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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 04/09/2026:
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 have been amended. Claim 21 has been newly added.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 7, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered. The objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 7, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 2 have been fully considered. The objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pages 8-16, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant noted on pages 7-8 of the Remarks filed 04/09/2026 that the examiner cited “Heckenberger et al.” as US 20230420783 A1, however, this publication number is not a Heckenberger publication. The Applicant identified the Heckenberger publication at US 20120251865 A1. This publication number is the correct publication number for the Heckenberger et al reference used in the Non-Final Rejection dated 01/09/2026.
Applicant alleges “Applicant is entitled to another non-final Office Action correcting this substantive error, as Applicant has not yet been afforded a proper examination based on accurately identified prior art”.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has been reasonable apprised of the rejection on the basis that Applicant recognized the correct U.S. Publication Number. Further, Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Therefore, this action is made final (see MPEP 706.07(a)).
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 Examiner Notes that two rejections utilizing different interpretations of Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1) have been used to meet the claimed limitations.
The first interpretation is found in numerals 10-13.
The second interpretation is found in numerals 14-18.
~~~ First Interpretation ~~~
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hermann teaches a traction battery pack (battery pack 400 in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P29), comprising: a cell stack (cells 203 in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P29);
a thermal barrier assembly arranged between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the cell stack (“thermal barrier elements 201 to separate cells 203 into groups. Thermal barrier elements 201 prevent the propagation of a thermal runaway event that is initiated in one group of cells from propagating to cells in other cell groups”, P29; one cell in one group can be considered a first battery cell and one cell in another group that is separated by thermal barrier element 201 can be considered the second battery cell);
a heat exchanger plate positioned adjacent to the cell stack (the thermal barrier element can be made of a central high thermal conductivity layer 1403 sandwiched between two low thermal conductivity layers 1405; the high thermal conductivity layer 1403 can be coupled to a heat sink 1409; see entire disclosure and especially P37 and Fig. 14; as seen in Fig. 14, the heat sink is indirectly adjacent to the cell stack).
Hermann further discloses that even though the cells in the cell stack are shown to be cylindrical, other batteries, such as pouch or rectangular cells, can also be used (see entire disclosure and especially P25; see also Figs. 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen to use pouch or rectangular cells rather than cylindrical cells, given Hermann teaches these shapes can also be used in their design and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
However, Hermann does not disclose a non-metallic locator of the thermal barrier assembly, distinct from a barrier housing of the thermal barrier assembly, received within a slot of the heat exchanger plate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Heckenberger teaches a traction battery pack (cell device 100 in Fig. 1), comprising: a cell stack (two electrochemical cells 120 in Fig. 1), a cooling sheet arranged between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the cell stack (110 in Fig. 1), and a heat sink (130 in Fig. 1; P39-40).
Heckenberger teaches the heat sink includes a slot wherein projecting prongs (see connection region 116 in Figs. 1-3) of the cooling sheet extend through and are clamped to the heat sink via a fastening element and/or material bonding (P40). Heckenberger teaches if cell stack has a plurality of cooling sheets, then the heat sink can have a slot for each cooling sheet (P41). Heckenberger teaches the first battery cell and the second battery cell of the cell stack sit atop fold region of the cooling sheet (114 in Fig. 1; P40).
Heckenberger teaches their design allows for decoupling between a mechanical connection of the cooling sheet to the heat sink and, according to this approach, a thermally better contacting between the cooling sheet and heat sink by the decoupling of the force-fitting connection and the thermal contacting can be achieved (P14).Further, Heckenberger teaches that if a material bond connection is used, an optimal heat transfer via the material bonding connection can be present (P14-15). Heckenberger also teaches that the force-fitting connection allows the replacement of defective cells without intact cells being detrimentally affected thermally (P43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Heckenberger and modified the central high thermal conductivity layer (and therefore the low thermal conductivity layers laying on top) of Hermann to have the same shape as described by Heckenberger, modified the heat sink of Hermann to have slots and a fastening member to receive and hold the central high thermal conductivity layer of Hermann to the heat sink in a force-fitting manner, rearranged the parts of Hermann such that the heat sink is provided on the bottom side of the cell stack such that the thermal barrier assemblies can be arranged thereon, and modified the traction battery of Hermann such that enough thermal barrier assemblies are arranged in the up-down direction (in Fig. 6) to provide for one cell on each fold region of each modified thermal barrier assembly, given this would provide the traction battery of Hermann an improved thermal connection between the central high thermal conductivity layer of the thermal barrier assembly and the heat sink, the ability to decouple a mechanical connection of the thermal barrier assembly and heat sink, and the ability to replace defective cells without other cells being detrimentally affected thermally. Further, the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04), and applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
The locator of modified Hermann is the bottom of the thermal barrier assembly that passes through the heat sink (see Heckenberger Fig. 3). The barrier housing of the thermal barrier assembly can be drawn to the part of the thermal barrier assembly (modified thermal barrier elements 201 of Hermann) that interface/touch the first battery cell and the second battery cell.
However, modified Hermann still does not meet the limitation wherein the locator of the thermal barrier assembly is non-metallic and distinct from the barrier housing of the thermal barrier assembly.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pinon teaches graphene is a substance that greatly increases thermal conductivity of a cooling fin substrate, and enhancing a cooling fin with graphene can be performed according to a number of envisioned embodiments (P33). Pinon teaches an embodiment wherein a graphene enhanced cooling fin includes an aluminum plate surrounded around a perimeter by an enhanced plastic structural rim portion (P47, see Fig. 7). Pinon teaches the graphene enhanced cooling fin (310 in Fig. 7) includes a planar flat panel portion (320 in Fig. 7) made of a graphene-enhanced aluminum plate has a perimeter (322 in Fig. 7) molded with an enhanced plastic structure rim portion (322 and 338 in Fig. 7; P47). Pinon teaches their enhanced plastic includes graphene enhanced plastic (P39).
Pinon teaches their graphene enhanced cooling fins are useful for applications where a large amount of heat must be removed or transferred (P36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Pinon and selected the material of the modified central high thermal conductivity layer of modified Hermann such that the barrier housing section of the modified central high thermal conductivity layer is made of graphene-enhanced aluminum and the locator section of the modified central high thermal conductivity layer is made of a graphene-enhanced plastic portion, such as the graphene enhanced cooling fin including an aluminum plate surrounded around a perimeter by an enhanced plastic structural rim portion of Pinon, given Pinon teaches graphene can greatly enhance the thermal conductivity of a cooling fin substrate, Pinon teaches a cooling fin with both an aluminum and plastic section enhanced by graphene, Pinon teaches their graphene enhanced cooling fins are useful for applications where a large amount of heat must be removed or transferred, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the limitations “to both (i) mechanically locate the thermal barrier assembly relative to the heat exchanger plate and (ii) seal an interface between the thermal barrier assembly and the heat exchanger plate”, these are intended-use limitations. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Further, the Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Given the non-metallic locator of modified Hermann extends through a slot of the heat exchanger plate of modified Hermann, the thermal barrier assembly is necessarily capable of being mechanically located relative to the heat exchanger plate if, for example, the plate was turned upside down wherein the locators are seen poking through the slots of the heat exchanger plate. Further, given the non-metallic locator of modified Hermann is inserted into the slot and connected force-fittingly or by material bonding, the locator is necessarily capable of sealing an interface between the thermal barrier assembly and the heat exchanger plate.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hermann discloses wherein the first battery cell, the second battery cell, and the thermal barrier assembly are arranged between a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam of the cell stack (see the annotated Fig. below as an example; in the modified version provided by the rejection above, there would be a plurality of thermal barrier assemblies 201, therefore, two of the thermal barrier assemblies can be considered cross-beam members and the single thermal barrier assembly between them can be drawn to the ‘thermal barrier assembly’ of claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hermann Fig. 4
Regarding claim 3, modified Hermann discloses a third cross-member beam adjacent to the first cross-member beam, wherein the first cross-member beam and the third cross-member beam establish a cross-member assembly arranged between the cell stack and a second cell stack of the traction battery pack (see the annotated Fig. below as an example).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hermann Fig. 4
Regarding claim 5, modified Hermann meets the limitation wherein the thermal barrier assembly includes a fin section configured to interface with an enclosure cover (the top of the thermal barrier assembly would interface with upper enclosure wall 603 in Fig. 6 of Hermann; see entire disclosure and especially P31).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hermann meets the limitation wherein the fin section is located on an opposite end of the thermal barrier assembly from the non-metallic locator (the top of the thermal barrier assembly would interface with upper enclosure wall 603 in Fig. 6 of Hermann; the bottom of the thermal barrier assembly is where the locator lies through the slot in the heat sink).
Regarding claim 10, a slot of the slots of the heat sink of modified Hermann would be located between the first battery cell and second battery cell, therefore, given the slot is an empty space between the two cells, at the location of the slot there is a thermal break wherein thermal conduction cannot occur between the first battery cell and second battery cell.
Regarding claim 11, modified Hermann meets the limitation wherein the non-metallic locator includes a solid plastic (graphene-enhanced plastic; see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Ho et al (US 20200244086 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hermann does not meet the limitation wherein the fin section is secured to the enclosure cover by an adhesive.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ho teaches one or more structural members can be attached or secured to a battery housing using adhesive materials (P21).
While Ho teaches the structural members are power devices attached to a battery housing rather than a fin section of a thermal barrier material attached to an enclosure lid of a battery enclosure cover, if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as utilize adhesive to attach and secure a structure to a battery housing), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as utilize adhesive to attach and secure a fin section of a thermal barrier material to an enclosure lid of a battery enclosure cover), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ho and provided wherein the fin section of modified Hermann is secured to the enclosure cover by an adhesive, given Ho teaches this can provide a secure attachment between two structures.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Miller et al (US 20160064708 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hermann does not meet the limitation a thermal interface material between the cell stack and the heat exchanger plate. In Fig. 3 of Heckenberger, the thermal barrier assembly’s (cooling sheet) fold region has a gap between itself and the cooling plate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Miller teaches a thermal interface material in the form of a sheet, paste, glue, or adhesive can be provided between a thermal plate and a battery cell array in order to enhance heat transfer by filling, for example, voids and or air gaps that have found their way between the battery cells and thermal plate (P34).
While the battery cells of modified Hermann sit on the thermally barrier assembly rather than the heat sink, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a thermal interface material between the heat sink and the fold region of the thermal barrier assembly in order to ensure and enhance heat transfer between the two by removing the issue of voids or gaps that may be present between the heat sink and fold region of the thermal barrier assembly. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hermann meets the limitation wherein a projecting prong of the non-metallic locator extends through the thermal interface material and at least partially fills the slot (given the thermal interface material is provided between the fold region of the thermal barrier assembly and the heat sink, and the fold region is provided on both sides of the thermal barrier assembly (see Heckenberger Fig. 3), there is a gap at which the prongs (see Heckenberger Fig. 3) extend through to fill the slot in the heat sink).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Muramatsu et al (US 20120315482 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hermann does not meet the limitation wherein the non-metallic locator includes a compliant rubber.
Muramatsu teaches rubbers containing graphenes and having improved electric conductivity, thermal conductivity, heat resistance, strength and flexibility can be obtained by dispersing or mixing the obtained graphenes or dispersion in or with synthetic rubbers such as acrylic rubber, nitrile rubber, isoprene rubber, urethane rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, epichlorohydrine rubber, chloroprene rubber, silicone rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, butadiene rubber, fluorine-containing rubber and polyisobutylene rubber, and, then, kneading, drying and molding (P194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Muramatsu and selected the non-metallic locator to be made of graphene-enhanced rubber, such as graphene-enhanced acrylic rubber, rather than graphene-enhanced plastic, given Muramatsu teaches rubbers containing graphenes can have improved electric conductivity, thermal conductivity, heat resistance, strength and flexibility, and the the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Acrylic rubber is a known compliant rubber.
~~~ Second Interpretation ~~~
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Hermann teaches a traction battery pack (battery pack 400 in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P29), comprising: a cell stack (cells 203 in Fig. 4; see entire disclosure and especially P29);
a first cross-member beam and a second cross-member beam; a first battery cell and second battery cell of the cell stack being arranged between the first cross-member beam and second cross-member beam; a third cross-member beam adjacent to the first cross-member beam, wherein the first cross-member beam and the third cross-member beam establish a cross-member assembly arranged between the cell stack and a second cell stack of the traction battery pack (see thermal barrier elements 201 Fig.4; see entire disclosure and especially P29; see also the annotated Fig. provided below).
PNG
media_image3.png
763
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Hermann teaches a heat exchanger plate positioned adjacent to the cell stack (the thermal barrier element can be made of a central high thermal conductivity layer 1403 sandwiched between two low thermal conductivity layers 1405; the high thermal conductivity layer 1403 can be coupled to a heat sink 1409; see entire disclosure and especially P37 and Fig. 14; as seen in Fig. 14, the heat sink is indirectly adjacent to the cell stack).
Hermann further discloses that even though the cells in the cell stack are shown to be cylindrical, other batteries, such as pouch or rectangular cells, can also be used (see entire disclosure and especially P25; see also Figs. 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen to use pouch or rectangular cells rather than cylindrical cells, given Hermann teaches these shapes can also be used in their design and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
However, Hermann does not disclose a thermal barrier assembly arranged between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the cell and a non-metallic locator of the thermal barrier assembly received within a slot of the heat exchanger plate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Heckenberger teaches a traction battery pack (cell device 100 in Fig. 1), comprising: a cell stack (two electrochemical cells 120 in Fig. 1), a cooling sheet arranged between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the cell stack (110 in Fig. 1), and a heat sink (130 in Fig. 1; P39-40).
Heckenberger teaches the heat sink includes a slot wherein projecting prongs (see connection region 116 in Figs. 1-3) of the cooling sheet extend through and are clamped to the heat sink via a fastening element and/or material bonding (P40). Heckenberger teaches if cell stack has a plurality of cooling sheets, then the heat sink can have a slot for each cooling sheet (P41). Heckenberger teaches the first battery cell and the second battery cell of the cell stack sit atop fold region of the cooling sheet (114 in Fig. 1; P40).
Heckenberger teaches their design allows for decoupling between a mechanical connection of the cooling sheet to the heat sink and, according to this approach, a thermally better contacting between the cooling sheet and heat sink by the decoupling of the force-fitting connection and the thermal contacting can be achieved (P14).Further, Heckenberger teaches that if a material bond connection is used, an optimal heat transfer via the material bonding connection can be present (P14-15). Heckenberger also teaches that the force-fitting connection allows the replacement of defective cells without intact cells being detrimentally affected thermally (P43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Heckenberger provided a thermal barrier layer such as the cooling sheet of Heckenberger between the first battery cell and second battery cell, modified the heat sink of Hermann to have slots and a fastening member to receive and hold the cooling sheet to the heat sink in a force-fitting manner, rearranged the parts of Hermann such that the heat sink is provided on the bottom side of the cell stack such that the cooling sheets can be arranged thereon, and modified the traction battery of Hermann such that enough cooling sheets are arranged in the up-down direction (in Fig. 6) to provide for one cell on each fold region of each cooling sheet, given this would provide the traction battery of Hermann localized cooling of battery cells, a superior thermal connection between the cooling sheet and the heat sink, the ability to decouple a mechanical connection of the cooling sheet and heat sink, and the ability to replace defective cells without other cells being detrimentally affected thermally. Further, the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04), and applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
The cooling sheet of modified Hermann is drawn to the thermal barrier assembly claimed, and the locator of modified Hermann is the bottom of the cooling sheet that passes through the heat sink (see Heckenberger Fig. 3). The barrier housing of the thermal barrier assembly can be drawn to the part of the thermal barrier assembly that interface/touch the first battery cell and the second battery cell.
The cooling sheet is thermally conductive and forms a barrier between the two cells, therefore, can be said to be a “thermal barrier assembly” under broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, modified Hermann still does not meet the limitation wherein the locator of the thermal barrier assembly is non-metallic and distinct from the barrier housing of the thermal barrier assembly.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pinon teaches graphene is a substance that greatly increases thermal conductivity of a cooling fin substrate, and enhancing a cooling fin with graphene can be performed according to a number of envisioned embodiments (P33). Pinon teaches an embodiment wherein a graphene enhanced cooling fin includes an aluminum plate surrounded around a perimeter by an enhanced plastic structural rim portion (P47, see Fig. 7). Pinon teaches the graphene enhanced cooling fin (310 in Fig. 7) includes a planar flat panel portion (320 in Fig. 7) made of a graphene-enhanced aluminum plate has a perimeter (322 in Fig. 7) molded with an enhanced plastic structure rim portion (322 and 338 in Fig. 7; P47). Pinon teaches their enhanced plastic includes graphene enhanced plastic (P39).
Pinon teaches their graphene enhanced cooling fins are useful for applications where a large amount of heat must be removed or transferred (P36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Pinon and selected the material of the modified central high thermal conductivity layer of modified Hermann such that the barrier housing section of the modified central high thermal conductivity layer is made of graphene-enhanced aluminum and the locator section of the modified central high thermal conductivity layer is made of a graphene-enhanced plastic portion, such as the graphene enhanced cooling fin including an aluminum plate surrounded around a perimeter by an enhanced plastic structural rim portion of Pinon, given Pinon teaches graphene can greatly enhance the thermal conductivity of a cooling fin substrate, Pinon teaches a cooling fin with both an aluminum and plastic section enhanced by graphene, Pinon teaches their graphene enhanced cooling fins are useful for applications where a large amount of heat must be removed or transferred, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the limitations “to both (i) mechanically locate the thermal barrier assembly relative to the heat exchanger plate and (ii) seal an interface between the thermal barrier assembly and the heat exchanger plate”, these are intended-use limitations. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Further, the Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Given the non-metallic locator of modified Hermann extends through a slot of the heat exchanger plate of modified Hermann, the thermal barrier assembly is necessarily capable of being mechanically located relative to the heat exchanger plate if, for example, the plate was turned upside down wherein the locators are seen poking through the slots of the heat exchanger plate. Further, given the non-metallic locator of modified Hermann is inserted into the slot and connected force-fittingly or by material bonding, the locator is necessarily capable of sealing an interface between the thermal barrier assembly and the heat exchanger plate.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hermann meets the limitation wherein the thermal barrier assembly includes a fin section configured to interface with an enclosure cover (the top of the thermal barrier assembly would interface with upper enclosure wall 603 in Fig. 6 of Hermann; see entire disclosure and especially P31).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hermann meets the limitation wherein the fin section is located on an opposite end of the thermal barrier assembly from the locator (the top of the thermal barrier assembly would interface with upper enclosure wall 603 in Fig. 6 of Hermann; the bottom of the thermal barrier assembly is where the locator lies through the slot in the heat sink).
Regarding claim 10, a slot of the slots of the heat sink of modified Hermann would be located between the first battery cell and second battery cell, therefore, given the slot is an empty space between the two cells, at the location of the slot there is a thermal break wherein thermal conduction cannot occur between the first battery cell and second battery cell.
Regarding claim 11, modified Hermann meets the limitation wherein the non-metallic locator includes a solid plastic (graphene-enhanced plastic; see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1) as applied to claim 3, further in view of He et al (US 20210249725 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hermann does not meet the limitation a venting passageway disposed between the first cross-member beam and the third cross-member beam.
In a similar field of endeavor, He teaches a battery pack tray includes batteries having an explosion-proof valve and a first side beam (210 in Fig. 10; P85). He teaches the first side beam is provided with an exhaust passage and an exhaust vent that can communicate with the explosion-proof valve (P200).
He teaches if gas pressure inside the cell increases to a certain degree, the explosion-proof valve is opened, so that a flame, smoke or gas inside the cell will be discharged through the explosion-proof valve (P201). He teaches if the flame, smoke or gas accumulates inside the battery pack is not discharged in time, this causes secondary damage to the batteries (P201). He teaches the exhaust vent is placed next to the explosion-proof valve such that the flame, smoke, or gas the batteries release is exhausted to the exhaust passage and prevents the flame, smoke, or gas from accumulating in the battery pack tray, thereby causing damage to the batteries (P201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of He and modified the battery cells of modified Hermann to include explosion-proof valves and modified the cross-member beam provided in the left-right direction in Hermann Fig. 4 to include an exhaust/venting passage including an exhaust vent, given He teaches this provides a way for flame, smoke, or gas accumulating inside a battery cell to escape without causing secondary damage to other cells or the battery pack itself.
As seen in the Examiner’s interpretation of modified Hermann below, the exhaust passage is disposed between the first cross-member beam and the third cross-member beam.
PNG
media_image4.png
685
745
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Interpretation of modified Hermann using Hermann Fig. 4
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Ho et al (US 20200244086 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hermann does not meet the limitation wherein the fin section is secured to the enclosure cover by an adhesive.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ho teaches one or more structural members can be attached or secured to a battery housing using adhesive materials (P21).
While Ho teaches the structural members are power devices attached to a battery housing rather than a fin section of a thermal barrier material attached to an enclosure lid of a battery enclosure cover, if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as utilize adhesive to attach and secure a structure to a battery housing), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as utilize adhesive to attach and secure a fin section of a thermal barrier material to an enclosure lid of a battery enclosure cover), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ho and provided wherein the fin section of modified Hermann is secured to the enclosure cover by an adhesive, given Ho teaches this can provide a secure attachment between two structures.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Miller et al (US 20160064708 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hermann does not meet the limitation a thermal interface material between the cell stack and the heat exchanger plate. In Fig. 3 of Heckenberger, the thermal barrier assembly’s (cooling sheet) fold region has a gap between itself and the cooling plate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Miller teaches a thermal interface material in the form of a sheet, paste, glue, or adhesive can be provided between a thermal plate and a battery cell array in order to enhance heat transfer by filling, for example, voids and or air gaps that have found their way between the battery cells and thermal plate (P34).
While the battery cells of modified Hermann sit on the thermally barrier assembly rather than the heat sink, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a thermal interface material between the heat sink and the fold region of the thermal barrier assembly in order to ensure and enhance heat transfer between the two by removing the issue of voids or gaps that may be present between the heat sink and fold region of the thermal barrier assembly. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hermann meets the limitation wherein a projecting prong of the non-metallic locator extends through the thermal interface material and at least partially fills the slot (given the thermal interface material is provided between the fold region of the thermal barrier assembly and the heat sink, and the fold region is provided on both sides of the thermal barrier assembly (see Heckenberger Fig. 3), there is a gap at which the prongs (see Heckenberger Fig. 3) extend through to fill the slot in the heat sink).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al (US 20100136404 A1, analogous to US 8541126 B2 as given in the 03/01/2023 IDS) in view of Heckenberger et al (US 20120251865 A1) in view of Pinon (US 20180212289 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Muramatsu et al (US 20120315482 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hermann does not meet the limitation wherein the non-metallic locator includes a compliant rubber.
Muramatsu teaches rubbers containing graphenes and having improved electric conductivity, thermal conductivity, heat resistance, strength and flexibility can be obtained by dispersing or mixing the obtained graphenes or dispersion in or with synthetic rubbers such as acrylic rubber, nitrile rubber, isoprene rubber, urethane rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, epichlorohydrine rubber, chloroprene rubber, silicone rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, butadiene rubber, fluorine-containing rubber and polyisobutylene rubber, and, then, kneading, drying and molding (P194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Muramatsu and selected the non-metallic locator to be made of graphene-enhanced rubber, such as graphene-enhanced acrylic rubber, rather than graphene-enhanced plastic, given Muramatsu teaches rubbers containing graphenes can have improved electric conductivity, thermal conductivity, heat resistance, strength and flexibility, and the the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Acrylic rubber is a known compliant rubber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-19 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of claims 13-19 and 21.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “A traction battery pack, comprising: a cell stack; a thermal barrier assembly arranged between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the cell stack; a heat exchanger plate positioned adjacent to the cell stack and including a slot configured to establish a thermal break between the first battery cell and the second battery cell; and a non-metallic locator of the thermal barrier assembly positioned within and at least partially filling the slot to inhibit thermal communication across the slot and seal an interface between the thermal barrier assembly and the heat exchanger plate”.
Previously cited Heckenberger teaches a traction battery pack wherein a cooling sheet is arranged between a first battery cell and second battery cell of the cell stack, and a heat sink positioned adjacent to the two cells (Fig. 1, P40). Heckenberger teaches the heat sink includes a slot where projecting prongs of the cooling sheet extend through and are clamped to the heat sink via a fastening element and/or material bonding (P40).
However, the cooling sheet of Heckenberger is a metal strip or plate so that heat is conducted away from the two batteries and (P17). Therefore, there is no non-metallic locator of the cooling sheet that would be positioned within and at least partially filling the slot to inhibit thermal communication across the slot.
Even if the cooling sheet of Heckenberger is modified by previously cited Pinon such that the projecting prongs of the cooling sheet are made by a graphene-enhanced plastic (Pinon P39, 47), Pinon teaches graphene is a substance that greatly increases thermal conductivity of a cooling fin substrate (P33). Therefore, the projecting prongs of modified Heckenberger would still conduct heat, and modified Pinon would not meet the limitation wherein the cooling sheet includes non-metallic locator that would be positioned within and at least partially filling the slot to inhibit thermal communication across the slot.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “A traction battery pack, comprising: an enclosure assembly including an enclosure cover and an enclosure tray; a cell stack housed within the enclosure assembly and including at least a first battery cell and a second battery cell; a heat exchanger plate positioned against the enclosure tray and including a slot disposed between adjacent coolant passages of the heat exchanger plate; a thermal barrier assembly arranged to inhibit thermal propagation between the first and second battery cells, wherein the thermal barrier assembly includes a housing positioned between the first and second battery cells to inhibit the thermal propagation therebetween, a metallic fin section of the thermal barrier assembly that extends in a first direction from the housing for interfacing with the enclosure cover, and a non-metallic locator of the thermal barrier assembly that extends in a second, opposite direction from the housing for interfacing with the heat exchanger plate; and the non-metallic locator is received within and at least partially fills the slot to both (i) mechanically locate the thermal barrier assembly relative to the heat exchanger plate, and (ii) seal an interface between the thermal barrier assembly and the heat exchanger plate”.
Previously cited Heckenberger teaches a traction battery pack wherein a cooling sheet is arranged between a first battery cell and second battery cell of the cell stack, and a heat sink positioned adjacent to the two cells (Fig. 1, P40). Heckenberger teaches the heat sink includes a slot where projecting prongs of the cooling sheet extend through and are clamped to the heat sink via a fastening element and/or material bonding (P40).
However, the cooling sheet of Heckenberger is a metal strip or plate so that heat is conducted away from the two batteries and (P17). Therefore, there would not be a housing positioned between the first and second battery cells to inhibit the thermal propagation therebetween, as heat would be transferred from the batteries to the cooling sheet at the section of the cooling sheet of Heckenberger between the two batteries.
Further search and consideration revealed no other prior art to teach the limitations as set forth in independent claims 13 and 21.
Therefore, the references fail to teach or suggest the particulars of independent claims 13 and 21 and it’s not obvious to modify these teachings to give the instant claimed invention. Thus none of the prior art of the record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of independent claims 13 and 21. Since claims 14-19 depend on claim 13, they are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights