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
Currently, the pending Claims are 10-13, 15-16, 20-25, 27.
The examined Claims are 10-13, 15-16, 20-25, 27, with Claims 10, 13, 15-16, 20, 25, 27 being amended.
Response to Arguments
In view of the aforementioned amendments to the Claims, the previous rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has mainly amended independent Claim 10 to require that “the intermediate cooling elements are designed as thermally conductive ribs that are connected to the heat sink in a form-fitted connection and that are designed to partially enclose cell housing sidewalls by protruding upward from a surface of the heat sink to less than halfway along the cell housing sidewalls in order to absorb the waste heat and to absorb forces acting on the electrical energy store.”
Applicant argues that the prior art references of record (i.e. Omura and Hinterberger), alone or in combination, neither teach nor suggest at least the amended limitations of Claim 10 (Pages 6-7 of Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims. It is noted, however, that all previous prior art rejections are withdrawn.
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 10-13, 15-16, 20-25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omura et al. (WO 2020/026973, using the equivalent US 2021/0296721 for citation purposes), and further in view of Hinterberger et al. (DE 102013015208, using the provided translation for citation purposes) and Bitsche et al. (US 2009/0220850).
Regarding Claim 10, Omura a battery module (“electrical energy store”) (Abstract, [0192]). As illustrated in Figure 26, Omura teaches that the battery module (4001) comprises a cooling device comprising a cooling plate (4006) (“heat sink”) arranged on the underside (“one side”) of a battery group (“cell array”) formed from batteries (4012) (“energy storage cells”) of the module, and configured to cool the batteries ([0192]-[0197]). As illustrated in Figures 26-28, Omura teaches that the cooling plate comprises gas flow parts (4032) (“openings”) in an aligned arrangement with valves (4026) (“venting elements”) of the batteries so as to form a venting channel for gas (“gas”) released from the batteries which escapes via the valves ([0196], [0206], [0214]).
Omura does not explicitly teach that to compensate for a loss of cooling surface area resulting from the gas flow parts, intermediate cooling elements are arranged in free spaces of the battery group between the batteries, wherein the intermediate cooling elements are arranged on the cooling plate and designed to discharge waste heat from the batteries to the cooling plate.
However, Hinterberger teaches a battery arrangement ([0001]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Hinterberger illustrates a known battery arrangement comprising a plurality of battery cells (12), wherein the arrangement has the disadvantage that the battery cells are only cooled from below via a cooling plate on which the battery cells are positioned ([0029]-[0030]). However, and as illustrated in Figure 2, Hinterberger teaches that the inventive battery arrangement comprises a plurality of battery cells (12) which are not only cooled from below via a cooling plate on which the battery cells are positioned, but are also cooled via temperature control plates (22) arranged in free spaces between the battery cells, wherein the temperature control plates are arranged on the cooling plate so as to extend vertically upward into said free spaces between the battery cells ([0031]-[0033]). As illustrated in Figure 2, the temperature control plates are formed as ribs connected to the cooling plate which enclose sidewalls of the battery cells by protruding upward from a surface of the cooling plate. Hinterberger teaches that the temperature control plates are corrosion resistant and thermally conductive such that temperature stability and thermal shock resistance characteristics of the battery arrangement are enhanced ([0032]-[0032]).
Therefore, and to at least compensate for a loss of cooling surface area resulting from the gas flow parts of Omura, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrange thermally conductive temperature control plates (“intermediate cooling elements” which are “designed to discharge waste heat from the energy storage cells to the heat sink” and which are “designed as thermally conductive ribs that are connected to the heat sink”), as taught by Hinterberger, on the surface of the cooling plate of Omura that protrude from the cooling plate upward into free spaces between the batteries so as to enclose side walls of the batteries to thereby absorb waste heat and to absorb ”forces” acting on the battery module (e.g. physical forces in the stacking direction orthogonal to the extension direction of the temperature control plates, thermal forces acting on the battery module, etc.), given that such temperature control plates would allow for the batteries to be able to be cooled from the sides and from below, thereby enhancing temperature stability and thermal shock resistance of the battery module.
Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, does not explicitly teach that the thermally conductive temperature control plates are connected to the cooling plate in a form-fitted connection while extending upward less than halfway along the side walls of the batteries to partially enclose the batteries.
However, Bitsche teaches liquid-cooled batteries in the form of an energy store for an electrical drive in a motor vehicle (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 3-5 (and the annotated Figure 5 below), Bitsche teaches that the energy store comprises a cooler (3) through which a cooling medium flows, wherein the cooler comprises sidewalls connected to the cooler in a form-fitted connection while extending upward from the cooler less than halfway along the side walls of batteries (2) of the energy store ([0025]-[0027]). Bitsche teaches that the configuration of the cooler helps reduce overall size characteristics, simplifies the geometry of the cooler, improves compactness, and helps reduce manufacturing cost ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, connect the thermally conductive temperature control plates in a form-fitted connection while extending upward less than halfway along the side walls of the batteries to partially enclose the batteries, as taught by Bitsche, given that such a configuration would help reduce overall size characteristics, simplify the geometry of the cooling device, improve compactness, and help reduce manufacturing cost.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 29, the cooling plate comprises flow paths (4006c) through which a coolant can flow ([0206]).
Regarding Claim 12, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 29, the cooling plate is double-walled, and functions as a lower part of a “storage enclosure” of the battery module (the “storage enclosure” comprising, collectively, the cooling plate, end plates (4016), bind bars (4018), and separators (4014)) ([0192], [0206]).
Regarding Claim 13, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 29, the cooling plate comprises thin-walled parts (4040) (“closure elements”) which cover the openings in the cooling plate when there is no gas present, wherein the thin-walled parts are designed to tear open (“designed to fail to act”) when the gas is present in order to open a respective venting channel ([0226]-[0227]).
Regarding Claim 15, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 29, the cooling plate comprises thin-walled parts (4040) (“closure elements”) which cover the openings in the cooling plate when there is no gas present, wherein the thin-walled parts are designed to tear open (“designed to fail to act”) when the gas is present in order to open a respective venting channel ([0226]-[0227]).
Regarding Claim 16, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 29, the cooling plate comprises thin-walled parts (4040) (“closure elements”) which cover the openings in the cooling plate when there is no gas present, wherein the thin-walled parts are designed to tear open (“designed to fail to act”) when the gas is present in order to open a respective venting channel ([0226]-[0227]).
Regarding Claim 20, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the battery module comprises the battery group comprising the batteries and the cooling device, wherein the cooling plate is arranged on an underside of the battery group, wherein the underside has the valves, wherein the thermally conductive temperature control plates are arranged in free spaces between the batteries and extend partially along the cell housing side walls of the batteries.
Regarding Claim 21, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the valves are formed on an underside formed by cell housing bases of the batteries, wherein the cooling plate is arranged on said underside.
Regarding Claim 22, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche , teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, does not explicitly teach that the batteries are designed as round cells.
However, Bitsche teaches liquid-cooled batteries in the form of an energy store for an electrical drive in a motor vehicle (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Bitsche teaches that the batteries (2) are designed as round batteries and are positioned on a cooler (3) which cools the batteries ([0022]-[0023]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Bitsche teaches that the round batteries are able to be packed very densely with respect to one another, thereby increasing compactness and rendering them highly suitable for use in motor vehicles especially given the large quantities of batteries involved in motor vehicles ([0022], [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would design the batteries of Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, as round batteries (“round cells”), as taught by Bitsche, given that round batteries are able to be packed very densely with respect to one another, thereby increasing compactness and rendering them highly suitable for use in motor vehicles especially given the large quantities of batteries involved in motor vehicles.
Regarding Claim 23 Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 29, the cooling plate comprises flow paths (4006c) through which a coolant can flow ([0206]).
Regarding Claim 24, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 29, the cooling plate is double-walled, and functions as a lower part of a “storage enclosure” of the battery module (the “storage enclosure” comprising, collectively, the cooling plate, end plates (4016), bind bars (4018), and separators (4014)) ([0192], [0206]).
Regarding Claim 25, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 29, the cooling plate comprises thin-walled parts (4040) (“closure elements”) which cover the openings in the cooling plate when there is no gas present, wherein the thin-walled parts are designed to tear open (“designed to fail to act”) when the gas is present in order to open a respective venting channel ([0226]-[0227]).
Regarding Claim 27, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, does not explicitly teach that the battery module is included in a motor vehicle.
However, Bitsche teaches liquid-cooled batteries in the form of an energy store for an electrical drive in a motor vehicle (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Bitsche teaches that the batteries (2) are designed as round batteries and are positioned on a cooler (3) which cools the batteries ([0022]-[0023]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Bitsche teaches that the round batteries are able to be packed very densely with respect to one another, thereby increasing compactness and rendering them highly suitable for use in motor vehicles especially given the large quantities of batteries involved in motor vehicles ([0022], [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would design the batteries of Omura, as modified by Hinterberger and Bitsche, as round batteries and further include the battery module in a motor vehicle (“motor vehicle”), as taught by Bitsche, given that round batteries are able to be packed very densely with respect to one another, thereby increasing compactness and rendering them highly suitable for use in motor vehicles especially given the large quantities of batteries involved in motor vehicles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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 5712707871. 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 W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights