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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Please note that a certified translation has not been provided.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 recites in line 1, “chamber”. This appears to be a spelling error.
Claim 2 recites “plurality” several times. This appears to be a spelling error.
The applicant is encouraged to check the claims and specification for grammatical errors.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the phase change material" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-16 depend therefrom.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the phase change materials" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the preceding claims there is only one phase change material recited. Claims 5-16 depend therefrom.
Claim 2-16 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. Claim 2 recites that the cooling plates have a plurality of chambers and then in line 3 recites that the phase change material fills the chamber. It is not clear which chamber is filled?
Claims 3-16 depend therefrom.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 and 8 of copending Application No. 18383168 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each recites a battery module having a plurality of cells, cooling plate/fin with a phase change material, a cooling channel, and insulation/gap filler.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darbandi et al. (US 2023/0147569) in view of Lindstrom (US 2020/0358057).
Regarding claim 1, Darbandi teaches a battery module #5 having a plurality of cells #10 (see fig. 1, [0052]) and a plurality of cooling plates #20 located between adjacent cells [0056] and a cooling channel [0007, 0044, 0059]. Please note the claim language only requires that the material be coupled to, not directly attached. Darbandi also teaches the use of heat transfer material #21 or 22 [0056].
Darbandi discloses that the cooling plates are connected to lateral connection elements #50/51 that supply cooling fluid through channels formed in the cooling plated, but does not go into specifics as to the composition of the fluid [0059]; however, it is known in the battery art that phase change materials are utilized.
However, Lindstrom also teaches a battery module that contains cooling plates in which the plates #508 comprise conduits within the cooling plate that contain phase change material [0058, 0099, see claim 31] which helps to facilitate heat absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a phase change material in the cooling plates of Darbandi as taught by Lindstrom to facilitate heat absorption.
Further, MPEP §2144.07 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unspecified material of the Darbandi by incorporating the phase material of Lindstrom as a matter of obvious use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claims 2, Lindstrom teaches the use of channels/conduits (plural) in the cooling plates [0087].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize multiple channels in the cooling plates of Darbandi as taught by Lindstrom to facilitate heat absorption by increasing surface area exposure of the phase material.
Additionally, the location of the channels/chambers is a matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). It is noted that no unexpected results have been set forth in applicant’s specification. MPEP 2144.01
Claim(s) 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darbandi et al. and Lindstrom, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Nicholls (US 2015/0140366).
Regarding claims 3-5, Nicholls teaches that different types of coolants and the position of the battery cells to in the case has effects on the cooling [0083-93]. Nicholls teaches altering the spacing, amount, flow rate, etc. to achieve the desired cooling.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have adjusted the positioning of the chambers and the type of fluids in the cooling elements of Darbandi as taught by Nicholls in order to achieve the desired cooling results.
The location of the channels/chambers is a matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). It is noted that no unexpected results have been set forth in applicant’s specification. MPEP 2144.01
Regarding claim 6, Darbandi and Lindstrom are silent as to the materials making up the cooling plates.
However, Nicholls, also a batter pack, teaches that cooling plates are known to be made from aluminum [0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize aluminum as the material for the colling plates as taught by Nicholls. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claim 7, Nicholls teaches that different types of coolants and the position of the battery cells to in the case has effects on the cooling [0083-93]. Nicholls teaches altering the spacing, amount, flow rate, etc. to achieve the desired cooling. Additionally, the language of claim 7 does require any channels as it recite a “5 or less”, thus it could be zero. There are no unexpected results noted in the specification.
The amount of cooling channels is based on the desired conditions. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8-11, Nicholls teaches average battery pack size of 160mmx7mmx227mm [0055]; thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the battery art before the effective file date to provide small sized channels to fit within the battery pack dimensions. Additionally, as Nicholls teaches, the cooling plates can be constructed to optimize working conditions and arrive at the desired temperature range. There are no unexpected results noted in the specification.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darbandi et al., Lindstrom, and Nicholls as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of JP 2022042772 (on IDS international search report) or Clifford NPL (9/27/22).
Regarding claims 12-13, JP ‘772 teaches a battery cooling structure in which paraffin is used [0040] that has a phase change at temperature range of 5-20 C.
Additionally, Clifford teaches the use of wax/graphite phase change material in batteries for cooling purposes (see phase change section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a paraffin composition in the device of Darbandi et al. as it is a known phase change material utilized in the battery art as a coolant.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darbandi et al., Lindstrom, and Nicholls, JP 2022042772 or Clifford NPL, as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Hwang (US20230198047).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang teaches a battery pack and teaches that a related art battery module may buffer swelling of a battery cell due to swelling by disposing an elastic pad #100 between a plurality of battery cells. A separate cooling member may be disposed between the battery cells to cool the battery cells [0003, 0079].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize an elastic pad around the cooling plates of Darbandi et al. as taught by Hwang in order to reduce pressure to other battery cells and electrically insulate the cells.
Regarding claim 15, Darbandi teaches the battery device can be surrounded by a housing (i.e. front, rear, side, and lid) [0017]. Darbandi also teaches that the battery module can contain electronics, control units [0017]. Lindstrom teaches that bus bars #302 are a well-known element in battery packs [0077].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darbandi et al., Lindstrom, and Nicholls, JP 2022042772 or Clifford NPL (9/27/22), and Hwang, as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Ozawa et al. (US 2022/0238939).
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that the present specification does not appear to provide any particular type of material for the thermal conductivity 3W/mk. However, this represents a moderate, commonly used performance level for thermal interface materials for sufficient heat transfer for electronics. As Darbandi utilizes transfer materials, it does not specify which ones.
However, Ozawa discloses a batter pack and explains using thermal interface materials in battery packs is well known and readily utilized. For instance, Ozawa notes that when the thermal conductivity is less than 0.8 W/mK, heat transfer hardly occurs and a rise in the temperature of the battery module. The thermal conductivity of the heat absorbing member is preferably 1.0 W/mK or more and more preferably 1.5 W/mK or more [0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized heat interface material that has a thermal conductivity of 3W/mk or more in order to provide effective heat transfer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2018/0094846 – teaches phase change materials in battery packs [0024].
US20170222274 see [0011].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776