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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuboki (US 2019/0181515).
Regarding claim 1, Kuboki discloses A battery pack comprising:
a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 4 which illustrates a plurality of battery cells 11);
a cooling member (heat dissipation member 40) configured to cool the battery cell stack (member 40 which participates in removing heat from the battery cells, see paragraph 28);
a deformation member (cooling member 20) configured to discharge heat from the plurality of battery cells to the cooling member (see paragraph 28 which discloses that heat is transferred from the cells 11 to the members 20 and then to the heat dissipation/cooling member 40); and
a housing configured to receive the battery cell stack, the cooling member, and the deformation member therein (see paragraph 7 which teaches that the battery and the associated cooling configuration is contained in a “case” which reads on the claimed “housing”),
wherein the deformation member comprises a first deformation member interposed between the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 5 which illustrates cooling/deformation member 20 in between the cells 11), and
wherein the deformation member comprises a coolant therein (see paragraph 7 which discloses that a coolant is inside cooling member/deformation member).
Regarding claim 2, Kuboki further discloses the deformation member further comprises a second deformation member (such as bulge 28) disposed between the battery cell stack and the cooling member (see Fig. 5 which illustrates bulge 28 in between cell 11 and cooling member 40).
Regarding claim 3, Kuboki further discloses the deformation member is in a vacuum state in which a remaining part of the deformation member excluding the coolant included therein is an empty space (such a feature is present as the deformation member 20 is sealed where any voids not filled with coolant will be empty, see paragraph 34 which details the sealed nature of the deformation/cooling member 20).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Kuboki further discloses the coolant undergoes phase transition and is evaporated by heat from the battery cell and condensed by the cooling member (see paragraph 34 which discloses the coolant transitioning between a gaseous and liquid state within the cooling/deformation member), and heat transfer from the plurality of battery cells to the cooling member occurs through the phase transition of the coolant (such is the case due the latent heat of vaporization when phase transition occurs). It is also noted that Applicant’s claim is directed to a method of operating the claimed apparatus. Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. In this case, Kuboki is structurally capable of achieving these claimed method steps.
Regarding claim 5, regarding limitations recited in claim 5 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system (such as the boiling of the coolant and the expanding deformation/cooling member along with the associated decrease in heat transfer to the cooling member), neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. In this case, Kuboki teaches a structure that is capable of these process steps as evaporation of the coolant will decrease the heat transfer rate to the cooling member 40 due the presence of a gaseous state which transmits heat less efficiently that the liquid.
Regarding claim 6, Kuboki further discloses the deformation member (cooling member 20) comprises a case (sealing body 25), and the case is made of a shape-memory alloy (see paragraph 37 which discloses a number of possible alloys along with shape memory resins that are combined to produce the sealing body/case 25).
Regarding claim 8, Kuboki further discloses the case comprises a first surface (26A) and a second surface (26B) each configured to face the battery cell or the cooling member (see Fig. 5 which illustrates each surface 26A, 26B facing the cell 11), each of the first surface and the second surface is flat at a temperature lower than a deformation temperature of the shape memory alloy (each surface is flat, as depicted in Fig. 5), and each of the first surface and the second surface is deformed into a curved shape at a temperature higher than the deformation temperature (claimed this way, the structure of the first and second surface of the deformation member will bend/curve at some temperature due to increasing pressure, similar to that of a balloon).
Regarding claim 9, Kuboki further discloses heat transfer from the plurality of battery cells to the cooling member is blocked when an entirety of the coolant in the deformation member is evaporated into a gaseous state (as a result of gas phase being a worse conductor of heat than the liquid phase of the cooling medium) as a result of each of the first surface and the second surface being deformed into the curved shape (such is the case if/when the surfaces of Kuboki expand as a result of increased pressure as a result of the increased temperature).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kuboki further discloses a thermal insulation member (22) is disposed between the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 5) and is an elastic material (the synthetic fiber sheet formed from a synthetic resin, as described in paragraph 35, will have at least some give/elasticity).
Regarding claim 12, Kuboki further discloses the deformation member is configured to have a flat shape (the shape is flat as illustrated in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Kuboki further discloses the coolant is selected from a group consisting of ethanol, methanol, and water (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 14, Kuboki further discloses a device (such as a vehicle, see paragraph 26) comprising the battery pack according to claim 1 as an energy source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725