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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 5 “…and or…” should recite “and/or” for purposes of clarity.
In claim 10, line 1 “…Lithium based.” Should recite “…lithium based.” for purposes of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation 100 ºC to 140 ºC, and the claim also recites 110 ºC to 130 ºC and 115 ºC to 125 ºC which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altoz (US 5,325,913).
Regarding Claim 1, Altoz teaches a heat sink plate (Fig. 1, #12) (i.e. a heat conducting element) which heat is transferred through the heat sink from a circuit board containing electronic components (col. 2, lines 48-58) (i.e. for transferring heat away from a heat producing device), the heat sink plate having a cavity (Fig. 1, #14) containing vapor (i.e. having a heat pipe or vapor chamber with a hollow structure) (col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the heat sink plate includes a release opening (Fig. 1, #28) allowing vapor inside the cavity to escape (col. 4, lines 1-5) (i.e. wherein the hollow structure has at least one opening that reaches from outside the hollow structure into an interior of the hollow structure) wherein a plug fills the opening (Fig. 1, #30) containing a pellet (Fig. 1, #26) wherein the pellet completely blocks the passage to keep vapor trapper inside and is formed from a material which melts at a certain temperature to provide a path for the vapor inside to escape to the external ambient or to some storage device (col. 4, lines 22-29) (i.e. wherein the at least one opening is sealed by a meltable material such that the interior of the hollow structure is fluid-tight) wherein the heat flows from the electronic component into the working fluid through the heat plate (col. 3, lines 38-42) and when the working fluid in the wick reaches its vaporization temperature it evaporates (col. 3, lines 43-45) (i.e. wherein inside the interior a working fluid in a form of a saturated liquid and its vapor is provided for receiving, transferring and dissipating heat), wherein the heat sink plate reaches a maximum steady state temperature near 85 degrees Celsius (col. 4, lines 43-46) wherein while the heat sink is near or below this temperature the heat is transferred to the missile skin (i.e. wherein the heat conducting element has a predetermined operating range with a minimum operating temperature range with a minimum operating temperature and a maximum operating temperature, wherein the minimum operating temperature is inherently when the heat sink plate temperature and the electronic component temperature are equal) and when the temperature of the heat sink plate rises above the steady state temperature, melting of the pellet occurs, as the pellet material melts at a specified temperature above the approximate maximum state temperature (col. 4, lines 52-60) (i.e. wherein the meltable material has a predetermined melting temperature that exceeds the maximum operating temperature by a predetermined temperature difference, such that the meltable material melts if the hollow structure is exposed to a temperature that reaches the melting temperature to unseal the at least one opening).
Regarding Claim 4, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the cavity (Fig. 1, #14) (i.e. hollow structure) is an elongated elements with an interior enclosed by the heat sink plate (Fig. 1, #12) and the cover (Fig. 1, #16) which are both made of copper (col. 3, lines 2-6) (i.e. enclosed by a metallic material) wherein the cavity has a first end and a second end (see Fig. 1) wherein the releasing opening is arranged at the first end (see Fig. 1) (i.e. wherein the at least one opening is arranged at the first end and or the second end).
Regarding Claim 5, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the process continues until the entire working fluid is used up, during an entire missile flight time (col. 4, lines 66-68) (i.e. the hollow structure is configured to continuously transfer heat in an orientation-independent manner).
Regarding Claim 7, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the hollow structure (Fig. 1, #14) comprises a heat dissipation interface at a distance to the at least one opening (see Annotated Altoz – Fig. 1 below).
Regarding Claim 8, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the heat dissipation interface and the at least one opening are arranged at opposite ends of the heat conducting element (see Annotated Altoz – Fig. 1 below).
Annotated Altoz – Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
400
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention according to claim 1 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the heat sink plate is used as an effective cooling system for electric components used on missiles (col. 1, lines 61-64) (i.e. a vehicle having the heat conducting element according to claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention according to claim 14 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the heat sink plate is used as an effective cooling system for electric components used on missiles (col. 1, lines 61-64) (i.e. wherein the vehicle is an aircraft).
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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altoz (US 5,325,913) in view of Ninomiya et al. (US 2022/0006158) as evidenced by Stokes (Structure Properties and Applications of Plastics, 2020).
Regarding Claim 2, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Altoz does not teach the meltable material is a solder or a thermoplastic material.
However, Ninomiya et al. teaches a partition member which accommodates a liquid used as a heat transfer medium to move heat from the unit batteries wherein liquid in the internal space is released to the outside (Para. [0007]) at the time of abnormal heat generation of unit batteries using a polyolefin resin of linear low density polyethylene from the viewpoint of melting characteristics at low temperatures (Para. [0053]) (i.e. wherein the meltable material is a thermoplastic resin).
The substitution of the linear low density polyethylene (i.e. meltable material) as taught by Ninomiya et al. for the pellet material of Altoz would achieve the predictable result of providing a material which melts at a certain temperature to provide a release of heated fluid to the external ambient/environment (see Altoz col. 4, lines 24-29 and Ninomiya – Para. [0053]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute the linear low density polyethylene (i.e. meltable material) as taught by Ninomiya et al. for the pellet material of Altoz, as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a material which melts at a certain temperature to provide a release of heated fluid to the external ambient/environment (see Altoz col. 4, lines 24-29 and Ninomiya – Para. [0053]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 3, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Altoz does not teach the meltable material has a predetermined melting temperature in a range of 100 ºC to 140 ºC, or 110 ºC to 130 ºC or 115 ºC to 125 ºC
However, Ninomiya et al. teaches a partition member which accommodates a liquid used as a heat transfer medium to move heat from the unit batteries wherein liquid in the internal space is released to the outside (Para. [0007]) at the time of abnormal heat generation of unit batteries using a polyolefin resin of linear low density polyethylene from the viewpoint of melting characteristics at low temperatures (Para. [0053]) (i.e. wherein the meltable material is a thermoplastic resin, having a melting of 122-124 degrees Celsius, within the claimed ranges, as evidenced by Stokes pg. 252, Table 11.4.1).
The substitution of the linear low density polyethylene (i.e. meltable material having a predetermined melting range of 100 ºC to 140 ºC, or 110 ºC to 130 ºC or 115 ºC to 125 ºC) as taught by Ninomiya et al. for the pellet material of Altoz would achieve the predictable result of providing a material which melts at a certain temperature to provide a release of heated fluid to the external ambient/environment (see Altoz col. 4, lines 24-29 and Ninomiya – Para. [0053]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute the linear low density polyethylene (i.e. meltable material) as taught by Ninomiya et al. for the pellet material of Altoz, as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a material which melts at a certain temperature to provide a release of heated fluid to the external ambient/environment (see Altoz col. 4, lines 24-29 and Ninomiya – Para. [0053]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 6, 9, 11-13 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altoz (US 5,325,913) in view of Xiang (US 2016/0104925).
Regarding Claim 6, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches conducing elements located under electronic components could be used to provide an efficient heat path to the heat sink plate (col. 3, lines 14-21) (i.e. wherein the hollow structure comprises a plurality of heat introduction interfaces configured to be thermally connected to a plurality of electronic components).
Altoz does not teach the plurality of heat interfaces configured to be thermally connected to a plurality of battery cells.
However, Xiang teaches a plurality of cooling channels (Fig. 1, #107) arranged inside a cooling plate (Fig. 1, #108) which has thermal conductivity (Para. [0021]) and a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1, #103) wherein heat is transferred from the battery cell surfaces to the ceiling plate (Para. [0028]) (i.e. a plurality of heat introduction interfaces configured to be thermally connected to a plurality of battery cells).
The substitution of a plurality of battery cells as taught by Xiang, for the electronic components of the heat conducting element as taught by Altoz would achieve the predictable result of an electronic component which requires heat to be transferred away by a heat conducting element (see Xiang -- Para. [0018] and Altoz – col. 3, lines 17-21). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute a plurality of battery cells as taught by Xiang, for the electronic components of the heat conducting element as taught by Altoz, as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of an electronic component which requires heat to be transferred away by a heat conducting element (see Xiang -- Para. [0018] and Altoz – col. 3, lines 17-21). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 9, Altoz teaches all of the elements of the heat conducting element according to claim 1 as explained above.
Altoz does not teach a battery system comprising a plurality of battery cells, a cooling device.
However, Xiang teaches a battery comprising a plurality of cooling channels (Fig. 1, #107) arranged inside a cooling plate (Fig. 1, #108) which has thermal conductivity (Para. [0021]) and a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1, #103) wherein heat is transferred from the battery cell surfaces to the ceiling plate (Para. [0028]) (i.e. a plurality of heat introduction interfaces configured to be thermally connected to a plurality of battery cells).
The substitution of a plurality of battery cells as taught by Xiang, for the electronic components of the heat conducting element as taught by Altoz would achieve the predictable result of an electronic component which requires heat to be transferred away by a heat conducting element (see Xiang -- Para. [0018] and Altoz – col. 3, lines 17-21). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute a plurality of battery cells as taught by Xiang, for the electronic components of the heat conducting element as taught by Altoz, as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of an electronic component which requires heat to be transferred away by a heat conducting element (see Xiang -- Para. [0018] and Altoz – col. 3, lines 17-21). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Thus, a battery system comprising a plurality of battery cells and the at least one heating conducting elements according to claim 1 would be provided.
Regarding the cooling device, Xiang further teaches cooling channels (Fig. 1, #107) containing a cooling fluid which carries away heat (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Altoz to incorporate the teaching of the battery system comprising cooling channels (i.e. a cooling device) as the cooling channels would provide an additional method to carry away heat from the battery (Para. [0027], [0025]) aiding in lowering the temperature of the cells, extending battery life and increasing safety (Para. [0007]).
Regarding Claim 11, Altoz as modified by Xiang teaches all of the elements of the current invention according to claim 9 as explained above.
Xiang further teaches the cooling channels (Fig. 1, #107) and the battery cells (Fig. 1, #103) are arranged at opposite ends of the ceiling plate (Fig. 1, #108) (i.e. heat conducting element). See the rejection to claim 9 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Xiang cited herein.
Regarding Claim 12, Altoz as modified by Xiang teaches all of the elements of the current invention according to claim 9 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the releasing opening release opening (Fig. 1, #28) is arranged in a region directly adjacent to the electronic component (Fig. 1, #11). Thus, Altoz as modified by Xiang would provide the at least one opening arranged in a region directly adjacent to the battery cells.
Regarding Claim 13, Altoz as modified by Xiang teaches all of the elements of the current invention according to claim 9 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the heat sink plate is used as an effective cooling system for electric components used on missiles (col. 1, lines 61-64) (i.e. a vehicle). Thus, Altoz as modified by Xiang would provide a vehicle (in this case, the missile) having a battery system according to claim 9.
Regarding Claim 15, Altoz as modified by Xiang teaches all of the elements of the current invention according to claim 13 as explained above.
Altoz further teaches the heat sink plate is used as an effective cooling system for electric components used on missiles (col. 1, lines 61-64) (i.e. wherein the vehicle is an aircraft).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altoz (US 5,325,913) in view of Xiang (US 2016/0104925) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ninomiya et al. (US 2022/0006158).
Regarding Claim 10, Altoz as modified by Xiang teaches all of the elements of the current invention according to claim 9 as explained above.
Altoz as modified by Xiang does not teach battery cells are lithium based.
However, Ninomiya et al. teaches a partition member which accommodates a liquid used as a heat transfer medium to move heat from the unit batteries wherein liquid in the internal space is released to the outside (Para. [0007]) at the time of abnormal heat generation of unit batteries using a polyolefin resin of linear low density polyethylene from the viewpoint of melting characteristics at low temperatures (Para. [0053]) wherein the batteries are lithium ion batteries (Para. [0075]) (i.e. the battery cells are lithium based).
The substitution of a plurality of lithium ion battery cells as taught by Ninomiya et al., for the electronic components of the heat conducting element as taught by Altoz would achieve the predictable result of an electronic component which requires heat to be transferred away by a heat conducting element (see Altoz – col. 3, lines 17-21 and Ninomiya et al. – Para. [0007]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute a plurality of lithium ion battery cells as taught by Ninomiya et al., for the electronic components of the heat conducting element as taught by Altoz, as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of an electronic component which requires heat to be transferred away by a heat conducting element (see Altoz – col. 3, lines 17-21 and Ninomiya et al. – Para. [0007]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729