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 Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 05/11/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Note on Spellings
The present application’s Claims 5 and 12 are drawn to the materials of bromcamphor and glutaric acid. Common spellings for the same compositions are “bromocamphor” and “glautaric” acid. The terms are thus used interchangeably.
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 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, and 13-14 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.
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 9-10, the term “low thermal conductive material” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Any and all materials may be decidedly of “low” thermal conductivity without a quantified threshold disclosed by Claims 2 and 9 or the instant specification, and thus also renders the claims of multiple dependent Claims 3 and 10 indefinite.
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 13-14, the term “reflective material” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reflective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Any and all materials may be decidedly “reflective” without a quantified threshold disclosed by Claims 6 or 13 or the instant specification, and thus also renders the claims of multiple dependent Claims 7 and 14 indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13--14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkanzky et al. (US 2021/0104793 A1) and Fornage et al. (US 2022/0140622 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Parkanzky teaches an energy storage unit (Paragraph [0014]) including at least one battery cell (Paragraph [0015]) and a propagation barrier (Paragraph [0016]) comprising first and second sets of slabs wherein one set is an outer layer and one set is an inner layer (Paragraph [0025]) and a phase change material wherein the endothermic phase change reaction may produce a liquid and/or gas (Paragraph [0020]; Fig. 4C).
Parkanzky does not teach a power source or power controller. Fornage teaches a controller connected to a power source (Paragraph [0014]; Fig. 1, Items 114 and 104), storage system or storage devices also defined as batteries (Paragraph [0013]); Fig. 1, Item 120), load center (Paragraph [0018]; Fig. 1, Item 110), and interconnect device (Paragraph [0013]; Fig. 1, Item 140) via a bus (Fig. 1, Item 108) for converting DC power from the power sources to grid-compliant AC power, converting DC power from the batteries to grid-compliant AC power, and converting AC power from the bus to the DC output that is stored in the batteries (Paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Parkanzky and Fornage in order to apply the commonly understood benefits of energy management systems, such as power conversion and thermal regulation, to control and maintain performance of an energy storage unit. See re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 9-10, the rejections of Claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as above are inherited by dependency. Furthermore, Parkanzky teaches a thermal barrier with a thermal insulator which may be composed of a foam or polymer material (Paragraph [0017]). Based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of “low”, the material of Parkanzky meets the limitations of Claims 2-3 and 9-10.
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Parkanzky teaches a phase change material may include a bicarbonate salt, carbonates, and/or chemicals with hydrates (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 13-14, the rejections of Claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as above are inherited by dependency. Furthermore, Parkanzky teaches heat reflection layers configured to at least partially reflect radiant heat energy, which may be composed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Paragraph [0018]). Based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of “reflective”, the material of Parkanzky meets the limitations of Claims 6-7 and 13-14.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkanzky et al. (US 2021/0104793 A1) and Fornage et al. (US 2022/0140622 A1), further in view of Liu et al. (US 2019/0252743 A1) and/or Da Silva et al. (US 2016/0209124 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Parkanzky does not teach bromcamphor, glutaric acid, or catechol as the phase change material. Liu teaches bromcamphor as a PCM (Paragraph [0039]). Da Silva teaches glautaric acid and catechol as PCMs (Paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the PCM materials of Liu and/or Da Silva with the PCM arrangement of Parkanzky in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of the adaptation, such as thermal management of secondary batteries as taught by Liu (Paragraph [0001]) and Da Silva (Paragraph [0004]). See re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights