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 1-10, as filed 22 May 2023, are examined herein.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimoura (JPH 1092394 A, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 18 March 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Shimoura teaches a battery pack (abstract: monoblock battery) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells stacked together; (FIG. 1 cells 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e 4f)
a case that accommodates the battery cells, (FIG. 1 exterior wall 2) wherein:
the battery cells are configured to include an endmost cell (FIG. 1 cell 4a, 4f) disposed at a farthest end on at least one side in a stacking direction, a first cell disposed adjacent to the endmost cell, (FIG. 1 cell 4b, 4b) and a second cell (FIG. 1 cell 4c, 4d) disposed adjacent to the first cell on the side opposite to the endmost cell; and
regarding the contact portion between each cell and the case, Examiner notes that at [0021-0023] each cell chamber is filled with electrolyte solution. Each cell in contact with the electrolyte, and the electrolyte is in contact with the cell case, therefore each cell has a contact portion where heat is dissipated to the case.
the case is configured such that a thermal resistance between an end most contact portion that is a portion in contact with the endmost cell and a first contact portion that is a portion in contact with the first cell is higher than a thermal resistance between a second contact portion that is a portion in contact with the second cell and the first contact portion. (FIG. 1 and [0028] heat dissipation promotion component 5 … metal plates, … aluminum, copper …) At [0022], the heat dissipation promotion component 5 is thermally conductive, and therefore the thermal resistance between an end most contact portion that is a portion in contact with the endmost cell and a first contact portion that is a portion in contact with the first cell is higher than a thermal resistance between a second contact portion that is a portion in contact with the second cell and the first contact portion. Examiner notes that thermal resistance is the inverse of thermal conductivity.
Regarding claim 2, Shimoura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shimoura further teaches wherein the case is configured to include a plate-shaped portion in which the endmost contact portion, the first contact portion, and the second contact portion are provided; and a thickness of a first portion between the first contact portion and the second contact portion is larger than a thickness of a second portion between the endmost contact portion and the first contact portion. (FIG. 1 – FIG. 4 and [0028] heat dissipation promotion component 5, 6. As shown, the base of the exterior wall 2 including component 5 is thicker at the center of base than at the ends.)
Regarding claim 3, Shimoura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shimoura further teaches wherein the case is configured to include a plate-shaped portion in which the endmost contact portion, the first contact portion, and the second contact portion are provided; and a thermal resistance of a material of a first portion between the first contact portion and the second contact portion is higher than a thermal resistance of a material of a second portion between the endmost contact portion and the first contact portion. (As shown FIG. 1 – FIG. 4, exterior wall 2 and heat dissipation promotion component 5, 6).
Regarding claim 10, Shimoura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shimoura further teaches a vehicle equipped with the battery pack according to claim 1. ([0002] electric motor coach)
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoura (JPH 1092394 A) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Yamashita (US 20190109354 A1 as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 18 March 2025).
Regarding claims 4-5, Shimoura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shimoura discloses (FIG. 1) exterior wall 2, which includes end plates, and discloses [0021] partition walls 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e, but does not explicitly teach if the partition walls are insulating, does not explicitly teach if a partition wall is between the end of the exterior wall and the end cell, and does not explicitly teach wherein a thermal resistance between the endmost cell and the end plate is lower than a thermal resistance between the endmost cell and the first cell.
Yamashita, in the field of (abstract) battery packs with heat dissipation surfaces, discloses
(FIG. 1 and [0027]) a battery pack having cells 23 and end plates 33, where the endmost cells are directly in contact with the end plates, and spacers 31 made of insulating resin are placed between adjacent batteries. The use of the insulating spacers, in combination with the heat dissipation grease 51 and coolers 40 (see [0040]) provide the desirable result of reduced difference in temperature between batteries in the pack, see [0035] and Table 1.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the partition walls of Shimoura with the insulating resin of Yamashita, while placing the end plate directly against the end cell as shown in Yamashita’s FIG. 1, with a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing the temperature difference between the cells.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 5, wherein the endmost cell and the end plate are in contact with each other.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoura (JPH 1092394 A) in view of Yamashita (US 20190109354 A1), as set forth in claim 4, above, and in further view of Kono (JP 2015111493 A, as cited by Applicant in IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Shimoura in view of Yamashita teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shimoura appears to show (FIG. 1) the end plate as part of the battery exterior wall 2 but does provide detail as to how the battery exterior walls are connected together, and therefore does not explicitly teach wherein the end plate is fixed to the case; and a thermal resistance of a fixed portion where the end plate and the case are fixed is higher than a thermal resistance between each of the battery cells and the case.
Kono, in the field of (abstract) suppressing variation in temperature of a plurality of battery cells, discloses (FIG. 7 and [0013]) end plate 3, cooling plate 31, and heat insulating piece 15 between the end plate and the cooling plate. At [0073] Kono discloses the use of heat conduction sheet 29 between the cells and the cooling plate 31, which acts to absorb shock and prevent the occurrence of a gap between the cells and the cooling plate. A person of ordinary skill would expect the heat insulating piece 15 to have more thermal resistance than heat conduction sheet 29. (Said differently, the heat conduction sheet has higher thermal conductivity.)
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 Shimoura in view of Yamashita by adding the heat insulating piece 15 and heat conduction sheet 29 of Kono, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving heat transfer to the cooling plate and suppressing variation in temperature.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoura (JPH 1092394 A) as set forth in claim 2, above, and in further view of Kono (JP 2015111493 A, as cited by Applicant in IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Shimoura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shimoura does not explicitly teach the battery pack further comprising an elastic body that brings the plate-shaped portion [cooling plate] and at least one of the battery cells into contact so as to be thermally conductive.
Kono, in the field of (abstract) suppressing variation in temperature of a plurality of battery cells, discloses (FIG. 7 and [0013], and [0073] end plate 3, cooling plate 31, and the use of heat conduction sheet 29 between the cells and the cooling plate 31, which acts to absorb shock and prevent the occurrence of a gap between the cells and the cooling plate. At [0073] the heat conduction sheet has elasticity and may be made from acrylic resins, urethane resins, epoxy resins, or silicone resins.
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 Shimoura by adding the heat conduction sheet 29 of Kono, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving heat transfer to the cooling plate and suppressing variation in temperature. The person of ordinary skill would be further motivated to select an elastomer-type of Kono’s acrylic, urethane, epoxy or silicone resins, with a reasonable expectation of improving shock absorption.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoura (JPH 1092394 A, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 18 March 2025) in view of Yamashita (US 20190109354 A1), as set forth in claim 5, above, and in further view of NASA (NASA, 1972 Lunar Roving Vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Shimoura in view of Yamashita teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Shimoura contemplates at [0002] the use of Shimoura’s battery pack in an electric motor coach, does not explicitly teach wherein the battery pack is configured to be mounted on a rover that travels on a lunar surface. NASA, page 16 col. 1, provides evidence for the use of batteries on a lunar vehicle in 1972. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “configured to be mounted” is determined to include “capable of being mounted.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6 includes the limitation: a first separator provided between the endmost cell and the first cell; and a second separator provided between the endmost cell and the end plate, wherein a thermal resistance of the second separator is lower than a thermal resistance of the first separator.
Shimoura (JPH 1092394 A) discloses (FIG. 1) a battery comprising an exterior wall 2, which includes end plates, and discloses [0021] partition walls 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e, but does not explicitly teach if the partition walls are insulating, does not explicitly teach if a partition wall is between the end of the exterior wall and the end cell, and does not explicitly teach wherein a thermal resistance between the endmost cell and the end plate is lower than a thermal resistance between the endmost cell and the first cell.
Yamashita (US 20190109354 A1), discloses (FIG. 1 and [0027]) a battery pack having cells 23 and end plates 33, where the endmost cells are directly in contact with the end plates, and spacers 31 made of insulating resin are placed between adjacent batteries. As set forth above, the person of ordinary skill would be motivated to replace the partition walls of Shimoura with the spacers 31 and direct contact of Yamashita, with a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing the temperature difference between the cells.
Because the endplate is directly in contact with the endmost cell, therefore Yamashita does not teach a second separator between the endmost cell and the end plate. While the closest prior art discussed above is interested in mitigating temperature difference between cells, none of them disclose, teach, or suggest the addition of a second separator between the endmost cell and the endplate. Even if a skilled artisan would have somehow found it obvious to try to provide a second separator between the endmost cell and the endplate, at best the thermal resistance of the second separator would be the same as the thermal resistance of the first separator (i.e. using the same material for both separators) and thus the skilled artisan would not have found it obvious to have ensured that a thermal resistance of the second separator was lower than that of the first separator as claimed. Therefore, there is no motivation to modify the closest prior art to create a battery wherein a thermal resistance of the second separator [between the endmost cell and the endplate] is lower than a thermal resistance of the first separator [between the endmost cell and the first cell].
In addition to the above fact finding, since none of the closest prior art recognized the particular solution of using separators of varying thermal resistance between cells, in order to take advantage of radiant heat loss for cells closer to the end plates while using conduction into the plate-shaped lower portion of the case of cells in the interior, it wouldn't be obvious to arrive at the claimed separators of differing thermal resistance in view of the entire claim as a whole from the prior art disclosures. Therefore, the closest prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious a second separator, wherein a thermal resistance of the second separator is lower than a thermal resistance of the first separator in light of the claim as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NASA, 1972 Lunar Roving Vehicle discloses (page 16 col. 1) the use of heat sinks and radiators to lower the temperature of the rover electronics, and further discloses (page 21 col. 2) the raising of battery dust covers to permit accumulated battery system heat rejection to the space environment. Examiner notes that the heat “rejection” is radiant heat loss, which was understood in 1972 to be a method of reducing battery temperatures while operating on the moon.
Hamada (US 20040058233 A1) discloses (FIG. 1 and [0032]) insulation spacers 13 between adjacent cells 8, the spacers having different sizes depending on distance from the air intake, in order to achieve more even cooling. The size differences for the spacers act to create different thermal resistances. However, as shown FIG. 1, below, Hamada is an air-cooled battery pack having the air flow direction is parallel to the long axis of the battery. Heat is expected to be dissipated into the air flow from the two large faces of each cell. This is a different cooling method from the conduction (to the thermal spreader/cooling plate) and radiation (from the end plate) of Shimoura in view of Yamashita.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2/9/2026