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 07/03/2023
is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, 10, 11, 14, 17 with regard to the claim limitation “the primary cooling path that is extending through an interior volume”, the examiner is interpreting a cooling path that is extending within the housing/module wall to be included in the interior volume of the same and a cooling path external to an interior volume as external to the object including its walls or housing. As mentioned in claim 15 that explicitly mentions the primary cooling path extending between… and an outer cover of the battery module.
It would have been an obvious modification to adapt the setting to separate the cooling lines from the housing and position them within the modified walls. An example for a cooling member inside off a module is Yu et al. (KR20240045611A).
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 9 is 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 reads “The traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the primary cooling system includes an inlet pipe, a delivering line fluidly connected to the inlet pipe and to an inlet tube of at least one of the plurality of battery modules, an outlet pipe, and a receiving line fluidly connect to an outlet tube of the at least one of the plurality of battery modules and to the outlet pipe”. The formulation the at least one of the plurality of battery modules is indefinite. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
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.
Claims 1-3, 9,12,13,17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Audi (U.S Patent Application No US 2012/0328916 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Audi teaches a battery for a motor vehicle, comprising: a battery housing that receives at least one cell group that consists of a plurality of electrochemical cells (Audi, Abstract). (This meets the limitation of “a plurality of batteries housed within the enclosure assembly”) A primary cooling path within the plate-shaped cover part that includes a coolant conduit for cooling the cells of the at least one cell group (Audi, [0007]) and a secondary cooling path, an air gap between the cells of the cell group and the cover plate (Audi, [0011]) with an optional fan to support convection (Audi [0021].)
Regarding claim 2, Audi discloses that each of the plurality of battery modules includes a battery subassembly and an outer cover. (Individual cells are combined into groups and are held by respective common carriers. Those carriers are formed by a base plate and a cover plate ([0020])).
Regarding claim 3, Audi teaches that the plurality of battery cells is held between a first frame and a second frame. (Aldi discloses that the individual cells are held by respective common carriers which are formed by a base frame and a cover plate ([0020])).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Audi teaches a primary cooling system that includes an inlet pipe, a delivering line fluidly connected to the inlet pipe and to an inlet tube of at least one of the pluralities of battery modules and an outlet pipe, a receiving line fluidly connect to an outlet tube of the at least one of the pluralities of battery modules and to the outlet pipe. Audi discloses a primary cooling system that includes a coolant conduit which extends in a serpentine manner through the cover part of the battery modules (Audi, [0015] and is connected to a common coolant connection of the battery housing (Audi, [0016]).
Regarding claim 12, Audi teaches that the first cooling fluid is a coolant and that the second cooling fluid is an airflow. The coolant circulates in the coolant conduits [0020]. A fan can be used to support heat distribution by convection [0021].
Regarding claim 13, Audi teaches a traction battery pack, a vehicle battery, comprising at least one module - cell group made of a plurality of cells, terminals (contact elements that are cast into the cover plates) [0023] and a busbar (a further connection element that connects the individual cell groups) [0023].
Regarding claim 17, Audi teaches a secondary cooling path through an interior volume of the enclosure assembly, consisting of air gaps that are formed between the cells and the cover part of the battery module (Audi, [0011] and in one embodiment by an optional air stream causes by a fan throughout the battery housing ([0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Audi teaches that the secondary cooling path is configured to circulate a second cooling fluid through a channel located between the battery module and a second battery module (Audi discloses air gaps between the individual battery cells and the cover and further teaches that a fan can be provided for circulating the air inside the battery housing ([0021])).
Regarding claim 20, Audi teaches that the secondary cooling fluid is an airflow (Audi, [0013]).
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.
Claims 4,6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audi as applied to claims 3, 5, and 15 above in view of Enkirch et al. (US2021226275A1; hereinafter “Enkirch”).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Audi disclose the traction battery pack as shown above in claim 3 and 13 above. Audi further discloses that individual cells are combined to cell groups and are held by respective common carriers which are formed by a base frame and a cover plate, and that the battery housing is sealed airtight. Audi fails to disclose that adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells are at least partially separated by a sealing bar of the first frame and the second frame. Enkirch, however in the same field of endeavor, thermal management systems for electric vehicle/traction batteries, teaches a bracing element in the form of a frame that encloses at least two battery cells and/or the at least one battery module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bracing element per the teachings of Enkirch, and the motivation to do so would have been Audi and Enkirch are functional equivalents. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claims 6, Audi discloses that individual cells are combined to cell groups and are held by respective common carriers which are formed by a base frame and a cover plate. Audi fails to disclose a second frame. Enkirch however, in the same field of endeavor, thermal management systems for electric vehicle/traction batteries, teaches a battery module unit with a bracing element that is in the form of a frame and encloses at least two battery cells and/or the at least one battery module.
The difference of implementation (base frame with cover or embracing frames and including a sealing bar or not) are a routine in engineering choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a sealing bar or adapting the structure to include a second frame in addition to the cover is an obvious modification.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audi as applied to claim 3 above in view of Joen et al. (US2021098760A1; hereinafter “Joen”).
Regarding claim 5, Audi teaches a subassembly of a plurality of battery cells held together by a frame and housing but does not explicitly mention that the outer cover includes four sides and two open ends. Joen however, in the same field of endeavor, thermal management systems for electric vehicle/traction batteries, teaches such a setup as shown in figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bracing element per the teachings of Joen, and the motivation to do so would have been Audi and Joen are functional equivalents. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 7 and 8, 10, 14,15, are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audi as applied to claims 1,3,9, and 13 above in view of Dunn et al. (US20200067157; hereinafter “Dunn”) or Bahrami et al. (US2016190663A1; hereinafter “Bahrami”).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Audi teaches a primary coolant line within the top covers of each battery group unit cooling the battery cells. At least one of each of the cells of each battery modules is being cooled by the primary coolant. The secondary cooling paths consist of an optional supporting airflow and air gaps. Audi fails to teach that the airflow is being used to cool the busbars. Dunn however, in the same field of endeavor, thermal management systems for electric vehicle/traction batteries discloses a hybrid cooling method using a cooling fluid for the cooling of the cells and cooling the busbars by an air stream directly (Claim 15). Bahrami further discloses a coolant flow inside of one or more hollow busbars for cooling or heating effects (Claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dunn or It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bahrami to achieve effective heat removal, and the motivation to do so would have been Audi and Dunn are functional equivalents. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10,
Audi teaches that the coolant conduit of the cover part of each cell carrier is connected to a common coolant connection of the battery housing but fails to teach that the first interior volume is located between the inlet tube and the outlet tube. Dunn however teaches a flow path through the hollow enclosure configured to connect the inlet port and the outlet port.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Audi teaches a primary cooling path that extends between the battery cell and an outer cover of the battery module. Audi fails to teach a primary cooling path that extends between the battery cells. Dunn, however in the same field of endeavor, thermal management systems for electric vehicle/traction batteries, teaches a cooling path extending between the battery cell and a second battery cell and further between the battery cell and an outer cover of the battery module. (An inter-cell cooling channel disposed between the first cell and the second cell (Dunn: Claim 5).)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725