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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 as written depends upon Claim 8; however, Claim 8 is not present in the claim set. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (US 20170352929 A1) in view of Pei et al. (CN 106654457 A, with foreign publication including figures and machine translation of description attached to this Office action) and Henon et al. (US 20210001715 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda teaches a cooling structure of a battery pack (within vehicle power supply system; Yasuda abstract and Fig. 1), the cooling structure comprising:
a battery case containing a battery module (a battery unit 100 is disposed in this battery storage space 5, a battery frame 14 holding battery modules 11 each having a plurality of batteries 11a; Yasuda [0098-0091] and Figs. 1-3,5-6);
an intake duct (downstream-side inlet duct 122 receiving air from upstream-side inlet duct 118 via cooling fan 117, Yasuda [0093] and Fig. 1; downstream-side inlet duct 122 includes the first introducing duct portion 114, the second introducing duct portion 115 and the branching portion 116 and is disposed at a lateral side of the battery modules 11, Yasuda [0106] and Figs. 2 and 5) communicating with the battery case (ducts 111 attached to members of frame assembly 20 of battery from 14, Yasuda [0094,0096]) and being configured to send cooling air for cooling the battery module (Air is sent into the interiors of the front duct 111 and the rear duct 113 flows into the cooling air flow paths 11b of the battery modules 11 to cool the batteries 11a, Yasuda [0093]; the cooling mechanism 18 for cooling the battery modules 11, Yasuda [0090]); and
a blower (cooling fan 117, Yasuda [0093,0105] and Figs. 1-2,5) being configured to supply the cooling air to the intake duct (discharge port 117a of the cooling fan 117 is directed towards the battery modules 11 and is connected to the branching portion 116 of the downstream-side inlet duct 122 that is disposed between the cooling fan 117 and the battery modules 11, Yasuda [0105] and Figs. 1-2,5);
Yasuda fails to teach:
the intake duct having a bent section in which the cooling air that is sent from an upper side to a lower side is sent again from the lower side to the upper side,
wherein in the bent section of the intake duct, a vibration absorber is provided at least at a collision area to be collided with the cooling air.
However, Yasuda does teach the intake duct having a bent section (bending at first and second introducing portions 114, 115 within duct 122 which introduce air at lateral sides of battery modules 11; Yasuda [0106] and Figs. 1-2,5) and teaches a duct 118 farther upstream from intake duct 122 in which the cooling air is sent from an upper side to a lower side (shape of 118 from up to down direction, shown in Yasuda Fig. 1, and connected upstream of fan 117 and duct 122). Thus, the overall interconnected inlet duct structure (of 118 to 122, per Yasuda [0093]) reads on “the intake duct having a bent section in which the cooling air that is sent from an upper side to a lower side” as instantly claimed (see Yasuda Fig. 1 and [0093] as cited above, wherein intake air is set from upper side of 118 to lower side of 117). Furthermore, Yasuda teaches in [0108-0109] toward the branching angles being moderate bending angles and toward setting the relative lengths of the introducing ports 114, 115 in order to reduce a pressure loss at the branching portion and to thereby enhance the cooling efficiency of the battery modules.
Pei is analogous in the art of vehicle battery cooling (Pei translation lines 22-46) and teaches an intake duct having a bent section (cooling type air cooling duct is constituted by a U-shaped air duct, Pei line 58) in which the cooling air is sent from an upper side to a lower side is sent again from the lower side to the upper side (the U-shaped duct sends air in one direction from inlet 7 through front duct 1, then sends the air back in the opposite direction to outlet 6 through rear duct 2; Pei lines 61-71 and Figs. 1-2; “upper” and “lower” as claimed are relative to viewing direction of the U-shaped duct in Pei). Pei teaches this reversal of air flow in addition to the use of deflectors/baffles is advantageous to improve uniformity of air intake, improve cooling performance of the battery, and reduces wind noise (Pei lines 66-84).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the time of filing to modify Yasuda to include a U-shape within the intake duct to reverse the direction of the intake air flow (i.e., from downward back to upward) before being sent into the battery cooling space in order to achieve improved airflow uniformity and thus cooling performance of said batteries, as well as reduced wind noise, as taught toward by Pei. Such modification to the shape of the intake duct obviates the instant limitation of “the intake duct having a bent section in which the cooling air that is sent from an upper side to a lower side is sent again from the lower side to the upper side”.
Henon is also analogous in the art of vehicle battery cooling (Henon abstract and [0005]) and teaches in a bent section of an intake duct (a duct 2 defining a flow channel 4 with an inlet 20 and an outlet 22 in which flows an air stream; Henon [0039] and Fig. 1 showing bent shape from 20 to 22), a vibration absorber is provided at least at a collision area to be collided with the cooling air (sound absorption means 70 correspond to a sound absorbing coating 72 arranged on the walls of the duct 2, Henon [0041] and Figs. 1,5d – coating 72 shown at upper and lower bent portions in duct 2 within Fig. 1, through which the cooling air stream necessarily contacts while flowing from inlet 20 to outlet 22 within regulating device 1 per [0039]). Henon (at [0040] in view of [0005]) teaches such sound absorption means (reading on “vibration absorber” – since sounds waves are vibrations of air) is beneficial to suppress or at least limit the propagation of noise to the outside of the duct and thus mitigate the noise annoyance for the user.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have further found it obvious to further modify Yasuda to include a vibration absorber inside the bent section of the air intake duct in order for cooling air to collide with so that the vibration absorber functioned to suppress/limit sounds waves to limit noise annoyance, as taught toward by Henon. Such modification also promotes the goal taught by Pei of regulating intake air uniformity and reducing wind noise thereof. The resultant modified structure meets the instantly claimed limitation of “wherein in the bent section of the intake duct, a vibration absorber is provided at least at a collision area to be collided with the cooling air”.
Thereby, all limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yasuda teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly yet teach that the bent section is provided at a position lower than an upper surface of the battery case, and the intake duct is coupled to the battery case at a position higher than the bent section.
However, Yasuda in Fig. 6 shows portions 114, 115 connect at duct 111 higher than battery modules 11, but in Figs. 1-2 shows bent portions in 114, 115 positioned lower than a top cover 16 of the overall battery unit 100. Further, as modified by Pei in regards to claim 1, modified Yasuda includes the U-shaped duct which includes the bent section for reversing the direction of the intake air after the blower and before the battery case. Thus, the bent section would conceivably be positioned relatively lower compared to the battery housing (at the bend from 1 to 2 in Pei) while the connected portion (like outlet 6 of Pei) would be positioned relatively higher than the bend, due to the U-shape. Further regarding the positioning of the bend portion relative to the overall battery housing, Yasuda teaches that since the downstream-side inlet duct 122 is disposed beside the battery modules 11, the battery unit 100 can be installed compact while suppressing the increase in height thereof (Yasuda [0110,0114]) and that maintaining a compact height of the overall vehicle power supply system (including battery and associated cooling ducts) is beneficial in order to disposed underneath the floor of the vehicle while the influence on the height of the passenger compartment can be suppressed (Yasuda [0068,0071]).
Additionally, changes in shape and rearrangement of parts are design choices within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV B and VI C). Therefore, as motivated by teachings of Yasuda and Pei as cited and explained above – toward achieving mitigated pressure drop, air flow uniformity, and compact height – a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to ensure desirable positioning of the intake duct bent portion versus inlet to the battery housing, thus obviating the claimed limitation of “the bent section is provided at a position lower than an upper surface of the battery case, and the intake duct is coupled to the battery case at a position higher than the bent section”.
Thereby, claim 2 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yasuda teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly yet teach: wherein a chamber that allows the cooling air to pass therethrough is provided in a middle part of the intake duct, and the bent section is provided in the chamber.
However, Yasuda does show in Figs. 1-2 the intake duct portion 122 being segmented into 116, 115, 114. Henon, as applied above to modified Yasuda, similarly teaches the air intake regulation device 1, within its airflow duct 2, including segments 2a and 2b connected via cooling unit 6 (Henon Fig. 1 and [0051]). Cooling unit 6 reads on a “chamber” which is positioned along the cooling path of Henon (from inlet 20 to outlet 22) and thus “allows the cooling air to pass therethrough” and is “provided in a middle part of the intake duct” (e.g., between segments 2a and 2b in duct 2). Henon generally further teaches a bent section is provided in the chamber, since the curved shape of duct 2 curves upward in 2a and curves downward in 2b, with chamber 6 therebetween. Further, Pei as applied to above to modified Yasuda, teaches long deflector/baffle plate 3 which extends within the curved part of the U-shaped duct (Pei Figs. 1-2), thus also sectioning the duct off into different segments, similar to the above-explained chamber(s), specifically within the bent section of said intake duct. Henon teaches in [0048, 0051] that cooling unit 6 comprises at least one heat exchanger suitable for allowing a heat exchange between the air stream and the fluid circulating within the heat exchanger.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further modify the air intake duct of modified Yasuda to include a chamber – specifically a cooling unit with a heat exchanger – in the middle of the duct at the bending portion thereof in order to allow a heat exchange between the air stream and the fluid circulating within the heat exchanger of the cooling unit chamber along the air flow path, with the motivation of cooling the air as desired and taught by Pei.
Thereby, claim 3 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, claim 5, claim 6, and claim 7, modified Yasuda teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 above and further teaches wherein the vibration absorber is made of non-woven fabric (coating 72 can correspond to a layer of non-woven material such as wool or an insulating synthetic textile, Henon [0041]). Examiner notes that claim 7 does not depend from a base claim of record.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tajiri et al. (US 5490572 A) teaches air conditioner 3 connected to battery chamber 40, with the connecting air duct 44 therebetween being downstream of heat exchanger chambers 6,7 and compressor chamber 11 (Fig. 1).
Sugitate et al. (US 20180050606 A1) teaches batteries 40 surrounded by air discharge passages 33A,33B each having noise absorbing materials 38 in bent portions thereof (Fig. 10); teaches cooling fan 43 is a blower which has a cylindrical impeller and is configured to suck in air used to cool the plurality of batteries 40 from an in-case air suction duct 45 situated on a bottom surface side of the IPU case 21 ([0071]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights