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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/14/2023 and 04/12/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of a protrusion and a corresponding groove of the stack pieces must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification filed on 08/16/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgartner et al. (US 2015/0079444 A1; hereinafter “Baumgartner”).
Regarding claim 1, Baumgartner discloses a battery cooling fin (heat dissipation element 14a) contacting side surfaces of cylindrical battery cells (as shown in Fig 3) to increase thermal conductivity (as indicated by the term “heat dissipation element”), the battery cooling fin comprising:
a body portion extending in a first direction in which the cylindrical battery cells are arranged (as shown in annotated Fig 5 below);
two side portions formed on both sides of the body portion (as shown in annotated Fig 5 below);
support portions contacting an inner wall surface of a battery housing (heat radiation elements 18a form inner wall surfaces of the housing, as shown in Fig 3) and formed at both ends of the side portions (as shown in annotated Fig 5 below),
wherein at least one of the two side portions includes contact grooves formed in a shape corresponding to the side surfaces of the cylindrical battery cells (as shown in annotated Fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner further discloses that the contact grooves are formed to be spaced apart from each other at a predetermined distance along the first direction in which the side portions extend (as shown in Fig 5).
Regarding claim 5, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner further discloses that the contact grooves are formed on both of the side portions (as shown in Fig 5).
Regarding claim 7, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner further discloses that hollows (channels 84b) are formed in the center of the body portion (as shown in Fig 7).
Regarding claim 11, Baumgartner discloses a battery cooling system (rechargeable battery 10) comprising:
two end cooling fins (housing arrangements 66) disposed at both ends of a battery cell array including cylindrical battery cells (as shown in Fig 5), each of the two end cooling fins including two side portions and support portions formed at both ends of the two side portions (as shown in annotated Fig 5 above, but for the corresponding “66” structures), the support portions contacting an inner wall surface of a battery housing (heat radiation elements 18a form inner wall surfaces of the housing, as shown in Fig 3), wherein contact grooves are formed on only one of the two side portions (as shown in annotated Fig 5 above, but for the corresponding “66” structures); and
plates (heat radiation elements 18a) contacting the support portions formed at both ends of each end cooling fin (as shown in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 12, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner further discloses at least one central cooling fin (heat dissipation element 14a) disposed inside the battery cell array with contact grooves formed on both of two side portions of the at least one central cooling fin (as shown in annotated Fig 5 above).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner et al. (US 2015/0079444 A1; hereinafter “Baumgartner”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Siegler et al. (US 2019/0363410 A1; hereinafter “Siegler”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner discloses that the side surfaces of the cylindrical battery cells and one of the side portions are coupled (as shown in Fig 3), but does not explicitly disclose how the battery cells are coupled, and therefore does not explicitly disclose a coupling part that includes a thermally conductive interface material.
Siegler teaches an externally cooled battery housing (Title/Abstract). Siegler teaches that thermal coupling may be achieved via e.g. press-fit connectors, thermal adhesives, or other coupling mechanisms ([0032]).
Baumgartner and Siegler are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery cooling.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely utilize a thermal adhesive to couple the side surfaces of the cylindrical battery cells and the side portions of the cooling fins of Baumgartner, as suggested by Siegler, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known component for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner et al. (US 2015/0079444 A1; hereinafter “Baumgartner”), as applied to claims 1 or 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner further discloses that the contact grooves are formed on one of the side portions (as shown in annotated Fig 5 above, but corresponding to housing arrangement 66), and discloses that the other of the side portions does not have contact grooves formed (as shown in annotated Fig 5 above), but does not reasonably disclose that the other of the side portions is formed to be flat.
Baumgartner is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery cooling.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely design the “other of the side portions” of the outer cooling fins of Baumgartner to be flat and conform with the inner surfaces of the housing (as shown in Fig 3), as doing so is simple matter of routine engineering, absent any persuasive evidence of such structure being significant (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 8, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner further discloses that one of the side portions is a plate, on which the contact grooves are formed (as shown in annotated Fig 5 above), but does not appear to be concerned with the particular dimensions of the battery system, and therefore dose not disclose a uniform thickness of 2 mm or more.
Baumgartner is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery cooling.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely design the cooling fins of Baumgartner to have a thickness of 2 mm or more, as doing so is simple matter of routine engineering, absent any persuasive evidence of such dimensions being significant (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner discloses the one of the side portions has a height corresponding with a height of the each of the cylindrical battery cells (as shown in Fig 5), but does not explicitly disclose a height that is 75% or more and less than 100% of the battery cells.
Baumgartner is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery cooling.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed corresponding heights are so close to “less than 100%” that the skilled artisan would expect the disclosed system to have the same properties as the Instant Invention, absent any demonstration of criticality to the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner et al. (US 2015/0079444 A1; hereinafter “Baumgartner”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Murakami et al. (US 2017/0301964 A1; hereinafter “Murakami”).
Regarding claim 10, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baumgartner does not disclose that one of the side portions includes tow or more stack pieces stacked in a height direction, and each of the stack pieces has a protrusion or a groove formed at an upper or lower end thereof such that the protrusion and the groove are fitted to each other.
Murakami teaches a battery pack and heat dissipating holder (Title/Abstract). Murakami teaches that the heat dissipating holder (22/23) is a stacked body made of thermally conductive plates (31) and thermally conductive insulating rubber (24) ([0079]). Murakami further teaches that each of the layers are connected via protrusions (33) and corresponding grooves (37) (as shown in Fig 7). Murakami teaches that such a layered structure may prevent short circuits between the battery cells and the exterior ([0082]).
Baumgartner and Murakami are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery cooling.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the stacked structure of Murakami as the cooling fin system of Baumgartner with the reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent short circuits between the battery cells and the exterior, as suggested by Murakami.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a battery cooling system wherein fastening portions are formed on each of both side of at least one central cooling fin.
Baumgartner et al. (US 2015/0079444 A1; hereinafter “Baumgartner”) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claim 13. Baumgartner discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above. Specifically, Baumgartner discloses a fastening portion formed between the contact grooves (84b, as shown in Fig 7), and that the central cooling fin is coupled to another central cooling fin (as shown in Fig 3).
However, Baumgartner does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited fastening portions being formed on each of both sides of the central cooling fins. To the contrary, Baumgartner explicitly discloses that the fastening portions are formed in the center of the “body portion” and explicitly discloses spacing between the cooling fins so as to accommodate the cylindrical battery cells (as shown in Fig 3). Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the structure of Baumgartner and be directed towards fastening portions on the sides of the cooling fins because the structure is already securely coupled and sized appropriately for cylindrical battery cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hasegawa (US 2016/0359210 A1) discloses a cell black and cell module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 12/14/2025