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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “hot” in Claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 10 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear, for example, what temperature(s) a gas must/can be in order for it to be deemed a “hot” gas (it is noted that the term “hot” is also found in Claims 13, 15-16, 25).
Claims 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the respective venting channel." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cell housing sidewalls." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15, 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the respective venting channel." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the respective venting channel." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the cell housing sidewalls." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the cell housing sidewalls." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the cell housing sidewalls." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the venting elements." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that the “venting elements” in Claim 10 are positively features of the energy storage cells of Claim 10 as opposed to the cooling device of Claim 10).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the respective venting channel." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the cell housing sidewalls." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites a motor vehicle with at least one “electrical energy store” according to Claim 15. However, Claim 15 is explicitly drawn to a cooling device as opposed to an electrical energy store (it is noted that independent Claim 10 states that the cooling device is “for” an electrical energy store, but the Claim is nonetheless drawn to a cooling device and not an electrical energy store).
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 10-21, 23-26 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).
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 (“hot 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]). 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 control temperature control plates (“intermediate cooling elements” which are “designed to discharge waste heat from the energy storage cells to the heat sink”), as taught by Hinterberger, on the surface of the cooling plate of Omura that protrude from the cooling plate into free spaces between the batteries so as to at least partially enclose side walls of the batteries, 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.
Regarding Claim 11, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, 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, 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, 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 14, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the thermally conductive temperature control plates (“thermally conductive ribs”) protrude from a surface of the cooling plate so as to at least partially 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.).
Regarding Claim 15, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, 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, 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 17, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the thermally conductive temperature control plates (“thermally conductive ribs”) protrude from a surface of the cooling plate so as to at least partially 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.).
Regarding Claim 18, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the thermally conductive temperature control plates (“thermally conductive ribs”) protrude from a surface of the cooling plate so as to at least partially 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.).
Regarding Claim 19, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the thermally conductive temperature control plates (“thermally conductive ribs”) protrude from a surface of the cooling plate so as to at least partially 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.).
Regarding Claim 20, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, 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 at least partially along the cell housing side walls of the batteries.
Regarding Claim 21, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, 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 23 Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, 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, 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, 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 26, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the thermally conductive temperature control plates (“thermally conductive ribs”) protrude from a surface of the cooling plate so as to at least partially 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.).
Claims 22, 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 22, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, 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, 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 27, Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
Omura, as modified by Hinterberger, 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, 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
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