disposed below a seat provided in the vehicle”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US Patent No. 8,717,761), in view of Harada (EP 3782835 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a battery unit (10, Fig. 1) mounted on a vehicle (9, Fig. 4, see C3:L43-47), the battery unit comprising:
a case (60, Fig. 1-4) having an intake port (46, Fig. 1-3);
a battery module (20, Fig. 1-3) which is disposed inside the case (60) and in which a plurality of battery cells (22, Fig, 3) are stacked (see C3:L64-C4:L1);
a fan (90, Fig. 1-3) disposed inside the case (60) and cooling air (see C4:L35-39); and
an intake duct (cooling structure comprising 47, 65, 70, and 80, Fig. 3, see C4:L49-59) connecting the intake port (46) and the fan (90), wherein
the intake duct includes:
a first flow path (66 Fig. 3) extending along a first surface (top wall of 21, Fig. 3) of the battery module (20); and
a second flow path (73, Fig. 3) extending along a second surface (76, Fig. 3) different from the first surface of the battery module (20).
Aoki does not teach a fan blowing cooling air to the battery module.
However, Harada teaches a fan (12, Figs. 1 and 5-6) disposed inside a case (30, Figs. 1 and 5-6) and blowing cooling air to the battery module (20, Figs. 5-6, see [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the case of Aoki by adding the cooling fan disposed prior to the battery module along the flow path, as taught by Harada, because it allows air to be blown off of inclined surfaces to increase flow velocity and cooling efficiency (see [0054]).
Regarding claim 2, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches the second surface (76, Fig. 3) is a side surface (left side of 20, Fig. 3) of the battery module in a vehicle width direction (left in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches an electrical component (41, Fig. 3, see C4:L9-23) electrically connected (via wiring 42, Fig. 2) to the battery module (20, Fig. 3), wherein
the second flow path (73, Fig. 3) is disposed to be sandwiched between the electrical component (41 to the left, Annotated Fig. 3, below) and the battery module (20 to the right, Annotated Fig. 3, below) in the vehicle width direction of the vehicle.
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
400
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches the second flow path (second flow path, Annotated Fig. 3, below) extends in a vertical direction (extends down, Annotated Fig. 3, below) along the side surface (left side of 20, Fig. 3) of the battery module in the vehicle width direction (left, Fig. 3).
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
183
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches the first surface (top wall of 21, Fig. 3) is an upper surface of the battery module (20, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches the battery unit (10, Fig. 4) is disposed below a seat provided in the vehicle (see 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above for interpretation).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that claim 9 recites intended use language, and thereby does not impart any additional structural limitations; any battery unit would be capable of disposition below a seat provided in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches the first flow path (66, Fig. 3) is connected to the intake port (46, Fig. 3) and extends in a horizontal direction (extends left, see Fig. 3) along an upper surface (top side of 20, Fig. 3) of the battery module;
the second flow path (73, Fig. 3) is connected to the first flow path (66) and extends in a vertical direction (extends down, see Fig. 3) along a side surface (left side of 20, Fig. 3) of the battery module; and
the intake duct (cooling structure comprising 47, 65, 70, and 80, Fig. 3, see C4:L49-59) further includes a third flow path (81, Fig. 3) which connects the second flow path and the fan (90, Fig. 3), the third flow path extending in the horizontal direction (extends left, see Fig. 3),
but does not teach the third flow path extending above the fan.
However, Harada teaches a flow path (arrow pointing into intake duct, Annotated Fig. 5, below) extending above a fan (12, Annotated Fig. 5, below).
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 5
PNG
media_image3.png
290
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the third flow path of Aoki, in view of Harada, to be disposed above the fan, as taught by Harada, to maximize space in the luggage compartment of the vehicle (see [0004]). It has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US Patent No. 8,717,761), in view of Harada (EP 3782835) and further in view of Yamanaka et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2016/0243919).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches the case (60, Fig. 3) includes a base plate (60b, Fig. 3) on which the fan (12, Fig. 1 of Harada) is mounted;
but does not teach the intake duct is disposed above the fan: and the intake duct includes a fixing portion fixed to the base plate by a clip.
However, Harada teaches an intake duct (intake duct, Annotated Fig. 5, above) disposed above a fan (12, Annotated Fig. 5, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intake duct of Aoki, in view of Harada, to be disposed above the fan, as taught by Harada, to maximize space in the luggage compartment of the vehicle (see [0004]). It has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art.
Aoki, in view of Harada, still does not teach the intake duct includes a fixing portion fixed to the base plate by a clip.
However, Yamanaka teaches a cooling unit for a vehicle battery pack (40, Figs. 1-3, [0003]) comprising an intake duct (60, Fig. 3-4) including a fixing portion (64B, Fig. 3-4) fixed to the base plate (bracket 95 of 90, Fig. 4) by a clip (clip B, Fig. 4, see [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intake duct of Aoki, in view of Harada, by adding a fixing portion fixed to the base plate by a clip, as taught by Yamanaka, to provide rigidity that prevents the transmission of vibrations from the cooling blower ([0036 and 0062).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US Patent No. 8,717,761), in view of Harada (EP 3782835) and further in view of Houchin-Miller (U.S. Pub. US 2011/0269008) and Yamamoto (WO 2015/045526, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches an electrical component is mounted (41, Fig. 3, see C4:L9-15), wherein: the intake duct has a third flow path (81, Fig. 3),
but does not teach a bracket on which the electrical component is mounted, wherein: the third flow path is disposed above the fan; and the bracket is disposed above the fan and the third flow path, and presses the intake duct against the fan.
Harada teaches an intake duct (intake duct, Annotated Fig. 5, above) comprising a flow path, disposed above a fan (12, Annotated Fig. 5, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the third flow path of Aoki, in view of Harada, to be disposed above the fan, as taught by Harada, to maximize space in the luggage compartment of the vehicle (see [0004]). Further, it has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art.
Aoki, in view of Harada, still does not teach a bracket on which the electrical component is mounted, and the bracket is disposed above the fan and the third flow path, and presses the intake duct against the fan.
Further, Houchin-Miller teaches a bracket (9000, Fig. 57) on which an electrical component (9020, Fig. 57) is mounted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrical component of Aoki, in view of Harada, by mounting the electrical component on a bracket, as taught by Houchin-Miller, to maintain a temperature sensor in contact with a battery cell (see [0244]).
Yamamoto teaches a bracket (40/41, Fig. 6) is disposed above the fan (31, Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 6, below) and presses the intake duct (33, Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 6, below) against the fan (31).
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6
PNG
media_image4.png
381
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bracket, intake duct, and fan of Aoki, in view of Harada and Houchin-Miller, by disposing the bracket to be above the fan and pressing down on the fan and intake duct comprising a third flow path, in order to mount the intake duct and the fan so that they may communicate with each other (see Page3:L39-47 of Machine Translation).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US Patent No. 8,717,761), in view of Harada (EP 3782835) and further in view of Oono et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2020/0006821).
Regarding claim 8, Aoki, in view of Harada, teaches an inter-cell flow path (inter-cell flow path, Annotated Fig. 3, below) through which the cooling air sent out from the fan (12, Fig. 1 of Harada) flows from a lower side (lower side, Annotated Fig. 3, below) to an upper side (upper side, Annotated Fig. 3, below) is formed between the battery cells (cell portions of batteries 22, Fig. 3, see C5:L11-14);
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image5.png
337
310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Aoki, in view of Harada, does not teach a control device configured to control charging and discharging of the battery module, wherein: the control device is disposed between the first flow path and the battery module.
However, Oono teaches a control device (7, Fig. 4) configured to control charging and discharging (see [0024]) of the battery module (1, Fig. 4), wherein: the control device is disposed between a flow path (path of air out fan 35, Fig. 4) and the battery module (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first flow path of Aoki, in view of Harada, by adding a control device configured to control charging and discharging disposed above it, as taught by Oono, so that the power supply controller can be cooled by passing air (see [0088]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723