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.
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.
The term “pouch-type” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pouch-type” 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.
Also, the term “pouch-type” is indefinite in that it is unclear if this refers to a pouch or a battery cell in the shape of a pouch.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tasiopoulos et al (US 2019/0229384 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tasiopoulos discloses a battery module (battery module assembly; Fig. 1 #10; paragraph [0016]), comprising:
a battery cell assembly including a plurality of battery cells (paragraph [0016]);
a module housing having an internal space in which the at least one battery cell assembly is received (housing; paragraph [0016]); and
a cooler disposed on a side of the battery cell assembly (cooling system coupled to the battery cells; Fig. 1 #14; paragraph [0016]),
wherein the cooler includes a first cooling plate (second cooling plate; Fig. 1 #21; paragraph [0020]) and a second cooling plate (first cooling plate; Fig. 1 #20; paragraph [0019]) spaced apart from the first cooling plate to form a coolant channel (cooling plates define a chamber; Fig. 1 #22; paragraph [0018]), the second cooling plate being positioned closer to the battery cell assembly than the first cooling plate (first cooling plate; Fig. 1 #20; paragraph [0019]), and
wherein at least part of the second cooling plate has a patterned portion (apertures in first cooling plate; Fig. 2 #26; paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 1 as noted above and Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module comprising the module housing including a side cover and a bottom cover (battery cells contained within a housing; paragraph [0016]) and the cooler covering a top of the battery cell assembly (cooling system coupled to the battery cells; Fig. 1 #14; paragraph [0016]).
The terms “bottom and top are relative terms in regard to how the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos is viewed. When viewed from the bottom, the first and second cooling plates #20 and #21 are considered to cover the top of the battery cell assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 1 as noted above and Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module comprising the patterned portion is on at least one of two surfaces of the second cooling plate (apertures on both surfaces of first cooling plate #20; paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 1 as noted above and Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module comprising the first cooling plate includes at least one recess which is concave in a direction facing the second cooling plate (protuberances on first cooling plate; Fig. 3 #28; paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 6, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 5 as noted above and Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module comprising the recess contacts the second cooling plate (protuberances in contact with the first cooling plate; Fig. 4 #28; paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 5 as noted above and Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module comprising the recess is extended along a lengthwise direction or a widthwise direction of the battery module (protuberances extended along the length and the width of the battery cell assembly; Fig. 3 #28; paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 7 as noted above and Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module comprising the at least one recess including a plurality of the recesses (protuberances; Fig. 3 #28; paragraph [0020]), and wherein the plurality of the recesses is spaced apart from each other (protuberances are spaced apart from each other; Fig. 3 #28; paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 1 as noted above and Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module comprising the second cooling plate being made of aluminum (first cooling plate is made of aluminum; Fig. 1 #20; paragraph [0021]).
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasiopoulos et al (US 2019/0229384 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 1 as noted above.
Tasiopoulos does not disclose a battery pack comprising the battery module of claim 1 as noted above.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos to provide more electrical power to a device such as an electric vehicle.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced". Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would be obvious to duplicate the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos since the mere duplication of the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos would produce a known and unexpected result which would be more electrical power to a device such as an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Tasiopoulos discloses a vehicle (paragraph [0015]).
Tasiopoulos does not disclose a battery pack comprising the battery module of claim 1 as noted above.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos to provide more electrical power to a device such as an electric vehicle.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced". Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would be obvious to duplicate the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos since the mere duplication of the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos would produce a known and unexpected result which would be more electrical power to a device such as an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Tasiopoulos discloses an energy storage system (vehicle; paragraph [0015]).
Tasiopoulos does not disclose a battery pack comprising the battery module of claim 1 as noted above.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos to provide more electrical power to a device such as an electric vehicle.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced". Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would be obvious to duplicate the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos since the mere duplication of the battery cell assembly of Tasiopoulos would produce a known and unexpected result which would be more electrical power to a device such as an electric vehicle.
Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasiopoulos et al (US 2019/0229384 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2020/0152931 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 1 as noted above.
Tasiopoulos does not disclose the battery module comprising the patterned portion including at least one groove having a reduced thickness of the second cooling plate.
However, Kim discloses the battery module comprising the patterned portion including at least one groove having a reduced thickness of the second cooling plate (bottom plate #14 has grooves having a reduced thickness; Fig. 3 #14; paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module of Tasiopoulos to include the grooves of the bottom plate of Kim for the because doing so allows for heat generated from the cells to transfer to the cooling water (paragraph [0031] of Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Tasiopoulos discloses the battery module of claim 2 as noted above.
Tasiopoulos does not disclose the battery module comprising each of the plurality of battery cells having a pouch shape including a pair of electrode leads.
However, Kim discloses a battery module each of the plurality of battery cells having a pouch shape including a pair of electrode leads (plurality of cells each having a pouch shape and each having a cell tap on both sides of the cell; Figs. 1-2; paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module of Tasiopoulos to substitute the battery cells of Tasiopoulos for the battery cells of a pouch shape having cell taps on both sides of Kim because having battery cells of a pouch shape having cell taps on both sides provides a battery module with high energy density by securing an excellent heat dissipation ability (paragraphs [0006] and [0008] of Kim).
Regarding claim 10, Tasiopoulos and Kim discloses the battery module of claim 9 as noted above.
Tasiopoulos does not disclose the battery module comprising each of the plurality of battery cells positioned upright on the bottom cover with the pair of electrode leads extended along a direction facing the side cover.
However, Kim discloses battery module comprising each of the plurality of battery cells positioned upright on the bottom cover with the pair of electrode leads extended along a direction facing the side cover (plurality of cells each having a pouch shape and each having a cell tap on both sides of the cell and on the bottom plate; Figs. 1-2; paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module of Tasiopoulos to substitute the battery cells of Tasiopoulos for the battery cells of a pouch shape having cell taps on both sides of Kim because having battery cells of a pouch shape having cell taps on both sides provides a battery module with high energy density by securing an excellent heat dissipation ability (paragraphs [0006] and [0008] of Kim).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights