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 IDS’ filed 8/8/2023, 7/9/2024, 5/21/25, and 8/19/2025 have been considered by examiner.
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.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims 1-17 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 1 recites the limitation “a Zn-based plated steel sheet” in lines 4 and 7. It is unclear what is meant by “Zn-based” in terms of the composition of the plated steel sheet, since the filed specification does not disclose how much Zn would need to be included in the plated steel sheet to be considered “Zn-based”. Thus, this claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 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 2 recites the limitation "an interval between the water-cooling medium flow paths" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, only recites “a water-cooling medium flow path”, not multiple water-cooling medium flow paths, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an interval between the water-cooling medium flow paths" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends, only recites “a water-cooling medium flow path”, not multiple water-cooling medium flow paths, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "an interval between the water-cooling medium flow paths" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, only recites “a water-cooling medium flow path”, not multiple water-cooling medium flow paths, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation “wherein the bottom surface of the battery pack is made of a member obtained by processing the Zn-based plated steel sheet” in lines 1-3. It is unclear what structural limitations are imposed on the bottom surface of the battery pack by “processing the Zn-based plated steel sheet”, or what is meant by “processing”, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For compact prosecution purposes, examiner will interpret this limitation to mean that the bottom surface of the battery pack is directly coupled to the Zn-based plated steel sheet.
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation “wherein the inorganic film or the resin film has conductivity” in line 2. However, all materials have some level of conductivity, whether they are considered insulating or conductive. It is unclear what level of conductivity is required for the inorganic film or the resin film, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0074562, hereinafter "Kim") in view of Kobayakawa et al. (JP 2020107443, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Kobayakawa").
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches analogous art of a battery pack (“battery unit”) comprising a battery module (“battery pack”) including a plurality of battery cells, and a heatsink in which a cooling medium flows (“water-cooling medium flow path”) [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Kim teaches that the heatsink is formed outside a bottom surface of the battery module [0015, Kim Fig. 5]. Kim does not specifically teach that the heatsink is made of a Zn-based plated steel sheet with an inorganic film or resin film formed on a surface of the Zn-based plated steel sheet.
Kobayakawa teaches analogous art of a battery pack comprising a plurality of single cells and a cooler comprising coolant for cooling the battery pack [0007, Kobayakawa Fig. 2]. Kobayakawa teaches that the metal components of the battery pack may have a main body made of a base material, a metal layer on the surface of the base material, and an electrically insulating coating layer covering the main body [0039]. Kobayakawa teaches that the main body comprises steel, and that the metal layer is a zinc-plated layer (“Zn-based plated steel sheet”) [0040]. Kobayakawa further teaches that the electrically insulating coating layer (“inorganic film”) is composed of silica (“Si-based component”) [0041]. Kobayakawa does not specifically teach that the electrically insulating coating film is formed as a chemical conversion coating film. However, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation, and "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [see MPEP 2113(I)]. The electrically insulating coating film comprising silica taught by Kobayakawa has the same structure of the claimed inorganic film containing a Si-based component, therefore all the claimed structural limitations are met.
Kobayakawa teaches that if leaked coolant comes into contact with metal components of the battery pack, metal ions from the metal components will leach into coolant, increasing the conductivity of the leaked coolant and the possibility of a liquid junction if the coolant comes into contact with a live component [0005]. Kobayakawa teaches that when the metal components comprise an electrically insulating coating layer, the leaching of metal ions from the metal layer can be suppressed [0044]. Kim also discloses that the heatsink may be made out of a metal material [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by Kim to have the heatsink be made out of a Zn-plated steel sheet comprising an electrically insulating coating layer containing silica on a surface of the Zn-plated steel sheet as taught by Kobayakawa, in order to prevent the metal material of the heatsink from leaching into leaked coolant and preventing a liquid junction at a live component.
Further regarding claim 3, Kim teaches that the heatsink may comprise an opening covered by the bottom surface of the battery module so that the cooling medium may directly absorb heat from the battery module [0061, Kim Fig. 4]. Kim further teaches that a top surface of the heatsink surrounding the opening may be directly coupled to the bottom surface of the battery module [0063, Kim Fig. 4].
Further regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Kobayakawa teaches the electrically insulating coating film on the surface of the Zn-plated steel sheet.
Kobayakawa teaches that the electrically insulating coating layer (“inorganic film”) is composed of silica (“Si-based component”) [0041]. While Kobayakawa teach the silica as being part of an electrically insulating coating film, all materials have a conductivity, and an insulating material simply has a low conductivity.
Kobayakawa teaches that if leaked coolant comes into contact with metal components of the battery pack, metal ions from the metal components will leach into coolant, increasing the conductivity of the leaked coolant and the possibility of a liquid junction if the coolant comes into contact with a live component [0005]. Kobayakawa teaches that when the metal components comprise an electrically insulating coating layer, the leaching of metal ions from the metal layer can be suppressed [0044]. Kim also discloses that the heatsink may be made out of a metal material [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to have the heatsink be made out of a Zn-plated steel sheet comprising an electrically insulating coating layer containing silica on a surface of the Zn-plated steel sheet as taught by Kobayakawa, in order to prevent the metal material of the heatsink from leaching into leaked coolant and preventing a liquid junction at a live component.
Further regarding claim 10, Kim as modified by Kobayakawa teaches the electrically insulating coating film on the surface of the Zn-plated steel sheet.
Kobayakawa teaches that the electrically insulating coating layer (“inorganic film”) is composed of silica (“Si-based component”) [0041]. Silica is an oxide of silicon, therefore containing Si-O bonds.
Kobayakawa teaches that if leaked coolant comes into contact with metal components of the battery pack, metal ions from the metal components will leach into coolant, increasing the conductivity of the leaked coolant and the possibility of a liquid junction if the coolant comes into contact with a live component [0005]. Kobayakawa teaches that when the metal components comprise an electrically insulating coating layer, the leaching of metal ions from the metal layer can be suppressed [0044]. Kim also discloses that the heatsink may be made out of a metal material [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to have the heatsink be made out of a Zn-plated steel sheet comprising an electrically insulating coating layer containing silica on a surface of the Zn-plated steel sheet as taught by Kobayakawa, in order to prevent the metal material of the heatsink from leaching into leaked coolant and preventing a liquid junction at a live component.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0074562) and Kobayakawa (JP 2020107443) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0140366, hereinafter "Nicholls").
Regarding claims 2 and 5, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1. Kim is silent regarding an interval between water-cooling medium flow paths.
Nicholls teaches analogous art of a system for controlling the temperature of a rechargeable electric battery pack for a vehicle [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Nicholls teaches that the system may comprise a heat exchanger plate configured to allow heat transfer fluid to flow internally [Abstract]. Nicholls further discloses that the heat exchanger plates may comprise one or more physical formations (“water-cooling medium flow path”) for providing an internal guide for urging heat transfer fluid to follow a preferred pathway [0013], and that the physical formations may be spaced apart by between 15 mm and 20 mm, which is within ranges recited in claim 2 (40 mm or less) and claim 5 (10 mm or more and 40 mm or less) [0017].
Both the heat exchanger of Nicholls and the heatsink of Kim comprise a fluid meant to regulate the temperature of a battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the heatsink taught by modified Kim to with the physical formations with an interval within the range taught by Nicholls, yielding the predictable result of a heatsink able to regulate the temperature of the battery pack [see MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0074562) and Kobayakawa (JP 2020107443) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meintschel et al. (DE 102008059955, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Meintschel").
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1. Kim is silent regarding the water-cooling medium flow path being joined to a flow path upper lid made of the Zn-based plated steel sheet.
Meintschel teaches analogous art of a cooling plate with an integrated cooling channel (“water cooling medium flow path”) for a battery [0005; entire disclosure relied upon]. Meintschel teaches that the cooling channel is made in the form of rows of coils in the lower part of the cooling plate [0010], and that the cooling channel is closed by placing a cover plate (“flow path upper lid”), joined to the lower part by means of welding [0012]. Meintschel further discloses that the undersides (“bottom surface”) of the battery cells of the battery are held by the cooling plate [0017]. Fig. 6 of Meintschel shows that the bottom surface of the battery cells are disposed on the cover plate.
Both the heat exchanger of Meintschel and the heatsink of Kim comprise a fluid meant to regulate the temperature of a battery pack, disposed on the bottom surface of a battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the heatsink taught by modified Kim to with cover plate taught by Meintschel, yielding the predictable result of a heatsink able to regulate the temperature of the battery pack [see MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
As described in the rejection of claim 1, Kobayakawa teaches that the metal components of the battery pack may have a main body made of a base material, a metal layer on the surface of the base material, and an electrically insulating coating layer covering the main body [0039]. Kobayakawa teaches that the main body comprises steel, and that the metal layer is a zinc-plated layer (“Zn-based plated steel sheet”) [0040]. Kobayakawa further teaches that the electrically insulating coating layer (“inorganic film”) is composed of silica (“Si-based component”) [0041].
Kobayakawa teaches that if leaked coolant comes into contact with metal components of the battery pack, metal ions from the metal components will leach into coolant, increasing the conductivity of the leaked coolant and the possibility of a liquid junction if the coolant comes into contact with a live component [0005]. Kobayakawa teaches that when the metal components comprise an electrically insulating coating layer, the leaching of metal ions from the metal layer can be suppressed [0044]. Kim also discloses that the heatsink may be made out of a metal material [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to have the heatsink and cover plate be made out of a Zn-plated steel sheet comprising an electrically insulating coating layer containing silica on a surface of the Zn-plated steel sheet as taught by Kobayakawa, in order to prevent the metal material of the heatsink from leaching into leaked coolant and preventing a liquid junction at a live component.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0074562) and Kobayakawa (JP 2020107443) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nicholls (US 2015/0140366) and Meintschel (DE 102008059955).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1. Kim further teaches a sealing gasket (“sealant”) capable of adhering to the battery module and the heatsink at a location between the bottom surface of the battery module and the top surface of the heat sink [0017, Kim Fig. 8]. Kim is silent regarding an interval between water-cooling medium flow paths and further joining the bottom surface of the battery pack and the top surface of the heat sink with spot welding or mechanical joining.
Nicholls teaches analogous art of a system for controlling the temperature of a rechargeable electric battery pack for a vehicle [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Nicholls teaches that the system may comprise a heat exchanger plate configured to allow heat transfer fluid to flow internally [Abstract]. Nicholls further discloses that the heat exchanger plates may comprise one or more physical formations (“water-cooling medium flow path”) for providing an internal guide for urging heat transfer fluid to follow a preferred pathway [0013], and that the physical formations may be spaced apart by between 15 mm and 20 mm, which is within ranges recited in claim 2 (40 mm or less) and claim 5 (10 mm or more and 40 mm or less) [0017].
Both the heat exchanger of Nicholls and the heatsink of Kim comprise a fluid meant to regulate the temperature of a battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the heatsink taught by modified Kim to with the physical formations with an interval within the range taught by Nicholls, yielding the predictable result of a heatsink able to regulate the temperature of the battery pack [see MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
Meintschel teaches analogous art of a cooling plate with an integrated cooling channel (“water cooling medium flow path”) for a battery [0005; entire disclosure relied upon]. Meintschel teaches that the cooling channel is made in the form of rows of coils in the lower part of the cooling plate [0010], and that the cooling channel is closed by placing a cover plate joined to the lower part by means of spot welding [0012]. Fig. 6 of Meintschel shows that the bottom surface of the battery cells are disposed on the cover plate, making the cover plate a bottom surface of the battery.
Meintschel teaches that spot welding is preferred to other types of welding to join lower part and the cover plate because if the cooling plate becomes deformed, it can be easily straightened after spot welding [0015]. Meintschel also teaches that spot welding is sufficient to increase the connection between the lower part/base and cover plate [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heatsink taught by modified Kim to include a joint structure in the form of spot welding as taught by Meintschel in addition to the sealing gasket, in order to be able to easily straighten the heat sink even after spot welding, and to increase the connection between the bottom surface of the battery module and the heatsink.
Claims 7, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0074562) and Kobayakawa (JP 2020107443) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morishita et al. (US 2014/0050939, hereinafter "Morishita").
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1. Modified Kim is silent regarding the inorganic film containing at least one or more of a V component, a P component, and a Co component.
Morishita teaches a surface-treated metal material with a composite film on the surface of the metal material, the composite film including an organic silicon compound having cyclic siloxane bonds [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Morishita further teaches that the metal surface treatment may include a vanadium compound [0051], which has an effect on the improvement of corrosion resistance (“rust preventive component”) [0052]. Morishita also teaches that the metal surface treatment may comprise phosphoric acid, which can improve corrosion resistance [0044]. Morishita discloses that the metal material upon which the composite film is formed may be a zinc-plated steel sheet [0026].
Morishita is considered analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor [see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)]. In the instant specification, the inventors face the problem of a water-cooling medium flow path requiring high corrosion resistance with regards to the coolant flowing inside the water-cooling medium flow path. [0006 of the filed specification]. The inventors also face the problem of needing the water-cooling medium flow path to have the same corrosion resistance as the chassis of an automobile when the water-cooling medium flow path is provided outside the battery pack, on an automobile [0006 of the filed specification]. Morishita teaches that the metal material subjected to the metal surface treatment has excellent corrosion resistance [0001].
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the battery pack may be used in a vehicle [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to include the Zn-plated steel sheet comprising a composite film on its surface including a vanadium compound or phosphoric acid as taught by Morishita, in order to provide the increased corrosion resistance necessary for vehicle applications of the battery pack.
Further regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 7, as described in the rejection of claim 7.
Morishita further teaches that the metal surface treatment may include a vanadium compound such as vanadium pentoxide, vanadium trioxide, or vanadium dioxide [0051], which has an effect on the improvement of corrosion resistance (“rust preventive component”) [0052]. Morishita also teaches that the metal surface treatment may comprise phosphoric acid, which can improve corrosion resistance [0044]. Morishita discloses that the metal material upon which the composite film is formed may be a zinc-plated steel sheet [0026].
Morishita is considered analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor [see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)]. In the instant specification, the inventors face the problem of a water-cooling medium flow path requiring high corrosion resistance with regards to the coolant flowing inside the water-cooling medium flow path. [0006 of the filed specification]. The inventors also face the problem of needing the water-cooling medium flow path to have the same corrosion resistance as the chassis of an automobile when the water-cooling medium flow path is provided outside the battery pack, on an automobile [0006 of the filed specification]. Morishita teaches that the metal material subjected to the metal surface treatment has excellent corrosion resistance [0001].
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the battery pack may be used in a vehicle [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to include the Zn-plated steel sheet comprising a composite film on its surface including a vanadium oxide or phosphoric acid as taught by Morishita, in order to provide the increased corrosion resistance necessary for vehicle applications of the battery pack.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1. Modified Kim is silent regarding the Zn-based plated steel sheet being a Zn-Al-Mg plated steel sheet.
Morishita teaches a surface-treated metal material with a composite film on the surface of the metal material, the composite film including an organic silicon compound having cyclic siloxane bonds [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Morishita further teaches that the metal surface treatment includes an organic silicon compound as an essential component [0033]. Morishita discloses that the metal material upon which the composite film is formed may be a zinc-aluminum-magnesium plated steel sheet [0032].
Morishita is considered analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor [see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)]. In the instant specification, the inventors face the problem of a water-cooling medium flow path requiring high corrosion resistance with regards to the coolant flowing inside the water-cooling medium flow path. [0006 of the filed specification]. The inventors also face the problem of needing the water-cooling medium flow path to have the same corrosion resistance as the chassis of an automobile when the water-cooling medium flow path is provided outside the battery pack, on an automobile [0006 of the filed specification]. Morishita teaches that the metal material subjected to the metal surface treatment has excellent corrosion resistance [0001].
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the battery pack may be used in a vehicle [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to include the Zn-Al-Mg plated steel sheet comprising a composite film including organic silicon as a main component as taught by Morishita, in order to provide the increased corrosion resistance necessary for vehicle applications of the battery pack.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0074562) and Kobayakawa (JP 2020107443) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takimoto et al. (EP 0307996, hereinafter "Takimoto").
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1. Modified Kim is silent regarding a thickness of the inorganic film.
Takimoto teaches a corrosion preventive coating composition for a steel sheet applied as a thin layer [pg. 2, lines 3-5]. Takimoto teaches that the corrosion preventive coating composition comprises up to 50 weight % of silica [pg. 3, line 1]. Takimoto teaches that the thickness of the coating is 0.3 µm to 3 µm which overlaps the recited range [pg. 6, line 24]. Takimoto teaches that when the thickness is too small, the corrosion resistance of the coating may be lowered, but if the thickness is too large, it is difficult to spot-weld [pg. 6, lines 26-28].
Takimoto is considered analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor [see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)]. In the instant specification, the inventors face the problem of a water-cooling medium flow path requiring high corrosion resistance with regards to the coolant flowing inside the water-cooling medium flow path. [0006 of the filed specification]. The inventors also face the problem of needing the water-cooling medium flow path to have the same corrosion resistance as the chassis of an automobile when the water-cooling medium flow path is provided outside the battery pack, on an automobile [0006 of the filed specification]. Takimoto teaches that the corrosion preventive coating composition for a steel sheet has far improved corrosion resistance [pg. 2, lines 36-37]. Takimoto further discloses that the corrosion preventive coated steel sheet is used for making automobile body portions and other articles which are required to be of high anti-corrosive nature [pg. 2, lines 26-27].
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the battery pack may be used in a vehicle [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to include the corrosion preventive coating composition within the thickness range disclosed by Takimoto, in order to provide the increased corrosion resistance necessary for vehicle applications of the battery pack, and to prevent making the steel sheet difficult to spot weld.
Claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0074562) and Kobayakawa (JP 2020107443) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuasa et al. (US 2005/0244660, hereinafter "Yuasa").
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1. Modified Kim is silent regarding the resin film containing a resin, rust preventive pigment, and a conductive pigment.
Yuasa teaches a weldable coated metal material comprising a metal sheet having formed on at least one surface thereof a coat layer containing electrically conducting particles (“conductive pigment”) [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Yuasa further teaches that the coat layer may comprise a thermoplastic resin [0035], and a rust-preventive pigment [0036].
Yuasa is considered analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor [see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)]. In the instant specification, the inventors face the problem of a water-cooling medium flow path requiring high corrosion resistance with regards to the coolant flowing inside the water-cooling medium flow path. [0006 of the filed specification]. The inventors also face the problem of needing the water-cooling medium flow path to have the same corrosion resistance as the chassis of an automobile when the water-cooling medium flow path is provided outside the battery pack, on an automobile [0006 of the filed specification]. Yuasa teaches that the coat layer for a coated metal material has excellent corrosion resistance [0020]. Yuasa further discloses that the coated metal material may be used for automobiles [0001].
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the battery pack may be used in a vehicle [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to include the coat layer comprising electrically conducting particles, thermoplastic resin, and a rust-preventive pigment as taught by Yuasa, in order to provide the increased corrosion resistance necessary for vehicle applications of the battery pack.
Further regarding claim 13, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 12, as described in the rejection of claim 12.
Yuasa teaches that the electrically conducting particles may be ferrosilicon particles (“intermetallic compound”). While Yuasa does not specifically teach the powder resistivity of ferrosilicon, it is the same material disclosed in the instant specification for the conductive particles [0077]. Furthermore, Table 3 of the instant specification discloses that the powder resistivity of ferrosilicon, or Fe-Si, is ≤185 × 10-6. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present [see MPEP 2112.01(II)]. Therefore, since the electrically conducting ferrosilicon particles taught by Yuasa are the same as those disclosed in the instant application, they must have the same powder resistivity.
Yuasa teaches that the coat layer for a coated metal material has excellent corrosion resistance [0020]. Yuasa also teaches that ferrosilicon provides an effect of enhancing corrosion resistance due to an increase in surface area [0069]. Yuasa further discloses that the coated metal material may be used for automobiles [0001].
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the battery pack may be used in a vehicle [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to include the coat layer comprising electrically conducting particles, thermoplastic resin, and a rust-preventive pigment as taught by Yuasa, in order to provide the increased corrosion resistance necessary for vehicle applications of the battery pack.
Further regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 12, as described in the rejection of claim 12.
Yuasa teaches that the total content of electrically conducting particles in the coat layer is from 15 to 60 vol % [0072]. Yuasa further teaches that if the content is too low, insufficient electric conductivity results, whereas if it is too high, formability decreases [0072], meaning that the content of the electrically conducting particles is a result effective variable. The mass, or content, of the particles directly relates to the volume of the particles. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum range of the mass % of the electrically conducting particles in the coat layer, in order to avoid having insufficient electric conductivity or decreased formability.
Yuasa teaches that the coat layer for a coated metal material has excellent corrosion resistance [0020]. Yuasa further discloses that the coated metal material may be used for automobiles [0001].
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the battery pack may be used in a vehicle [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to discover an optimum range of the mass % of the electronically conducting particles in the coat layer through routine experimentation, in order to provide the increased corrosion resistance necessary for vehicle applications of the battery pack.
Further regarding claim 15, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 12, as described in the rejection of claim 12.
Yuasa teaches that the thickness of the coat layer is 2 to 20 µm, which overlaps the recited range [0023]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Yuasa teaches that when the thickness is within this range, the electric conductivity, corrosion resistance, and formability are enhanced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to make the thickness of the coat layer be within the range taught by Yuasa, in order to provide the enhanced electric conductivity, corrosion resistance, and formability.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1. Modified Kim is silent regarding the Zn-based plated steel sheet being a Zn-Al plated steel sheet.
Yuasa teaches a weldable coated metal material comprising a metal sheet having formed on at least one surface thereof a coat layer (“resin film”) containing electrically conducting particles (“conductive pigment”) [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Yuasa further teaches that the coat layer may comprise a thermoplastic resin [0035], and a rust-preventive pigment [0036]. Yuasa teaches that the metal sheet may be a zinc-aluminum alloy-plated steel sheet [0150].
Yuasa is considered analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor [see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)]. In the instant specification, the inventors face the problem of a water-cooling medium flow path requiring high corrosion resistance with regards to the coolant flowing inside the water-cooling medium flow path. [0006 of the filed specification]. The inventors also face the problem of needing the water-cooling medium flow path to have the same corrosion resistance as the chassis of an automobile when the water-cooling medium flow path is provided outside the battery pack, on an automobile [0006 of the filed specification]. Yuasa teaches that the coat layer for a coated metal material has excellent corrosion resistance [0020]. Yuasa further discloses that the coated metal material may be used for automobiles [0001], and that a zinc-based alloy-plated steel sheet such as a zinc-aluminum alloy-plated steel sheet is suitably used for automobiles [0150].
Furthermore, Kim teaches that the battery pack may be used in a vehicle [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack taught by modified Kim to include the coat layer comprising electrically conducting particles, thermoplastic resin, and a rust-preventive pigment as taught by Yuasa, in order to provide the increased corrosion resistance necessary for vehicle applications of the battery pack.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights