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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement fails to describe a materially different process for the apparatus of Invention I. This is not found persuasive because individually manipulating individual control elements is materially different than sending the same signal to every control element and requires an entirely different configuration.
Applicant contends that restriction is not proper because the inventions overlap in scope. However, overlapping scope is not a consideration for distinctness of a process and an apparatus for its practice. See MPEP 806.05(e).
Applicant contends that the action failed to describe a different apparatus for practicing the method of Group II. However, two-way distinctness is not a requirement for such a restriction. See MPEP 806.05(e).
Applicant contends that a search burden has not been demonstrated. However, as stated in the Election/Restriction Requirement, the separate classification of the two inventions presents an unreasonable search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 4, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 512, 514, 516, and 518 in Fig. 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz et al. (US 2020/0266401 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 110913656 A; citations refer to attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Stuetz discloses a system comprising an electric energy storage device (100) comprising a plurality of battery cells connected by a plurality of busbars (130/135/136) including cooling channels (210/211) (Stuetz [0094]-[0098], Figs. 1 and 7A-8B).
Stuetz does not teach that the channels are fluidly coupled to a cooling system including a heat exchanger. Stuetz teaches that cooling fluid flows through the channels (Stuetz [0095] and [0098]). Zhou is directed to a cooling system for an electric apparatus (Zhou [0008]). Zhou teaches that a heat dissipation system that provides local control of coolant flow at each coolant grid improves heat dissipation capacity (Zhou [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the system of Zhou in the energy storage device of modified Stuetz, including the coolant tank (i.e. heat exchanger), in order to improve heat dissipation capacity.
Regarding claim 2, modified Stuetz teaches the use of valves (i.e. coolant control elements) to provide local control of coolant flow at each coolant grid (i.e busbar) (Zhou [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, the valves of modified Stuetz are actively controlled (Zhou [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, the coolant flows through the channels in parallel (Stuetz [0097]-[0098], Figs. 7B and 8B).
Regarding claim 12, Stuetz discloses a system comprising an electric energy storage device (100) comprising a plurality of battery cells connected by a plurality of busbars (130/135/136) including cooling channels (210/211) (Stuetz [0094]-[0098], Figs. 1 and 7A-8B).
Stuetz does not teach that the channels are fluidly coupled to a cooling system including a heat exchanger. Stuetz teaches that cooling fluid flows through the channels (Stuetz [0095] and [0098]). Zhou teaches that a heat dissipation system that uses valves (i.e. coolant control elements) that are controlled based on local temperatures to provide local control of coolant flow at each coolant grid improves heat dissipation capacity (Zhou [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the system of Zhou in the energy storage device of modified Stuetz in order to improve heat dissipation capacity.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz in view of Zhou as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chandrashekar et al. (US 2022/0253077 A1) and Aksamit et al. (US 2008/0099193 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Stuetz does not teach the use of thermally-reactive variable orifices for the coolant control elements. Chandrashekar is directed to a valve for regulating coolant flow (Chandrashekar Title). Aksamit is directed to a method of regulating coolant flow in a heat exchange system (Aksamit Abstract). Chandrashekar teaches that SMA-controlled valves reduce the device complexity of cooling systems vs. typical servo-actuated valves (Chandrashekar Abstract and [0001]). Aksamit discloses a SMA-based coolant flow regulator that operates by restricting the aperture size of flow paths in heat exchange systems (i.e. thermally-reactive variable orifices), which only has one part (Aksamit [0007] and Figs. 3-6) and therefore further reduces complexity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the system of Aksamit as the valves of modified Stuetz in order to reduce device complexity.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz in view of Zhou as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Calkins et al. (US 2017/0037982 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Stuetz does not teach the use of SMA-actuated valves for the coolant control elements. Calkins is directed to a valve for controlling fluid flow (Calkins Abstract). Calkins teaches that an SMA-actuated valve may be made more inexpensively and reliably than an actively-controlled valve (Calkins [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the SMA-actuated valve of Calkins to make the actively-controlled system of modified Stuetz more inexpensive and reliable.
Regarding claim 6, the valve of modified Stuetz comprises an SMA actuator (204) coupled to a valve flap (202) via a hinge (the central axis of the valve) (Calkins Fig. 2A and [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, the flap of modified Stuetz is necessarily in the cooling channel or coolant tube, since it must control coolant flow. Modified Stuetz does not teach that the actuator should be in the storage device. Modified Stuetz teaches that the temperature sensors should be installed in the heat generating areas (Zhou [0029]) and that the SMA actuator may function as the temperature sensor (Calkins [0025]). Since the batteries generate the heat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to install the SMA actuators acting as temperature sensors in the storage device itself.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz in view of Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hampo et al. (US 2021/0176901 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Stuetz does not teach the use of a plate with channel depressions overmolded on the busbar. Hampo is directed to a cooling system for power modules (Hampo Abstract). Hampo teaches that forming coolant passages through overmolding reduces external components (Hampo [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to form the coolant channels of modified Stuetz by overmolding, which would necessarily involve forming plates with channel depressions on the busbars, in order to reduce external components.
Regarding claim 10, the busbars of modified Stuetz include additional cooling (Stuetz Figs. 7A-8B).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz in view of Zhou and Hampo as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Horie et al. (US 2021/0313632 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Stuetz does not teach that the center busbar includes additional cooling channels that are not present on the outermost busbars. Horie is directed to a cooling system for stacked batteries (Horie [0002]-[0009]). Horie teaches that such battery stacks are typically hottest in the center and require the most cooling there to cool the pack efficiently (Horie [0179]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide additional cooling to the center busbar of modified Stuetz in order to cool the pack efficiently.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz in view of Zhou as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Horie.
Regarding claim 16, modified Stuetz does not teach that the center busbar includes additional cooling channels that are not present on the outermost busbars. Horie teaches that such battery stacks are typically hottest in the center and require the most cooling there to cool the pack efficiently (Horie [0179]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide additional cooling and control to the center busbar of modified Stuetz in order to cool the pack efficiently.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuetz in view of Zhou and Horie as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Iguchi et al (US 2016/0204478 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Stuetz teaches the use of temperature sensors and a controller that determines temperature based on the output of those sensors (Zhou [0028]). Modified Stuetz does not teach the use of any particular sensors. Iguchi is directed to a cooling system for a battery pack (Iguchi Abstract). Iguchi teaches that thermistors are suitable temperature sensors to supply data to a controller for temperature measurement (Iguchi [0164]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional sensor for the temperature sensors of modified Stuetz, including thermistors, since Stuetz does not require any particular type.
Regarding claim 14, each cooling grid (i.e. busbar) of modified Stuetz is associated with a corresponding actively-controlled valve that controls the flow of coolant (Zhou [0028]).
Regarding claim 15, the controller controls the flow of coolant to each cooling grid (i.e. busbar) independently based on the corresponding temperature (Zhou [0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Porras et al. (US 2018/0001784 A1) is directed to a system for controlling the flow of coolant between a battery and a heat exchange system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights