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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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.
Claim 16, 20-21, 24, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US 2012/0183830 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 2018/0183065).
Regarding claim 16, Schaefer discloses a method of operating a rechargeable battery system (method, see Abstract), said method comprising implementing a heat spreader element in one or each of a plurality of battery cells and bringing the heat spreader element in thermal contact with one or a plurality of external cooling means (battery cells 2” comprises a heat-conductive plate 9 which is partially arranged within the packaging 5 [0050], Fig. 3-4; battery housing 3 filled with cooling liquid 4 [0036], cooling liquid lines 22 [0041], cooling device 12 [0042]), allowing the heat spreader element to receive internal heat of the one or each of the plurality of battery cells and transport the internal heat to the one or the plurality of external cooling means (a section of the heat-conductive plate 11 is arranged at the bottom of the packaging 5 and is completely enclosed by a cooling liquid 4 [0050] and, thus, the ‘heat spreader element’ (section of heat-conductive plate 11) is in thermal contact with the external cooling means (cooling liquid 4, cooling liquid lines 22, cooling device 12; battery housing 3 filled with cooling liquid 4 [0036], cooling liquid lines 22 [0041], cooling device 12 [0042]).
However, Schaefer does not disclose said heat spreader element comprises a material selected from pristine graphene, reduced graphene oxide, graphene fluoride, graphene chloride, graphene bromide, graphene iodide, hydrogenated graphene, nitrogenated graphene, chemically functionalized graphene, brass, Ti, Ni, Mg alloy sheet, silicon nitride, boron nitride, aluminum nitride, boron arsenide, a composite thereof, or a combination thereof.
Sasaki discloses a battery comprising a first heat-conducting layer including a first region containing a heat-conducting material with good thermal conductivity (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-26), wherein the heat-conducting material includes Ni, silicon nitride, boron nitride, aluminum nitride ([0078]).
Schaefer and Sasaki are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely batteries including a heat conducting layer with the anode, electrolyte and cathode stack.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use one of the heat conducting materials taught by Sasaki to form the heat conducting plate of Ni, silicon nitride, boron nitride or aluminum nitride because Sasaki teaches these materials are compatible to be used within the anode, electrolyte and cathode stack of the battery and have good thermal conductivity for evenly distributing heat across the surface as well as dissipate heat for improved performance.
Regarding claim 20, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schaefer further discloses the one or the plurality of external cooling means is selected from a heat sink, a heat pipe, a vapor chamber, a stream of flowing fluid, a thermoelectric device, a heat exchanger, a radiator, or a combination thereof (battery housing may be filled with vapor of the cooling liquid [0007] which suggests a vapor chamber; cooling liquid may freely flow [0008] which suggests a stream of flowing fluid; heat exchanger in form of a cooling liquid line 22 [0045]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the material properties recited in claim 21 (“said heat spreader element comprises a high thermal conductivity material having a thermal conductivity no less than 10 W/mK”), the published specification of the instant application discloses heat spreader materials include graphite sheet, Ag, Cu, Al, steel, among other materials, having a thermal conductivity no less than 10 W/mK in paragraphs [0036] and [0065]-[0066]. It is noted that once the material is disclosed to be Ni, silicon nitride, boron nitride, aluminum nitride (see Sasaki, Ni, silicon nitride, boron nitride, aluminum nitride [0078]), and, therefore is substantially the same as the heat spreader element of claim 21, it will, inherently, display recited properties (see MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 24, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schaefer further discloses the step of implementing the heat spreader element inside the one or each of the plurality of battery cells comprises placing the heat spreader element in physical or thermal contact with an anode or a cathode for removing heat therefrom (two conductors protrude through the packaging of the battery cell and may have thermal conductivity [0013], the conductor itself comprises a heat transfer element [0015]; Since heat transfer is possible between the conductors having thermal conductivity and the cooling device 12 (‘external cooling means’), the conductors are capable of receiving heat from the cooling device.).
Regarding claim 26, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schaefer further discloses the one or each of the plurality of battery cells has an anode terminal and a cathode terminal for operating the one or each of the plurality of battery cells and the heat spreader element is in thermal contact with the anode terminal or the cathode terminal and wherein said bringing the heat spreader element in thermal contact with one or a plurality of external cooling means comprises bringing the anode terminal or the cathode terminal in physical or thermal contact with the one or the plurality of external cooling means (a section of the heat-conductive plate 11 is arranged at the bottom of the packaging 5 and is completely enclosed by a cooling liquid 4 [0050] and, thus, the ‘heat spreader element’ (section of heat-conductive plate 11) is in thermal contact with the external cooling means (cooling liquid 4, cooling liquid lines 22, cooling device 12)).
Regarding claim 27, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schaefer further discloses the heat spreader element is in thermal contact with a protective housing or a cap of a protective housing and said bringing the heat spreader element in thermal contact with one or a plurality of external cooling means comprises bringing the one or a plurality of external cooling means to thermally or physically contact the protective housing or the cap, removing heat therefrom (a section of the heat-conductive plate 11 is arranged at the bottom of the packaging 5 [0050], Fig. 3-4, such that the section 11 is in thermal contact with the packaging 5).
Claim 17, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US 2012/0183830) in view of Sasaki (US 2018/0183065), as applied to claims 16, 20-21, 24, 26-27 above, and further in view of Fortenbacher (US 2018/0108956).
Regarding claim 17, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schaefer further discloses the heat spreader element has an end connected to an electrode terminal of the one or each of the plurality of battery cells or a tab protruded out of a protective housing of the one or each of the plurality of battery cells and wherein the method comprises (a) bringing the electrode terminal or the tab in thermal contact with the one or the plurality of external cooling means (a section of the heat-conductive plate 11 is arranged at the bottom of the packaging 5 and is completely enclosed by a cooling liquid 4 [0050] and, thus, the ‘heat spreader element’ (section of heat-conductive plate 11) is in thermal contact with the external cooling means (cooling liquid 4, cooling liquid lines 22, cooling device 12).
However, Schaefer does not disclose (b) operating the one or the plurality of external cooling means to keep the one or each of the plurality of battery cells at a temperature lower than a desired temperature when the one or each of the plurality of battery cells is discharged or when the one or each of the plurality of battery cells supplies power to an external device.
Fortenbacher discloses a heating element and a thermally conducting material included in a battery, wherein the heating element is activated by turning on/off a switch in response to readings of a temperature sensor (Title, Abstract, [0042], [0077]).
Schaefer and Fortenbacher are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely thermal management of batteries using heat conductive plates/thermally conducting material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaefer by incorporating a temperature sensor and switch because Fortenbacher teaches controlling battery temperature within operating range to maintain performance ([0002]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schaefer further discloses the heat spreader element has the tab protruded outside of the protective housing and wherein said step (a) comprises controllably making the tab in thermal contact with the one or the plurality of external cooling means (a section of the heat-conductive plate 11 is arranged at the bottom of the packaging 5 and is completely enclosed by a cooling liquid 4 [0050] and, thus, the ‘heat spreader element’ (section of heat-conductive plate 11) is in thermal contact with the external cooling means (cooling liquid 4, cooling liquid lines 22, cooling device 12)).
Claim 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US 2012/0183830) in view of Sasaki (US 2018/0183065), as applied to claims 16, 20-21, 24, 26-27 above, and further in view of Christian et al. (US 2013/0108897).
Regarding claim 18, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Schaefer does not disclose a step of operating a temperature sensor for measuring an internal temperature of the one or each of the plurality of battery cells.
Christian discloses mitigation of thermal propagation for batteries using a graphene coated polymer barrier substrate (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-4B), wherein equipment such as thermistors may be situated on the substrate ([0026], Fig. 4A-4B).
Schaefer and Christian are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely heat conductive plate/substrates for managing battery temperature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaefer by incorporating a thermistor on the heat conductive plate because Christian teaches improved safety and efficiency by closely monitoring battery temperature.
Regarding claim 19, modified Schaefer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Schaefer does not disclose the step of operating a temperature sensor comprises operating the heat spreader element as a temperature sensor for measuring the internal temperature of the one or each of the plurality of battery cells.
Christian discloses mitigation of thermal propagation for batteries using a graphene coated polymer barrier substrate (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-4B), wherein equipment such as thermistors may be situated on the substrate ([0026], Fig. 4A-4B).
Modified Schaefer and Christian are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely heat conductive plate/substrates for managing battery temperature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaefer by incorporating a thermistor on the heat conductive plate because Christian teaches improved safety and efficiency by closely monitoring battery temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to prior art references Schaefer and Sasaki not showing or suggest the remaining claim limitations directed to the heat spreader element material in claim 16 (see Remarks field 1/29/2026), this is not found to be persuasive because paragraph [0078] of Sasaki still teaches Ni, silicon nitride, boron nitride or aluminum nitride, which overlap with the claimed list of materials.
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 3/11/2026