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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Application No. 18/345,515 to Qin et al., assigned to Contemporary Amperex Technology (Hong Kong) Ltd., China, filed 06/30/2023 and published as U.S. PG Publication 2023/0361386A1.
This application is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/085085 filed 04/02/2022.
In the original claims filed on 06/30/2023 claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2023, 01/21/2025, 04/22/2025, 09/22/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. Duly initialed and signed copies are attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statements are being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/30/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “…methyl nonfluorobutyl ether” in line 3. This contains a typo error. The “nonfluoro” should be “nonafluoro” and the chemical name should read, “methyl nonafluorobutyl ether”. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependence of claim 9 recited as, “…according to claim 6…” should be in error, because claim 6 does not recite “optical fiber”. The “optical fiber” is instead recited in claim 7. Therefore, it seems that claim 9 is correctly dependent on claim 7 rather than on claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 will be examined as being dependent on claim 7.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhour (U.S. PG Publication 2012/0003510) in view of Jiao et al. (U.S.PG Publication 202100792841)
Regarding Claim 1 Eisenhour discloses a vehicle battery temperature control system (Eisenhour paragraph 0008), the battery 14 includes a plurality of stacked battery cells 17 (Eisenhour Fig. 2, paragraph 0024), the battery that includes the plurality of battery cells is equivalent to the battery pack.
Eisenhour discloses a housing 16 that define a chamber 24 to receive the battery 14 that includes plurality of battery cells 17 and contains a liquid coolant (Eisenhour Fig. 2, paragraph 0025) the liquid coolant is equivalent to the refrigerant. Thus, the battery cell is at least partially immersed in coolant. The chamber 24, considered equivalent to the case accommodating the battery 14 and the coolant 26, is provided with outlet and inlet (Eisenhour Fig. 2)
Eisenhour discloses conduit 28, 30 outside the chamber 24 and connect the inlet and outlet for the coolant to form a closed system (Eisenhour Fig. 2, paragraph 0026), the conduit 28, 30, considered equivalent to the circulating pipeline. Also disclosed is a heat exchanger 18 that includes a condenser and located in the conduit 28, 30 path, (Eisenhour Fig. 2, paragraph 0026).
The disclosed cooling system 10 include sensor 32 (Eisenhour Fig.2, paragraph 0028), and the sensor 32 include a pressure sensor operable to sense pressure in the chamber 24 (Eisenhour Fig. 2, paragraph 0031); thus, the pressure sensor is provided inside the chamber and configured to sense, equivalent to detect, the internal pressure of the chamber, the chamber being equivalent to the case.
The sensor 32 also includes a temperature sensor that is operable to sense or detect the temperature in the chamber 24 (Eisenhour paragraph 0031), the temperature sensor considered equivalent to the temperature monitoring device. Eisenhour discloses the coolant can be fluorine containing compound (Eisenhour paragraph 0025), and the temperature senor sense or detect the temperature vapor phase of the coolant (Eisenhour paragraph 0031), equivalent to detecting the temperature of a fluorine-containing cooling medium in real time, which means as it occurs, and also the temperature of the battery cell.
The disclosed cooling system 10 also includes a controller 34 that includes a microcomputer with a control program that controls the operations (Eisenhour paragraph 0028, 0030), considered equivalent to the battery control module.
Eisenhour discloses the liquid coolant 26 include 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane or 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (Eisenhour paragraph 0041) both example of fluorinated hydrocarbon, and equivalent to the second fluorine-containing cooling medium. Eisenhour is silent about the coolant, equivalent to the refrigerant, contains a fluorinated ether, called the first fluorine-containing cooling medium. Eisenhour, however, discloses the coolant can include any suitable type of refrigerant.
Jiao discloses an immersion type heat dissipate colling liquid for power lithium battery (Jiao claim 1, paragraph 0005, 0006), the cooling liquid is equivalent to the refrigerant. Jiao discloses the heat dissipation cooling liquid include hydrofluoroether compound and halogenated hydrocarbon (Jiao paragraph 0006), the hydrofluoroether is equivalent to the first fluorine-containing cooling medium that is a fluorinated ether, and the halogenated hydrocarbon is analogous to the second fluorine-containing cooling medium such as the fluorinated hydrocarbon since fluorine is a halogen.
Jiao discloses the disclosed immersion type heat dissipation cooling liquid containing the hydrofluoroether and halogenated hydrocarbon has good heat dissipation effect, high specific heat, low expansion, low toxicity, high insulation, flame retardancy inertness and can quickly achieve heat transfer effect (Jiao paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coolant of Eisenhour containing the fluorinated hydrocarbon (Eisenhour paragraph 0041), analogous to the halogenated hydrocarbon of Jiao (Jiao paragraph 0006), by the addition of the hydrofluoroether disclosed by Jiao (Jiao paragraph 0006) to obtain a cooling liquid similar in composition as disclosed by Jiao including a fluorinated hydrocarbon and a fluorinated ether and which provide the benefits disclosed by Jiao of a good heat dissipation effect, high specific heat, low expansion, low toxicity, high insulation, flame retardancy, inertness and can quickly achieve heat transfer effect (Jiao paragraph 0005). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 2 Jiao discloses the cooling liquid contains 30 parts to 70 part by weight of the hydrofluoroether, and 30 part to 50 part by weight of the halogenated hydrocarbon (Jiao paragraph 0006). The disclosed ranges are included in the claimed range of 40-90 weight % and 10 to 60 weight % respectively. Further, the disclosed ranges also are included in the claimed range of 4:1 to 1:1 recited in claim 3. And the sum of the total weight of the two components can be 100 weight percent as recited in clam 4.
Regarding claim 5 Eisenhour discloses that the coolant covers the battery cells and nearly fills the internal space of the chamber 24 (Eisenhour Fig. 2), and which is close to but less than 100%; thus, the disclosed filing rate can be within the claimed range which is close to 100% weight.
Regarding claim 6 Eisenhour discloses the coolant includes 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane or 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (Eisenhour paragraph 0025, 0041) both compounds are fluorinated hydrocarbon of the second fluorine-containing cooling medium. The fluorinated hydrocarbon of Eisenhour are analogous to the claimed fluorinated hydrocarbon in claim 6, and both belong to the same class of compounds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have used other fluorinated hydrocarbon other than disclosed by Eisenhour such as claimed heptafluoro and hexafluoro compounds since such as modification is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B). Jiao also discloses the cooling liquid include hydrofluoroether 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether, and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether (Jiao paragraph 0008), both recited in claim 6.
Claim 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhour (U.S. PG Publication 2012/0003510) in view of Jiao et al. (U.S.PG Publication 2021/0079281) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Du Bing (CN103134612; cited in the Information Disclosure Statement, IDS, filed 06/30/2023; the English language machine translation filed with the IDS is used here; and hereafter called CN ‘612)
The discussion of Eisenhour as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and is fully relied for the limitations of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 7 Eisenhour discloses the cooling system 10 include sensor 32 (Eisenhour Fig.2, paragraph 0028) and the sensor 32 includes a temperature sensor that is operable to sense or detect the temperature in the chamber 24 (Eisenhour paragraph 0031). Eisenhour, however, is silent about the temperature sensor, equivalent to the temperature monitoring device, comprise of an optical fiber, a reflected light elimination source, a light source, and a light detection module
CN ‘612 discloses a lithium-ion battery internal temperature monitoring device (CN ‘612 paragraph 0007) that includes an optical fiber 6 (CN ‘612 Fig. 1, paragraph 0007, 0014, ) being equipped with a reflected light elimination device 15 (CN ‘612 Fig. 1, paragraph 0007, paragraph 0028, 0034), a light source module 11 (CN ‘612 Fig. 1, paragraph 0028), a light source driving module 12 (CN ‘612 Fig. 1, paragraph 0007, 0028), a light detection module (CN ‘612 paragraph 0007), and an optical coupler 9 (CN ‘612 Fig. 1, paragraph 0007, 0028, 0035), all elements recited in claim 7. CN ’612 discloses the temperature monitoring device disclosed has a simple structure, low cost, small size, and resistance to electromagnetic interference, and can achieve distributed or quasi-distributed temperature monitoring CN ’612 paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the temperature monitoring device of CN ‘612 (CN ‘612 Fig.1, paragraph 0006, 0007, 0028, 0035) in the cooling system 10 include the temperature sensor of Eisenhour (Eisenhour Fig.2, paragraph 0028) for the benefit of its simple structure, low cost, small size, and resistance to electromagnetic interference, and can achieve distributed or quasi-distributed temperature monitoring as taught by CN ‘612 (CN ’612 paragraph 0006). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 8 CN ‘612 also discloses the optical fiber 6 is winding in more than one turns and then fixed one of its ends to the light elimination device 15 (CN ‘612 Fig. 1, paragraph 0034) recited is claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhour (U.S. PG Publication 2012/0003510) in view of Jiao et al. (U.S.PG Publication 2021/0079281) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Du Bing (CN103134612; cited in the Information Disclosure Statement, IDS, filed 06/30/2023; the English language machine translation filed with the IDS is used here; and hereafter called CN ‘612) as applied to claim 7, and Tu et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0247744)
The discussion of Eisenhour and Jiao as applied to claim 1 and further in view of CN ‘612 as applied to claim 7 is fully incorporated here, and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 9 CN ‘612 is silent about the optical fiber is coated with a metal that is resistant to corrosion by the fluorine-containing cooling medium. Tu discloses an optical fiber sensor coated with a metal (Tu Abstract, paragraph 0016) as a protective layer and may be formed by a nickel coating (Tu paragraph 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical fiber of CN ‘612 by the teaching of Tu and to have coated it with a protective metal layer such a nickel coating (Tu paragraph 0018), to protect the optical fiber sensor by providing high temperature resistance metal packaged or metal coated optical fiber to protect from corrosive environment such as the fluorinated cooling compounds of Eisenhour. According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722