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 § 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0255162 to Lambourne et al. (“Lambourne”) and further in view of "Battery thermal management using phase change material-metal foam
composite materials at various environmental temperatures" by Barnes et al. in the Journal
of Electrochemical Energy Conversion and Storage Volume 17, May 2020 pages 021106-1 to
022106-7 ("Barnes" included in Applcant's IDS filing of May 30, 2023).
3. Regarding claims 1 and 19. Lambourne discloses a bus bar for batteries to
be used in electric motor vehicles. Lambourne at paragraphs [0002] and [0003]. The bus bars are
made of metal mesh with an exterior liquid impermeable skin enclosure. Id. at paragraph
[0064]. A cooling liquid is introduced into the pore network of the metal mesh where during
heat-generating operation the cooling liquid may be vaporized. Id. at paragraph [0065].
4. Lambourne differs from the present claims in that it discloses an active cooling system with inlet and outlet openings in the bus bar for the cooling liquid to be pumped in/out of. Barnes discloses related cooling device for battery cells, where the cooling device comprises a metal foam, a liquid impermeable skin, and a phase change material filling the pores of the metal foam. Barnes structure is a passive cooling structure, however, with no inlet/outlet holes such that the phase change material/foam composite is fully enclosed in the cooling space of its batteries. Barnes teaches that such passive cooling systems are beneficial over active cooling systems such as those disclosed in Lambourne because they are simpler/smaller/lighter. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to remove the coolant inlet/outlet ports of Lambourne arriving at a bus bar fully encased by liquid impermeable case, filling the pores of its metal foam with a phase change material, as a means of simplifying and reducing weight of its cooling system as Lambourne teaches is beneficial in its aircraft applications.
5. Further regarding claim 2, Lamourne doesn't expressly disclose whether the skin is connected to the metal foam. However, Lamourne teaches that the electrical continuity of the bus bar is important. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to connect the skin and metal foam interior as a means of maximizing the overall electrical continuity of the bus bar.
6. Further regarding claim 3, Lambourne discloses the skin should be thin, but does not give a
specific thickness. Nonetheless, Lambourne discloses that the skin ensures physical
rigidity/stability of the bus bar. Thus, the thickness is considered to be a parameter that the
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious to
adjust as a means of balancing weight/density and desired rigidity/sealing of the bus bar
under pressure.
7. Further regarding claims 4-6, because the coolant is used to remove heat from the system, it
is found the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had
reason to provide the necessary pore-filling with the coolant as needed to adequately cool
the battery system, including the recited range of pore-filling degree.
8. Further regarding claims 7 and 8, Lambourne discloses that the metal foam is an open-cell
metal foam, but does not disclose a specific percentage of open pores. Nonetheless,
because the purpose of the pores is in part to dissipate heat by coming into contact with
coolant the Office finds that maximizing open porosity including in the recited
ranges as an obvious way to increase access of coolant via to the surfaces of the metal foam via convective mobility.
9. Further regarding claims 9-11, Lambourne discloses that the density is an important design
parameter of the metal foam, balancing weight and heat dissipation capacity against
strength. Moreover, Barnes discloses the porosity is a parameter to adjust to optimize cooling in various conditions. Thus, although Lambourne doesn't disclose a specific porosity in terms of PPI, the
Office find that the recited porosities are nothing more than the obvious product of routine
experimentation in arriving at a metal foam having the desired balance between
weight/heat dissipation properties and strength.
10. Further regarding claims 12 and 14, Lambourne discloses a range of desired effect of using
the skinned metal foam for bus bars, including weight, strength, conductivity, etc. Thus, the
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to choose
from commonly available materials to meet the desired balance of properties, including
plastic in parts of a bus bar system where weight is critical and copper where high
conductivity and direct weldability are needed over weight savings.
11. Further regarding claim 13, the metal foam used in Lambourne copper, which is also suggested by Barnes. Id. at paragraph [0053]. Barnes further discloses use of aluminum foam.
12. Further regarding claims 15-18, Barnes discloses paraffin as a commonly used phase change material in passive metal foam/phase change cooling structures.
13. Further regarding claim 20, Lambourne shows that the closed ends of its bus bars include short faces arranged perpendicular to the height and lengthwise directions of the bus bar. The opposed short ends include inlet/outlet ports in its active system, but would be closed with similar closed end faces parallel to the other short face in a closed, passive system as suggested by Barnes.
14. Further regarding claim 21, the purpose of the bus bar in Lambourne is to connect numerous batteries together to arrive at a battery module having a single high voltage terminal output. Thus, although Lambourne doesn’t show terminals on its bus bars, it does teach that the bus bars should provide a single high voltage terminal output for the connected batteries. The recited lug-shape is nothing more than a common shaped used for terminals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on an application of the references as applied in the prior rejection of record as challenged by Applicant’s arguments.
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 WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights