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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/2025.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 15-20 are 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.
Claims 5 and 6 (each dependent on claim 1) each recites “to direct returned air” (emphasis added), rendering each of claims 5 and 6 indefinite as to whether the “returned air” is intended to refer back to the “returned air” of claim 1, or to a distinct ‘returned air’.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one or more energy storage units" (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear as to whether the singular “energy storage unit” is intended to refer back to the plural “a plurality of energy storage units” or a distinct singular ‘energy storage unit thereof. Claims 16-20 are also rejected as depending on claim 15.
Claim 15 recites “the cooling system comprising: an air temperature control unit configured to generate conditioned air; a supply duct configured to output the conditioned air generated by the air temperature control unit to the container; the inverter cabinet inlet configured to draw in air to the inverter cabinet; at least one baffle for reducing a flow of air, the at least one baffle being configured to receive the conditioned air from the air temperature control unit and to distribute the conditioned air to an interior of the container and to the inverter cabinet via the inverter cabinet inlet; the inverter exhaust duct configured to output air from the inverter cabinet in a direction towards the at least one baffle; and a return duct configured to draw in air having passed through the one or more energy storage units, and output by the inverter exhaust duct, and return the air to the air temperature control unit” (emphasis added). The claim is indefinite as to whether the various instances of the stand-alone “air” are intended to: refer back to “the conditioned air”, refer back to each other (e.g. the stand-alone “air” and then “the air”), or are each intended to be a distinct “air” from each other and “the conditioned air”. Claims 16-20 are also rejected as depending on claim 15.
Claim 19 (dependent on claim 15) recites “to direct returned air” (emphasis added), rendering claim 19 indefinite as to whether the “returned air” is intended to refer back to the “returned air” of claim 15, or to a distinct ‘returned air’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goldman et al (US 12,322,776).
With respect to claims 1 and 15, Goldman discloses in fig. 15C an energy storage assembly and a cooling system thereof (Abstract; col. 13, lines 57-67; col. 14, lines 1-15; col. 19, lines 26-40), wherein fig. 15C depicts the energy storage assembly comprises: an “Aesthetic Cover” (i.e. claimed “container”) having: a “battery block” of “Cells” (e.g. claimed “energy storage units”) (col. 19, lines 64-67; col. 20, lines 1-23), the energy storage units mounted to a wall of the container via “frames” [1202],[1204] and/or “bracket” (e.g. claimed “racks”) as shown in figs. 12A-B (col. 11, lines 19-62); the battery block physically attached to an inverter cabinet [1304] containing an inverter as shown in fig. 13 (col. 11, lines 66-67; col. 12, lines 1-18), with fig. 13 further showing the inverter cabinet having an inlet and an exhaust duct both approximate to detail [1304]; the cooling system comprising a “Heat Sink” (i.e. claimed “air temperature control unit”) configured to circulate treated or conditioned air to the container via a supply duct with fan and receive returned air from the container from “Recirculation Duct” (i.e. claimed “return duct”) configured to draw in air having passed by the Cells and output by the exhaust duct, and then return the air to the air temperature control unit, and the exhaust duct configured to output air from the inverter cabinet in a direction towards the at least one baffle (col. 12, lines 6-67; col. 13, lines 1-14 and 58-67; col. 14, lines 61); and “Manifold” with “Side Channels” (e.g. claimed “at least one baffle”) configured to reduce air flow (via 90o angles) and receive the conditioned air from the air temperature control unit and to distribute the conditioned air to an interior of the container and to the inverter cabinet via the inlet after circulating past the Cells (col. 3, lines 45-67; col. 4, lines 1-12; col. 17, lines 7-18; col. 18, lines 64-68; col. 19, lines 1-25 and 64-67; col. 20, lines 1-23).
With respect to claims 2 and 16, Goldman further depicts in fig. 15C the at least one baffle (e.g. “Manifold” with “Side Channels”) comprises at least one horizontal baffle represented by “Manifold” and at least one vertical baffle represented by “Side Channels”, wherein the conditioned air from the Heat Sink is circulated to the container via the at least one horizontal and vertical baffles as represented via arrows (col. 19, lines 64-67; col. 20, lines 1-18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman et al (US 12,322,776) as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Kwon (US 7,017,361).
With respect to claims 3-4 and 17-18, the reference is cited as discussed for claims 2 and 16. However Goldman is limited in that the at least one horizontal and vertical baffles having perforations or mesh are not suggested.
Kwon teaches a cooling system for batteries that uses air circulation (Abstract), similar to the energy storage assembly and air circulation of Goldman. Kwon further teaches providing a “mesh assembly including a plurality of holes mounted within the air duct” (e.g. claimed “perforations” in a duct, channel, and/or manifold) (Abstract; col. 2, lines 42-45), wherein figs. 1-2 depict the mesh assembly (i.e. perforations) [24] spanning an entire diameter (e.g. upper and lower portions) of the air duct (col. 2, lines 31-45). Kwon cites the advantage of the mesh assembly as effectively reducing condensation (col. 1, lines 58-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the mesh assembly (i.e. perforations) spanning upper and lower portions of a duct as taught by Kwon for each of the at least one horizontal and vertical baffles to gain the advantage of effectively reducing condensation.
Claims 5-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman et al (US 12,322,776) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Siracki et al (US 8,325,478).
With respect to claims 5-7 and 19-20, the reference is cited as discussed for claims 1 and 15. However Goldman is limited in that while the exhaust duct of the inverter directs the returned air towards the at least one baffle (i.e. the Manifold and/or Side Channels) via Heat Sink (figs. 13 and 15C; col. 12, lines 6-67; col. 13, lines 1-14 and 58-67; col. 14, lines 61), the exhaust duct having an opening that is angled upwards is not suggested.
Siracki teaches a cooling duct attachment for an “inverter section” (i.e. inverter cabinet) housing a heat sink (Abstract), similar to the inverter cabinet and heat sink of Goldman. Siracki further depicts in figs. 4 and 6 the inverter section comprises an “inverter duct” (i.e. exhaust duct) [66] that exhausts air via air flow [108] to channels [112],[114] (col. 7, lines 3-38; col. 10, lines 28-46), wherein fig. 6 depicts the exhaust duct [66] has ‘channels’ (i.e. claimed “opening”) [104],[106] that is angled relative to horizontal and vertical axes (col. 10, lines 28-65). Fig. 6 further depicts the opening [104],[106] having a width that appears approximately three times greater than a height, with it being held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the opening [104],[106] would function similarly to exhaust air from the exhaust duct [66] of the inverter section regardless of having the width be three times greater than the height, or the width being the claimed “at least 340 mm” and the height being the claimed “at least 80 mm”. Siracki cites the advantage of the opening [104],[106] being angled relative to the horizontal and vertical axes as optimizing a sealing between walls of the exhaust duct [66] (col. 10, lines 53-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the opening of the exhaust duct being angled as taught by Siracki for the exhaust duct of Goldman to gain the advantage of optimizing sealing between walls of the exhaust duct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights