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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a immersion system” in line 1 should be replaced with --an immersion system--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 9-11 and 15-19 is/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 9 recites the limitation “the enclosure tray” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a coolant channel” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same coolant channel previously recited in line 3, or another separate and distinct coolant channel. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that this was a simple typographical error and was intended to be the same coolant channel previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (CN 114006103 A; hereinafter “Cheng”; see attached machine translation for reference).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a traction battery pack (Title/Abstract) comprising:
a cell stack (electric core 131);
an enclosure assembly (battery box 110) housing the cell stack (as shown in Fig 2); and
a plurality of stand-offs (bumps 115) that space apart the cell stack from a portion of the enclosure assembly (as shown in Fig 4 when the electric cores are inserted) to provide a coolant channel (flow passages 117) configured to communicate a coolant (pg. 21, ¶2).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the coolant is a non-conductive coolant (pure water, pg. 18, ¶4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the plurality of stand-offs are part of the enclosure assembly (as shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses an insert providing the plurality of stand-offs, the insert separate from the enclosure assembly (see pg. 21, ¶1 which describes that the bumps 115 may be detachably mounted to the bottom of the battery box 110, and which thus reasonably reads on the recited “insert” because the bumps are detachable and able to be inserted).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the coolant channel opens to the cell stack such that coolant communicated through the coolant channel directly contacts the cell stack (pg. 13, ¶4).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the coolant channel is part of [an] immersion system for thermal management of the cell stack (pg. 13, ¶4).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the coolant is a liquid coolant (pure water, pg. 18, ¶4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the enclosure assembly includes a tray (containing cavity 111) and a cover (upper cover 150), the enclosure tray including a bottom wall (as shown in Fig 4), wherein at least some of the stand-offs in the plurality of stand-offs extend from the bottom wall to the cell stack (as shown in Fig 4 when the electric cores are inserted).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the enclosure assembly includes a first side wall, a second side wall opposite the first side wall, a first end wall, and a second end wall opposite the first end wall (as shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the enclosure assembly includes a first side wall, a second side wall opposite the first side wall, a first end wall, and a second end wall opposite the first end wall (as shown in Fig 4), wherein the plurality of stand-offs are arranged in rows that are angled relative to the first side wall, the second side wall, the first end wall, and the second end wall (as shown in Fig 4, bumps 115 are arranged parallel to two walls, and perpendicular to the other two walls).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the enclosure assembly includes a first side wall, a second side wall opposite the first side wall, a first end wall, and a second end wall opposite the first end wall (as shown in Fig 4), wherein the plurality of stand-offs are arranged parallel to the first end wall and parallel to the second end wall (as shown in Fig 4, bumps 115 are arranged parallel to two “end” walls).
Regarding claim 15, Cheng discloses a method of managing coolant (Title/Abstract) comprising:
spacing a cell stack (electric core 131) from a portion of an enclosure assembly (battery box 110) using a plurality of stand-offs (bumps 115), the spacing providing a coolant channel (flow passages 117); and
directing a coolant (pure water, pg. 18, ¶4-5) through [the] coolant channel to manage thermal energy within the cell stack (pg. 18, ¶1).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses immersion cooling the cell stack using the coolant (pg. 13, ¶4).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng further discloses that the plurality of stand-offs are part of the enclosure (as shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 18, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
With respect to the limitation “the plurality of stand-offs are stamped within the enclosure”, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. "The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e.----." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Because patentability of product claims are based on the product’s structure, and Cheng discloses the claimed structure, the process limitations are not afforded patentable weight since such limitations do not appear to provide the claimed product with patentably distinct structure.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 114006103 A; hereinafter “Cheng”; see attached machine translation for reference), as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Cheng discloses the enclosure assembly (battery box 110), but does not disclose what material the enclosure assembly is made of, and therefore does not disclose that the enclosure assembly is a metal or metal alloy. Cheng does however disclose that a shell is made of aluminum or steel to prevent electric core leakage, thereby improving the safety performance of the battery system (pg. 17, ¶4).
Cheng is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely cooling systems for battery packs.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the enclosure assembly must necessarily be made of some material, and would thus find it obvious to routinely utilize aluminum or steel as the material for the enclosure assembly with the reasonable expectation that such a material prevents electric core leakage and improves safety performance, as suggested by Cheng.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a traction battery pack, and related method of managing coolant, comprising:
(claims 11 and 19) stand-offs that extend (downward) from a top wall; and
(claim 13) stand-offs having a second length that is different than a first length.
Cheng et al. (CN 114006103 A; hereinafter “Cheng”; see attached machine translation for reference) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claims 11, 13, and 19. Cheng discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Cheng does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the above noted limitations. To the contrary, Cheng explicitly discloses that the cell stack, i.e. electric cores 131, should not be immersed in the coolant such that the poles 1313 of the electric cores 131 are not submerged (pg. 18, ¶2), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the arrangement of Cheng and be directed towards including stand-offs, and thus coolant channels, in the top portion of the enclosure assembly because cooling is not needed at the top portion of the cell stack, i.e. where the poles are. Furthermore, Cheng simply discloses that the stand-offs, i.e. bumps 115, are formed across the entirety of the bottom of the enclosure assembly (as shown in Fig 4), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to be directed towards stand-offs having different lengths.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xiang (CN 113871747 A) discloses a power battery pack cooling structure; and
Wright et al. (US 11,784,369 B1) discloses immersion-thermally controlled battery cells.
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 02/12/2026