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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19, as filed 20 April 2023, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Claim Objection
Claim 10 includes the limitation “wherein sides of at least some of the base areas facing the base cover comprise an elevated structure forming one or more streaming beds or semi-tube-like structures configured to guide a coolant across the sides.” Claim 14 includes the limitation “wherein a side of the base cover facing the base portion comprises an elevated structure forming one or more streaming beds or semi-tube-like structures configured to guide a coolant across the side.” If Applicant intends to claim flow guiding elements, use of that term will improve the clarity of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 2, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “wherein the base portion is formed as one piece by injection molding or die casting” is determined to include “wherein the base portion is capable of being formed as one piece by injection molding or die casting.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13 and 16-19 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stephens (US 20180337377 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stephens teaches a battery module (abstract, FIG. 2) comprising:
a base portion (FIG. 21 and [0078] tub 520) extending along a first virtual plane that is perpendicular to a first direction, the base portion comprising a plurality of indentations protruding against the first direction (FIG. 19 and [0078] containment portions 582);
a base cover extending along a second virtual plane that is parallel to the first virtual plane and arranged in front of the first virtual plane when viewing into the first direction, (FIG. 21 support structure 524, 584) the base cover being spaced apart from each of the indentations; ([0079] As shown FIG.21 floor portion 528 … at least partially resting on floor panel 584 of the support structure 524)
a plurality of groups of battery cells, wherein each of the indentations forms a compartment configured to accommodate at least one of the groups of battery cells, wherein each of the groups of battery cells is accommodated in one of the compartments, and (FIG. 5 and [0055] battery module 14 … battery compartments may each contain two battery modules.)
wherein a space is formed between neighboring ones of the indentations. (FIG. 22 cross member portion 536)
Regarding claim 2, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the base portion is formed as one piece by injection molding or die casting. ([0055] tub component … injection molded plastic)
Regarding claim 3, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein an edge of the base portion is continuously sealed with the base cover. (FIG. 23, FIG. 24 and [0079] seal at the support structure 524 may be secondary or backup to the seal to the containment provided by the sealed tub component 520)
Regarding claim 5, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Stephens further teaches wherein each of the indentations has a base area, and wherein the base area is the area of the indentations having a maximal distance to the first virtual plane. (As shown FIG. 22)
Regarding claim 6, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Stephens further teaches wherein the base area of at least for one of the indentations extends parallel to the first virtual plane. (As shown FIG. 22)
Regarding claim 7, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Stephens further teaches wherein the base area of each of the indentations has the same distance to the first virtual plane. (As shown FIG. 22)
Regarding claim 9, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, wherein each of the base areas has a rectangular shape. (As shown FIG. 22)
Regarding claim 11 Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Stephens further teaches wherein the indentations have side walls extending parallel to the first direction. ([0077] FIG. 22 perimeter wall portion 530)
Regarding claim 12, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Stephens further teaches wherein each of the indentations has an identical shape. (FIG. 22)
Regarding claim 13, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Stephens further teaches wherein the indentations are arranged in a two-dimensional periodic pattern with regard to the first virtual plane. (FIG. 22)
Regarding claim 16, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Stephens further teaches wherein the battery cells in at least some of the groups of battery cells are stacked in a direction perpendicular to the first direction. (FIG. 3 cells 54)
Regarding claim 17, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Stephens further teaches a battery pack comprising at least one of the battery modules according to claim 1. (As shown FIG. 2)
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches a vehicle comprising at least one of the battery modules according claim 1 or packs according to claim 17. (As shown FIG. 1, FIG. 2)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (US 20180337377 A1) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Merino (US 20220336900 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Stephens does not explicitly teach wherein the base cover and the base portion are formed together as one piece by injection molding or die casting.
Merino, in the field of (abstract) lightweight battery housings for automobiles, discloses at [0061] and FIG. 11 that the cover 802, battery holder 222, and frame 226 can each be made by casting. At FIG. 18 and [0053] external thermal management system 420 (equivalent to the base cover) is integrated with the battery holder (equivalent to the base portion). Merino at [0060] discloses the motivation of component consolidation.
Noting the claim interpretation above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been understood, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that the base cover and base portion of Stephens can be made by casting as taught by Merino, and would have been motivated to form the base and base cover in one piece by casting, for the motivation of component consolidation, with a reasonable expectation on success.
Regarding claim 15, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Stephens shows (FIG. 17) the battery housing of Stephens having an elevated area at one end. However, Stephens does not explicitly teach that this area is used to house batteries and does not explicitly teach wherein the battery cells in at least some of the groups of battery cells are stacked along the first direction.
Merino, in the field of (abstract) lightweight battery housings for automobiles, discloses FIG. 5, FIG. 6 that battery module 28 can be double stacked (e.g. stacked in the first direction). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Stephens by adding additional modules in the elevated area of FIG. 17, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving battery capacity and space utilization.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (US 20180337377 A1) as set forth in claim 5, above, and in further view of Morioka (US 20170346050 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and discloses [0003-0004] and [0054] the need for battery protection, containment of leaks, and thermal management, but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the base areas has an oval or circular shape.
Morioka, in the field of (abstract) in-vehicle battery modules, discloses FIG. 1 a battery housing having a battery cell holder 14, with receiving holes 15 to fit cylindrical batteries 12.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that that the needs for protection, leak containment, and thermal management also apply to the cylindrical cells of Morioka, and would have been motivated to modify battery housing 502 of Stephens to have receiving holes 15 of Morioka in order to accommodate cylindrical cells, with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing Stephens’ solution for protection, leak containment, and thermal management to cylindrical cells.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (US 20180337377 A1) as set forth in claims 1 and 5, above, and in further view of Hauser (DE 102013021670 A1, as cited by Applicant in IDS, with references to Espacenet translation provided herewith.)
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an elevated structure forming one or more streaming beds or semi-tube-like structures configured to guide a coolant across the sides” includes “flow guiding elements.”
Further regarding claims 10 and 14, Stephens teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Stephens does not explicitly teach wherein sides of at least some of the base areas facing the base cover comprise flow guiding elements configured to guide a coolant across the sides.
Hauser, in the field of ([0001]) cooling equipment for a high-voltage battery, discloses [0012] a heat sink comprising an outer shell (comparable to the base cover) and in inner shell (comparable to the base portion) which together form a component with double-walled elongated ribs with a wave profile. The inner and outer shell together act as the battery module “tub”. At [0013], the finned shape of the heat sinks allows for the uniform cooling of the battery cells arranged on them. At [0015], the shape of the groove determines the flow cross-section of each cooling channel, and at [0023-0024] the battery modules are inclined, which allows the battery modules to have lower height. Examiner notes that (as shown FIG. 4) the contour of shells 11,12 creates a wave profile that guides coolant across the shell in locations corresponding to both bottom and side of base portion and base cover.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to the base portion and base cover of Stephens by using the inclined modules and inner and outer shell contours of the Hauser, with a reasonable expectation of successfully evenly cooling the battery modules, while providing the valuable feature of reduced battery pack height. This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 14, wherein a side of the base cover facing the base portion comprises flow guiding elements configured to guide a coolant across the side.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/12/2026