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 .
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 1-14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is not clear if the side wall stated in the limitations “defined on a side wall of the energy storage device” on line 6 and “air guide structure mounted on an outer surface of a side wall” on line 10 refer to same or different sidewall of the energy storage device.
With respect to claim 3 it is not clear if the “sidewall” in the limitation “mounted on a sidewall” is the same or different than one of the sidewalls previously recited.
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al (EP 2704247 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an energy storage apparatus, comprising (para 41, “battery cooling system 10”; fig 2): a support structure, which is provided with at least one support layer in a height direction of the support structure (para 44 “space dividing frame 12”; fig 2); at least two energy storage devices ( para 44 “battery modules M”; fig 2) wherein each of the energy storage devices comprises an air outlet defined at the top of the energy storage device (para 44, “heat releasing slits C”; fig 2), and an air inlet is defined on a sidewall of the energy storage device (para 44 “side panels 15”; fig 2), wherein the number of the energy storage device is at least two, the at least two energy storage devices are arranged in at least two layers through the at least one support layer, and the support layer between adjacent layers of energy storage devices is hollowed out or configured in a partitioning manner (fig 2 and 3); and an air guide structure mounted on an outer surface of a sidewall of one of the energy storage devices (see mounting at location X1 and X2 in annotated fig below) and in communication with the air inlet of the energy storage device (para 54 “channel slit S1, S2, S3,S4”; fig 3), wherein the air guide structure is configured to guide air from a position away from the air outlet of the energy storage device having the air guide structure or away from an air outlet of an adjacent energy storage device (para 44-56; [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Annotated Figure 3 from Choi et al.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
805
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fig 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses the support layer between the adjacent layers of energy storage devices is hollowed out (fig 3), and the air guide structure is at least mounted on a sidewall of one of the energy storage devices that is located at a layer except a bottom layer (para 56, “first channel slit S1”; fig 3).
Regarding claim 4 and 11, Choi discloses the air guide structure comprises an air guide hood (para 44, “refrigerant guide plate G”; fig 2), an air outlet of the air guide structure is arranged at one side of the air guide hood which is fixed to the energy storage device, and the air outlet of the air guide hood surrounds the air inlet of the energy storage device, and an air inlet of the air guide structure is arranged on the air guide hood (fig 2-3; see annotated fig above).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses a first end of the air guide hood provided with a first inclined surface (para 47-49, “refrigerant guide plate G(14b)”; fig 3), the first inclined surface is inclined towards a direction away from a second end of the air guide hood along a direction approaching the air outlet of the air guide hood, and an air inlet of the air guide hood is defined on the first inclined surface (fig 2-3; see annotated fig above).
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses the second end of the air guide hood provided with a second inclined surface (para 47-49, “refrigerant guide plate G(14a)”; fig 3”), and the second inclined surface is inclined towards a direction away from the first end of the air guide hood along a direction approaching the air outlet of the air guide hood (fig 2-3; see annotated fig above).
Regarding claim 8, Choi discloses a first louver 15a mounted at the air inlet of the air guide hood (fig 2-3).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Choi discloses the air guide structure comprises an air shield plate arranged on the energy storage device on which the air guide structure is mounted (para 44, “refrigerant guide plate G (13b)”; fig 3 and 6), wherein the air shield plate is configured to separate the air inlet of the energy storage device having the air shield plate from the air outlet of the energy storage device having the air shield plate or the air outlet of the adjacent energy storage device (fig 3 and 6).
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) 3, 7, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (EP 2704247 A2), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kronke et al. (US 2017/0077467 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi discloses the air guide structure is at least mounted on a sidewall of one of the energy storage devices that is located at a layer except a top layer (para 58, “fourth channel slit S4”; fig 3).
Choi fails to disclose the support layer between the adjacent layers of energy storage devices is configured in a partitioning manner.
Kronke discloses the support layer between the adjacent layers of energy storage devices is configured in a partitioning manner (para 46-47; fig 4). The support layer can be structured in finite number of ways, and choice of the specific structure of support layer is within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the energy storage apparatus of Choi such that the support layer between the adjacent layers of energy storage devices is configured in a partitioning manner as taught by Kronke above as doing such has reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses the second inclined surface G(14a). Choi fails to disclose a maintenance opening defined on the second inclined surface of the air guide hood, and an openable and closable maintenance door mounted at the maintenance opening.
Kronke discloses a maintenance opening defined on the second inclined surface 135 of the air guide hood (para 28 “door assembly 130”; fig 1-2), and an openable and closable maintenance door mounted at the maintenance opening (para 32-36; fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the energy storage apparatus of Choi such that a maintenance opening is defined on the second inclined surface of the air guide hood, and an openable and closable maintenance door mounted at the maintenance opening as taught by Kronke as doing such “provides access to the interior space” (para 28).
Regarding claim 12, Choi discloses the limitation of said claim for the reasons detailed in the rejection of claims 4 and 11 above.
Regarding claim 14, Choi discloses the limitations of said claim for the reasons detailed in the rejection of claims 10 and 13 above.
Claim(s) 9 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (EP 2704247 A2), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ledjeff (US 4394423 A).
Choi discloses air guide hood is mounted on the energy storage device (para 44, "refrigerant guide plate G "; fig 2).
Choi fails to disclose a sewage outlet on at least one of two ends of the air guide hood, located at a bottom of the air guide hood, and an openable and closable sewage discharge door hermetically mounted at the sewage outlet.
Ledjeff discloses a sewage outlet (C2, L60, “bottom plate 2”), and an openable and closable sewage discharge door is hermetically mounted at the sewage outlet (Col 3 line 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the energy storage apparatus of Choi such that the air guide hood is at least one of two ends of the air guide hood, located at a bottom of the air guide hood, is provided with a sewage outlet, and an openable and closable sewage discharge door is hermetically mounted at the sewage outlet as taught by Ledjeff as doing such removes toxic antimony and arsenic gases (C2, L4-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), on page 9 of the Remarks, the applicant asserts Choi does not disclose the air guide structure is a discrete component mounted on an outer surface of a sidewall. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims since the claims do not require the air guide structure to be a separate, discrete component. Applicant then asserts Choi does not disclose the limitations disclosed in fig 1 of the specification and the description of such. This argument is not persuasive because limitations recited in the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
On page 10, the applicant asserts that “refrigerant guide plates G of Choi are not, and cannot be the air guide structure mounted on an outer surface of a sidewall of one of the energy storages devices”. This argument is moot light of the new grounds of rejection with respect to Choi. As applied in the rejection, the channel slits S1, S2, S3, S4 and the refrigerant guide plates G of Choi are mounted on an outer surface of sidewall of one of the energy storages devices (see updated annotated figure above).
Even if the refrigerant guide plates G are interpreted as internal baffles disposed inside the battery rack R, this does not preclude them from being structurally equivalent or from being capable of functioning the same way.
On page 11, the applicant asserts Choi does not disclose guiding air "from a position away from the air outlet," as claimed. This argument not persuasive for at least the following reasons. First, the argument is specific to a method limitation, rather than a structural limitation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2114 II.
Nonetheless, the device of Choi is capable of performing the functional language required by the claim because Choi contains all the structural limitations recited in the claims at issue. In this case, the plates “G” are capable of performing the functional language because they are in communication with the air inlet structure as detailed in the body of the rejection above.
The applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of independent claim 1, and no separate persuasive arguments have been presented with respect to dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13, the rejections are likewise maintained.
Regarding the rejections of claims 3, 7, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.103, on page 12 of the remarks, the applicant asserts the claims each depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1, and thus each include the feature of "an air guide structure mounted on an outer surface of a sidewall of one of the energy storage devices" which is not disclosed by Choi. Choi does disclose an air guide structure mounted on an outer surface of a sidewall of one of the energy storage devices (see claim 1 rejection, annotated figure and response to arguments for claim 1 above) and thus, the rejection is maintained.
On page 13, with respect to claim 3 and Kronke, the applicant asserts that there is no suggestion or motivation to modify Choi in view of Kronke. This argument is not persuasive because it addresses a rationale that is not relied upon in the rejection. The rejection is not predicated on the teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) test. Rather, the combination of Choi and Kronke is based on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, would have had a reason to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 7 and Kronke, the applicant asserts that Kronke does not teach a maintenance opening defined on a second inclined surface of an air guide hood because Kronke discloses an air filter rather than a maintenance opening. This argument is not germane to the merits of the rejection. The presence of an air filter does not preclude the door 130 from being a maintenance door.
On page 15, the applicant asserts the door assembly of Kronke is a large door for the entire housing, whereas the claimed maintenance door is a smaller, localized panel. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim since the claim does not require specific door dimensions. Applicant refers to the fig 5 of the specification, but limitation recited in the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant then asserts there is no motivation to modify Choi with Kronke because the examiner’s “proposed combination would require importing a container-scale access door from the housing architecture of Kronke and relocating it onto the internal refrigerant guide plates G of Choi, which is a modification for which neither reference provides any teaching, suggestion or motivation.” This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not propose incorporating Kronke’s door assembly into Choi or duplicating it’s size or configuration. Rather, Kronke is relied upon for its teaching of the concept of providing an openable and closable maintenance door to facilitate “access to the interior space” (see rejection of claim 7 above). The differences in relative size of the door assembly does not undermine the obviousness rationale. The applicant further asserts there is no proper motivation to combine teaching of Kronke to Choi. The argument is not persuasive because as stated above and in rejection of claim 7, Kronke states the maintenance door facilitates “access to the interior space” (para 28).
Regarding the rejections of claims 9 under 35 U.S.C.103, on page 16, applicant asserts Choi does not disclose the limitations of claim 1 and that Ledjeff does not cure the alleged deficiencies. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Choi does disclose all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. The rejection of claim 1 is maintained, and Ledjeff is relied upon only for the further limitation of claim 9 so the rejection of claim 9 is likewise maintained.
Moreover, the applicant asserts that Ledjeff is directed towards lead-acid battery enclosure in which the sewage outlet vents toxic gasses, whereas the claimed sewage outlet is used to drain foreign matter, dust or condensate from the air guide hood. The argument is not persuasive. The claim does not distinguish the sewage outlet based on the particular material being discharged. Rather, it recites a sewage outlet door having the claimed structural arrangement. Led discloses a sewage outlet door capable of discharging accumulated material from the enclosure. The fact that Ledjeff discharges a different type of material than that described in the specification does not patentably distinguish the claimed structure.
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 ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights