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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 7/31/23, 12/28/23, and 4/10/25 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohlin et al. (US 2023/0145211) in view of Arai et al. (US 2016/0204488).
Regarding claim 1, Mohlin teaches an assembly for a vehicle battery, comprising:
a housing, or component (11) in the form of a set of electric batteries ([0052]);
a first container, or deaeration device (40), having a lower portion, or coolant inlet (43), in fluid communication with the housing (11) (Figure 1); and
a second container, or expansion tank (30), having a lower portion, or opening (35), in fluid communication with an upper portion, or second coolant outlet (45), of the first container (30) (Figure 1).
With further regard to claim 1, Mohlin is silent on the specifics of the locations and dimensions of the housing and first and second containers.
Arai teaches an assembly for temperature control of a battery including a battery (1) (analogous to the housing (11) of Mohlin), a first container, or temperature control part (30), and a second container, or heat medium cooling part (40) (Figure 1). It is seen in Figure 1 of Arai that the first container (30) is provided at an upper portion of the housing (1).
Since Mohlin is silent on the specifics of the locations and dimensions of the housing and first and second containers, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the setup of Arai to arrange the components of Mohlin in order to ensure that the components are provided in appropriate places.
Regarding claim 5, Arai teaches that the second container (40) is provided at a rear or the housing (1) (Figure 1).
As for claim 7, it is seen in Arai that the first container (30) has a vertical dimension at least equal to its horizontal direction perpendicular to S (Figure 1). The examiner further finds that it would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art to determine appropriate dimensions for the first and second containers of Mohlin in view of Arai in order to ensure that the containers fit within the system and are appropriately sized for their functions. It has been held that changing the size and shape of a component is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 IV
As for claim 9, Mohlin teaches that the second container (30) comprises a breather, or pressure relief valve, for allowing air to flow out from the upper part of the expansion chamber (31) ([0053]).
As for claim 13, Mohlin teaches a pipe, or static line (5), between the first and second containers (Figure 1).
With regard to claim 20, Mohlin teaches that the second container is part-filled with coolant and part-filled with gas when in use (Figure 1). Further, claim 20 requires that the housing and first container are “arranged to be completely filled with coolant”, which the examiner interprets as being functional language, analogous to “capable of” performing the recited function. The examiner further finds that the system of Mohlin meets the structural limitations of the claims, and is therefore “arranged to be” completely filled with coolant as required. MPEP 2144 II
Regarding claim 22, Mohlin teaches a pump (12) to circulate coolant in the housing and first container (Figure 1, [0059]).
As for claim 31, Mohlin teaches a motor vehicle including the assembly of claim 1 ([0003], [0016]).
Claims 12 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohlin in view of Arai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindstrom et al. (US 2019/0140235).
The teachings of Mohlin and Arai as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, Mohlin in view of Arai teaches the system of claim 1 but is silent on the venting channel.
Lindstrom teaches a system comprising a housing, or battery module (12a), comprising a venting channel, or thermal runaway gas chamber (59) , which extends across the housing region to facilitate flow of thermal runaway gas (51) from the container volume (Figure 5). Lindstrom further teaches that the venting channel in the housing is desirable for preventing mixing of thermal runaway gas with coolant, which can result in a spontaneous ignition and explosion (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a venting channel in the housing of Mohlin in view of Arai such as suggested by Lindstrom in order to prevent mixing of thermal runaway gas with coolant.
Regarding claims 26-27, Mohlin in view of Arai teaches the system of claim 1 but is silent on the manifolds of the housing.
Lindstrom teaches a system comprising a housing, or battery module (12a), comprising first and second walls having manifolds, or inlet (50) and outlet (52), for providing coolant flow (22a) around the cells in order to minimize temperature differences by directly cooling the cells ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide manifolds as suggested by Lindstrom in the housing of Mohlin in view of Arai in order to directly cool the cells.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohlin in view of Arai as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Murata et al. (US 2010/0009244).
The teachings of Mohlin and Arai as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, Mohlin in view of Arai teaches the assembly of claim 13 but is silent on a burst disc between the first and second containers.
Murata teaches an assembly including a pipe (15) provided between a battery housing (13) and second container, or separation chamber (17), and having a gas relief valve (21) which is opened when a certain internal pressure of the case is reached (Figure 4, [0067]). Murata teaches that the pressure relief valve (21) may be a burst disc, or breakage valve (41), which is configured to break at a predetermined pressure caused by internal pressure build up due to gas produced in the cells ([0009], [0067]-[0068], [0095]).
Murata further teaches that the use of the burst disc is desirable for reducing the size and weight of the device by reducing the strength of the case and cover ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide a first burst disc at the inlet of the second contained of Mohlin in view of Arai such as suggested by Murata in order to reduce the size and weight of the assembly by reducing the strength of the case and cover.
Further regarding claim 14, concerning the shape and size of the burst disc of Mohlin in view of Arai and Murata, the examiner finds that it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to determine an appropriate size and shape of the burst disc on order to ensure that it functions as intended, i.e. to rupture at the appropriate pressure. It has been held that changing the size and shape of a component is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 IV
As for claims 15-16, Murata teaches that the second container (17) has a vent opening connected to a vent pipe (see right side of Fig. 4) and open to atmosphere (i.e. outside of vehicle) to permit excess pressure to be released to the atmosphere in the event of an abnormality in the battery ([0073]). Murata further teaches a deflection wall, or baffle plates (171), between the first burst disc (21/41) and the vent opening (right side of Fig. 4) in order to prevent coolant from being discharged ([0072], [0077]).
Further regarding claim 15, Murata is silent on the location of the end of the vent pipe relative to the assembly. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to place the end of the vent pipe in an appropriate location for ensuring proper disposal of the vented gas. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI C)
As for claim 17, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to provide an additional burst disc at the vent opening since, as Murata teaches, it would allow for reducing the size and weight of the assembly by reducing the strength of the second container. It has been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI B, C)
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohlin in view of Arai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe et al. (US 2009/0294626).
The teachings of Mohlin and Arai as discussed above are incorporated herein.
As for claim 28, Mohlin in view of Arai teaches the assembly of claim 1 but is silent on the mounting arrangements of the assembly.
Abe teaches an assembly, including a battery housing (30), orientated as claimed and mounted on a vehicle in front of the rear wheels and behind the front row seating area of the vehicle (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to mount the assembly of Mohlin in view of Arai using the known configuration of Abe and the results would have been predictable, i.e. providing the assembly in a vehicle. MPEP 2143 I B
Regarding claim 29, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to arrange the housing and pump of Mohlin in view of Arai and Abe as to fit in the space allotted in the vehicle, arriving at the claimed arrangement. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI C)
Claims 32 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohlin in view of Arai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Enomoto et al. (US 2015/0188203).
The teachings of Mohlin and Arai as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Mohlin in view of Arai teaches the assembly of claim 1 including the second container being part-filled with coolant and part-filled with gas when in use (Mohlin Figure 1). Mohlin further teaches filling the coolant via the expansion tank, which includes a path to the housing (11) through the pump (12) (Figure 1).
Mohlin in view of Arai is silent on completely filling the housing and first container.
Enomoto teaches completely filling the housing with coolant by directly immersing the cells in the circulated coolant in order to ensure full cooling of all cells (Figure 1, [0004]-[0005], [0017]-[0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to completely fill the housing of Mohlin in view of Arai in order to ensure full cooling of the cells in the housing.
Furthermore, in order for the second container (40) of Mohlin to function as an expansion container, the first container (30) must necessarily be filled so that coolant can be provided to the second container from the first container via the coolant outlet (45) (Figure 1.
Regarding claim 42, Mohlin further teaches allowing air to escape from the housing via degassing, or deaeration, of the assembly (abstract, Figure 1). When the refilling of Mohlin as discussed above occurs, the housing will necessarily continue to fill via the pump.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohlin in view of Arai and Enomoto as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Abe.
The teachings of Mohlin, Arai, Enomoto, and Abe as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Mohlin in view of Arai and Enomoto teaches the method of claim 32 but is silent on the mounting arrangements of the assembly.
Abe teaches an assembly, including a battery housing (30), orientated as claimed and mounted on a vehicle in front of the rear wheels and behind the front row seating area of the vehicle (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to mount the assembly of Mohlin in view of Arai and Enomoto using the known configuration of Abe and the results would have been predictable, i.e. providing the assembly in a vehicle. MPEP 2143 I B
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729