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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant argues that the Examiner improperly mapped the dotted outline of Figure 8 to the claimed cell housing and asserts that each individual storage cell must include its own housing delimiting a receiving space. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The rejection is clarified as follows. The claimed “receiving space” corresponds to the hollow interior of each cylindrical battery cell (i.e., the central opening extending through the individual cell), rather than the overall battery pack. Each individual storage cell of Nicholls includes its own outer casing (38), which constitutes the claimed cell housing an delimits the receiving space extending through the center of the cell. Thus, Nicholls discloses each storage cell comprising a cell housing which delimits a receiving space as claimed. Accordingly, this clarification does not alter the rejection.
As clarified above, the receiving space is the central opening of each cylindrical battery cell. Nicholls discloses conduit 212 including finger portions 206 that extend through the central receiving space of the respective battery cells to conduct coolant through the cells. Thus, the finger portions of the conduit 212 constitute the claimed line elements extending through the receiving space. Applicant’s characterization that conduit 212 is merely external overlooks that the finger portions project into and extend through the interior receiving spaces of the individual storage cells.
Applicant argues that only hollow core 34 could constitute the claimed line elements and that hollow core 34 includes a closed upper end. The argument is not persuasive because it is based on an incorrect identification of the claimed line element. The Examiner does not rely upon hollow core 34 for this limitation. Rather the rejection relies upon the finger portions (206) of conduit (212). Each finger portion communicates with the main conduit at one end and communicates with the coolant flow path through the first and second pathways (208, 210) at the opposite end. Thus, the finger portions opens at opposite ends of the receiving space/cell housing and is fluidly accessible from both ends. The amended phrase “externally accessible” reasonably encompasses being fluidly connected to the coolant distribution system at opposite ends. Nothing in the Specification requires direct physical exposure outside the battery or excludes fluid communication through connected flow passages. Accordingly, Nicholls teaches a line elements that opens at two opposite ends of the cells housing such that it is externally accessible from both ends.
Applicant argues that making hollow core 34 open at both ends would require removal of protective cap 36 and a fundamental redesign. This argument is not persuasive because it attacks a modification that is not relied upon by the Examiner. The rejection does not propose modifying hollow core 34. Rather, the rejection relies upon the finger portions (206) of conduit (212), which already provide coolant communication through the receiving spaces of the cells. Therefore, Applicant’s discussion regarding protective cap 36 and hollow core 34 is not responsive to the rejection as maintained.
Response to Arguments Directed to the § 103 Rejections
Applicant argues that the secondary references fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Nicholls. This argument is not persuasive. Since Nicholls teaches or at least suggests the limitations of amended independent claim 1 as discussed above, the secondary references continue to be relied upon only for the additional limitations set forth in the respective dependent claims. Applicant has not separately traversed the teachings of Campbell, Kretschmar, Shisler, Kim, or Rief regarding those additional claim limitations. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 USC § 103 are maintained for the reasons set for in the office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The examiner withdraws the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicholls (US 20170331142 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nicholls teaches an electrical energy store for storing electrical energy for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of storage cells (figs. 5A-5B; [0073] plurality of rechargeable cells 100);
a cell housing (outer casing 38 of each cylindrical storage cell 100; Fig. 5A-5B, 7; [0061-0064]) which delimits a receiving space, wherein the receiving space is the central opening extending through the individual storage cell;
a line element comprising finger portion 206 of conduit 212 through which temperature-control liquid flows and which extends through the receiving space of the storage cell, the finger portion 206 being fluidly connected to the conduit 212 at one end to the coolant flow path through pathways 208 and 210 at the opposite end, thereby opening at two opposite ends of the cell housing and being external accessible therefrom ([0067-0072]; Fig. 3-5B);
the storage cells 100 are placed into a separate bores/holder 202/204 (figs. 3, 5a-b, [0072]);
domes 206 (fingers) for insertion and expulsion of temperature control liquid (figs. 3-4; [0067]) and the domes 206 are inserted into the line element 212.
Regarding claim 15, Nicholls teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Nicholls also teaches a motor vehicle having at least one electrical energy store ([Fig. 8]).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls in view of Campbell (GB 2516209 A).
Regarding claim 2, Nicholls teaches the structural arrangement of the components (e.g., elements 112 and 206), as stated above. Nicholls further teaches that these components are formed integrally or otherwise secured together such that fluid is retained within the device. It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that, in order to prevent fluid leakage between such joined components, a sealing mechanism must be present. Nicholls suggests that the components are either integrally formed or joined in a manner that prevents leakages, which inherently requires sealing at the interface. However, Nicholls fails to explicitly teach a sealing element recited in claim 2.
Campbell is considered analogous art because they are in the same field of batteries. Campbell teaches the use of a sealing element, specifically and O-ring (pg. 2, line 19-23, sealing element in the form of the O-ring 18), positioned between adjoining components to prevent fluid leakage. Campbell demonstrates that O-rings are a well-known and commonly used sealing solution for interfacing components in fluid-containing systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the O-ring sealing element of Campbell into the device of Nicholls in order to ensure a fluid-tight seal between the joined components. The motivation for such as modification arises from the recognized need to prevent leakage in fluid-containing systems and the known effectiveness of O-rings as sealing elements. Substituting or incorporating a known sealing element (O-ring) for the implicit sealing means in Nicholls represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 3, Nicholls fails to explicitly teach a sealing element arranged in corresponding indentation. Campbell is considered analogous art because they are in the same field of batteries.
Campbell further teaches that the sealing element (O-ring) is positioned within a groove or indentation (pg. 2, line 21-23, located in a receiving groove). Campbell discloses that such grooves are configured to receive and retain the O-ring in place, thereby improving sealing performance and ensuring proper alignment between components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nicholls and Campbell, as applied to claim 2, to further include the O-ring within a groove or indentation as taught by Campbell. The motivation for this modification arises from the well-known advantages of retaining sealing elements within grooves, including improved sealing reliability, prevention of displacement during assembly, and enhanced durability. The use of a groove or indentation to house an O-ring is a standard and predictable design choice in the art of fluid sealing systems. Incorporating this feature into the Nicholls device, as modified by Campbell, would have merely involved the application of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding to predictable results.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls and Campbell, as applied to claims 2-3 above, and further in view of Kretschmar (DE 102019210765 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Nicholls teaches structural element that has a contact element and/or electrical heating element (figs 3-4; [0067] inbound 208 and outbound 210); however, Nicholls in view of Campbell fail to explicitly teach a respective structural element where the respective cell is fixed to the respective cell housing via a respective indentation.
Kretschmar is considered analogous art because they are in the same field of batteries. Kretschmar teaches a respective structural element where the respective cell is fixed to the respective cell housing via a respective indentation (fig. 1, [0032]), note that the indentations’ part touching the cell reads on a contact element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Nicholls and Campbell to include the sealing element as taught by Kretschmar because such configuration allows for the production of a one-piece injection molded cell housing [0015] which reduces manufacturing complexity and lowers production cost. Additionally, it allows for a better seal [0016].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls in view of Shisler et al. (US 20200006822 A1), herein after Shisler.
Regarding claim 6, Nicholls teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. However, Nicholls fails to explicitly teach the:
first elements are the supply elements which introduce the temperature control liquid;
second elements are the discharge elements which are opposite of the first.
Shisler is directed to battery cooling systems utilizing refrigerant and is therefore analogous art, as it pertains to the same field of endeavor – thermal management of battery systems – and addresses similar problems of circulating cooling fluid. Shisler teaches:
first elements which are the supply elements that introduce the temperature control liquid ([0086], refrigerant inlet port 24A, fig. 9);
second elements are the discharge elements which are opposite of the first ([0086], refrigerant outlet port 24B, fig. 9).
This extending inlet and outlet structures correspond to the claimed structures, as both function as extension from the cooling lines that respectively supply and discharge cooling fluid ([0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nicholls to include the extending inlet and outlet structures as taught by Shisler in order to facilitate efficient delivery and removal of cooling fluid. The motivation for such a modification arises from the recognized need in battery cooling systems to provide effective fluid flow paths, and the known use of extended inlet and outlet ports to achieve such flow. Further, shaping or configuring these extensions as “domes” constitutes a matter of design choice, as the claimed domes merely represent extensions of the fluid supply and discharge structures performing their expected functions. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nicholls and Shisler teach all limitations of claim 6. Nicholls also teaches supply elements 206 are constructed integrally, i.e. all located off the same line 212.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nicholls teaches all limitations of claim 7. Nicholls also teaches supply line element 212 for temperature control liquid to flow through to the supply domes 206 ([0067] - [0071] cooling apparatus 400; figs. 3-4; [0067] cooling system 200).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nicholls teaches all limitations of claim 6. Nicholls also teaches discharge elements that are constructed integrally with each other ([0061] positive terminal 30 within protective cap 36 on top of the can and negative terminal in the base 40; fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nicholls teaches all limitations of claim 9. Nicholls also teaches a line element through which the temperature control liquid can be introduced and discharged through (figs. 3-4 cooling fluid passage 212, 208, 210 in between surfaces of cooling system 200; ([0062] core insert/elongated member 44/52 in hollow core 34; fig. 6; figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nicholls teaches all limitations of claim 6. Nicholls also teaches:
a cell holder that has a first holder portion with supply element arranged on the first side and a cell holder that has a second holder portion with the supply element arranged on the second side (figs. 3-4; [0067] inbound 208 and outbound 210)
the first holder and second holder are constructed separately from each other ([0061] positive terminal 30 within protective cap 36 on top of the can and negative terminal in the base 40; fig. 1A);
the first holder and second holder are connected to each other ([0061]; figs, 1A-1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional feature recited in claims 5-11 into the modified battery system because the feature is already disclosed as part of the battery structure in Nicholls and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls in view of Kim (KR 20090095794 A).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nicholls teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Nicholls fails to explicitly teach a first covering element on the first side, and a second covering on the second side, counter to the first side. Kim is considered analogous art because they are in the same field of batteries. Kim teaches a first covering element on the first side, and a second covering on the second side, counter to the first side (30: lower insulation plate, 40: upper insulation plate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Nicholls to include the first and second covering element as taught by Kim because such configuration improves safety and insulation (Technical Field).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls in view of Kim, and further in view of Rief et al. (DE 102019210765 A1), hereinafter Rief, as cited by the IDS.
Regarding claim 13, Nicholls and Kim teach all of the limitations of claim 12. Nicholls and Kim fail to explicitly teach column pairs are locked to each other. Rief is considered analogous art because they are in the same field of batteries. Rief teaches column portions of the respective column pair locked to each other (fig. 1B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Nicholls and Kim to include column pairs that are locked to each other to maintain performance and integrity of battery packs ([0003]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls in view of Kim, and further in view of Rief.
Regarding claim 14, Nicholls and Kim teach all of the limitations of claim 13. Nicholls and Kim fail to explicitly teach that the holder portion is constructed in an integral manner. Rief is considered analogous art because they are in the same field of batteries. Rief teaches the holder portion is constructed in an integral manner (fig. 1B, [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Nicholls and Kim to include a holder portion is constructed in an integral manner to lower production costs.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights