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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 06/12/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 06/12/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) in view of Osamu et al. (JP 2020 067082 A; hereinafter “Osamu”; see attached machine translation for reference).
Regarding claim 1, O’Rourke discloses a traction battery pack assembly (see [0002 and 0017] which describes batteries needing cooling for purely electric vehicles, and which thus reads on the recited “traction battery pack assembly” because the cooling system is part of the assembly for a traction battery of an electric vehicle) comprising:
a coolant reservoir (310) that receives coolant from a traction battery pack (via inlet 430, [0035]), the coolant reservoir configured to receive the coolant in a direction that causes the coolant to swirl within the coolant reservoir (although not explicitly discloses as a swirling flow pattern, it is submitted that, absent a special definition of “swirl”, the disclosed coolant reservoir would necessarily have a swirling flow pattern, as evidenced by the substantial similarity to the Instant coolant reservoir, i.e. both have inlets in the middle of the side wall, outlets in the middle center of the bottom wall, and cylindrical housings).
O’Rourke further discloses that the coolant reservoir functions to deaerate the coolant as the coolant flows through the reservoir such that air is collected in the coolant reservoir instead of continuing to circulate through the coolant system ([0022]).
Assuming, arguendo, that O’Rourke does not disclose a swirling flow pattern with sufficient specificity, the following reference is applied:
Osamu teaches a reserve tank for cooling water (Abstract/Background). Osamu teaches that turbulence may cause gas in the gas layer to become entrained in cooling water in the liquid layer, which reduces gas-liquid separation performance of the reserve tank (pg. 16, ¶3). Accordingly, Osamu teaches that the reserve tank includes a swirl flow forming portion (40) which causes swirl flow of the cooling water, and assists with separating gas in the cooling water, thus suppressing deterioration of the gas-liquid separation performance (pg. 17, ¶2).
O’Rourke and Osamu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely coolant reservoirs.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a swirl flow in the coolant reservoir of O’Rourke with the reasonable expectation that doing so would assist with separating gas in the cooling water, thus suppressing deterioration of the gas-liquid separation performance of the coolant reservoir, as suggested by Osamu.
Regarding claim 2, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses that the coolant reservoir is cylindrical (as shown in Fig 5).
Regarding claim 3, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses that a sidewall of the coolant reservoir includes an inlet (430) to the coolant reservoir ([0035]), and wherein a vertical bottom of the coolant reservoir includes an outlet (450) from the coolant reservoir ([0035]).
Regarding claim 6, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses that the coolant is a liquid coolant ([0019]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses that the coolant reservoir is configured to cause vortex flow of the coolant, or to cause the coolant to swirl about a longitudinal axis of the coolant reservoir (as best shown in Osamu Fig 7, but in the coolant reservoir of O’Rourke, e.g. Figs 5-6, and inverted due to the outlet 450 being in the bottom center).
Regarding claim 10, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses that an interior of the coolant reservoir includes a volume of air ([0022]).
Regarding claim 12, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses a traction battery pack (power electronics module 140) and a conduit (142/152) configured to communicate the coolant from the traction battery pack to the coolant reservoir (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses that the coolant reservoir is a vapor-liquid separator ([0022]).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) in view of Osamu et al. (JP 2020 067082 A; hereinafter “Osamu”; see attached machine translation for reference), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nishioka (US 2022/0307744 A1).
Regarding claim 4, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke discloses a gas cap (not labeled, but covering fill inlet 470, [0035]), but does not disclose that the gas cap is a gas vent, other than when opening the gas cap.
Nishioka teaches a reservoir tank (Title). Nishioka teaches that the coolant reservoir includes a pressure adjusting lid (28, [0026]). Nishioka teaches that the pressure adjusting lid allows air to be discharged in the event that the pressure in the coolant reservoir becomes higher than a threshold value, thereby discharging air bubbles removed from the refrigerant ([0026]).
O’Rourke and Nishioka are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely coolant reservoirs.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pressure adjusting lid of Nishioka as the gas cap of O’Rourke with the reasonable expectation that doing so would allow air/air bubbles to be discharged from the coolant reservoir once pressure exceeds a threshold value, as suggested by Nishioka.
Regarding claim 5, modified O’Rourke discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses that a sidewall of the coolant reservoir includes an inlet (430, as shown in Fig 6), wherein a vertical bottom of the coolant reservoir includes an outlet from the coolant reservoir (450, as shown in Fig 6), wherein the gas vent is at a vertical top of the coolant reservoir (as shown in Fig 6 when the pressure adjusting lid of Nishioka is incorporated).
Regarding claim 7, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses a mesh barrier (barrier wall 280/480, which, absent a special definition of “mesh” reasonably reads on being a mesh barrier because the barrier wall has numerous openings 244/246/286 in a pattern, as shown in Fig 4) disposed within an interior of the coolant reservoir (as shown in Fig 6), an inlet (430) to the coolant reservoir disposed on a first side of the mesh barrier (as shown in Fig 6, “first side” is the lower side), a gas cap (not labeled, but covering fill inlet 470, [0035]) disposed on an opposite, second side of the mesh barrier (as shown in Fig 6, “second side” is the upper side).
O’Rourke discloses the gas cap (as noted above), but does not disclose that the gas cap is a gas vent, other than when opening the gas cap.
Nishioka teaches a reservoir tank (Title). Nishioka teaches that the coolant reservoir includes a pressure adjusting lid (28, [0026]). Nishioka teaches that the pressure adjusting lid allows air to be discharged in the event that the pressure in the coolant reservoir becomes higher than a threshold value, thereby discharging air bubbles removed from the refrigerant ([0026]).
O’Rourke and Nishioka are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely coolant reservoirs.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pressure adjusting lid of Nishioka as the gas cap of O’Rourke with the reasonable expectation that doing so would allow air/air bubbles to be discharged from the coolant reservoir once pressure exceeds a threshold value, as suggested by Nishioka.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) in view of Osamu et al. (JP 2020 067082 A; hereinafter “Osamu”; see attached machine translation for reference), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kellner et al. (US 2022/0407167 A1; hereinafter “Kellner”).
Regarding claim 11, O’Rourke (or modified O’Rourke) discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke discloses that the coolant reservoir is part of a thermal management system (Title), but does not disclose that the system is an immersion thermal management system.
Kellner teaches a liquid-cooled motor vehicle traction battery module (Title). Kellner teaches that the battery module includes alternating cooling plates and compression elements such that two battery cells always adjoin one cooling plate, thus implementing a compact design with a high cooling capacity ([0007]). Kellner teaches that such a cooling concept is known as immersion cooling ([0008]).
O’Rourke and Kellner are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery thermal management systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the immersion cooling system of Kellner with the traction battery module of O’Rourke with the reasonable expectation that doing so would provide a compact design with a high cooling capacity, as suggested by Kellner.
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) in view of Nishioka (US 2022/0307744 A1).
Regarding claim 14, O’Rourke discloses a method of managing coolant (Title/Abstract) comprising:
at a coolant reservoir (310), receiving a coolant from a traction battery pack (via inlet 430, [0035]); and
within the coolant reservoir, separating air from the coolant ([0022]).
O’Rourke discloses a gas cap (not labeled, but covering fill inlet 470, [0035]), but does not disclose that the gas cap is a gas vent, other than when opening the gas cap, and therefore does not explicitly disclose venting air from the coolant reservoir, other than when the gasp cap is opened.
Nishioka teaches a reservoir tank (Title). Nishioka teaches that the coolant reservoir includes a pressure adjusting lid (28, [0026]). Nishioka teaches that the pressure adjusting lid allows air to be discharged in the event that the pressure in the coolant reservoir becomes higher than a threshold value, thereby discharging air bubbles removed from the refrigerant ([0026]).
O’Rourke and Nishioka are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely coolant reservoirs.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pressure adjusting lid of Nishioka as the gas cap of O’Rourke with the reasonable expectation that doing so would allow air/air bubbles to be vented from the coolant reservoir once pressure exceeds a threshold value, as suggested by Nishioka.
Regarding claim 16, modified O’Rourke discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses receiving the coolant from an inlet within a sidewall of the coolant reservoir (inlet 430, as shown in Fig 6), and communicating coolant from the coolant reservoir through an outlet at a vertical bottom of the coolant reservoir (outlet 450, as shown in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 18, modified O’Rourke discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses venting the air through a gas vent at a vertical top of the coolant reservoir (as shown in Fig 6 when the pressure adjusting lid of Nishioka is incorporated).
Regarding claim 19, modified O’Rourke discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses communicating the air through a mesh barrier (barrier wall 280/480, which, absent a special definition of “mesh” reasonably reads on being a mesh barrier because the barrier wall has numerous openings 244/246/286 in a pattern, as shown in Fig 4) within an interior fo the coolant reservoir prior to venting the air from the coolant reservoir (as shown in Fig 6).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) in view of Nishioka (US 2022/0307744 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) in view of Nishioka (US 2022/0307744 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Osamu et al. (JP 2020 067082 A; hereinafter “Osamu”; see attached machine translation for reference).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, modified O’Rourke discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke further discloses swirling the coolant within the coolant reservoir (claim 15) and that the coolant reservoir is configured to cause the coolant to swirl about a longitudinal axis of the coolant reservoir (although not explicitly discloses as a swirling flow pattern, it is submitted that, absent a special definition of “swirl”, the disclosed coolant reservoir would necessarily have a swirling flow pattern about the longitudinal axis, as evidenced by the substantial similarity to the Instant coolant reservoir, i.e. both have inlets in the middle of the side wall, outlets in the middle center of the bottom wall, and cylindrical housings).
O’Rourke further discloses that the coolant reservoir functions to deaerate the coolant as the coolant flows through the reservoir such that air is collected in the coolant reservoir instead of continuing to circulate through the coolant system ([0022]).
Assuming, arguendo, that O’Rourke does not disclose a swirling flow pattern with sufficient specificity, the following reference is applied:
Osamu teaches a reserve tank for cooling water (Abstract/Background). Osamu teaches that turbulence may cause gas in the gas layer to become entrained in cooling water in the liquid layer, which reduces gas-liquid separation performance of the reserve tank (pg. 16, ¶3). Accordingly, Osamu teaches that the reserve tank includes a swirl flow forming portion (40) which causes swirl flow of the cooling water, and assists with separating gas in the cooling water, thus suppressing deterioration of the gas-liquid separation performance (pg. 17, ¶2).
O’Rourke and Osamu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely coolant reservoirs.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a swirling flow in the coolant reservoir of O’Rourke with the reasonable expectation that doing so would assist with separating gas in the cooling water, thus suppressing deterioration of the gas-liquid separation performance of the coolant reservoir, as suggested by Osamu.
The skilled artisan would find it further obvious that such a swirling flow would swirl about a longitudinal axis of the coolant reservoir swirl about a longitudinal axis of the coolant reservoir (as best shown in Osamu Fig 7, but in the coolant reservoir of O’Rourke, e.g. Figs 5-6, and inverted due to the outlet 450 being in the bottom center).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Rourke et al. (US 2012/0090348 A1; hereinafter “O’Rourke”) in view of Nishioka (US 2022/0307744 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Kellner et al. (US 2022/0407167 A1; hereinafter “Kellner”).
Regarding claim 20, modified O’Rourke discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
O’Rourke discloses that the coolant reservoir is part of a thermal management system (Title), but does not disclose that the system is an immersion thermal management system.
Kellner teaches a liquid-cooled motor vehicle traction battery module (Title). Kellner teaches that the battery module includes alternating cooling plates and compression elements such that two battery cells always adjoin one cooling plate, thus implementing a compact design with a high cooling capacity ([0007]). Kellner teaches that such a cooling concept is known as immersion cooling ([0008]).
O’Rourke and Kellner are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery thermal management systems.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the immersion cooling system of Kellner with the traction battery module of O’Rourke with the reasonable expectation that doing so would provide a compact design with a high cooling capacity, as suggested by Kellner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Petschenyk (US 2022/0018278 A1) discloses a degassing apparatus; and
Naruke et al. (US 2022/0158268 A1) discloses a battery pack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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 M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 02/10/2026