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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Palanchon reference still anticipates at least claim 1 as amended contrary to Applicant’s position.
Applicant’s arguments, found on page 6 of the Remarks, state that the fluid flow passages 218 of Palanchon are serpentine and thus “not connected in a single direction. Instead, they connected to one another through U-Shaped flow passages 226, so they change directions after each U-shaped flow passages 226.” Applicant further states that Figure 15 of Palanchon illustrates a cross-sectional view and does not show the actual configuration or arrangement of the chambers. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single direction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the claims state that the thermal management components are provided in a first direction and the connected to each other in a linear arrangement along a second direction, there is no requirement that the components are provided or connected in only those directions contrary to Applicant’s arguments. It is the Office’s position that the fluid chambers 216(1)-216(6) are connected to each other linearly in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction. A cross-sectional view is indeed a structural depiction and paragraph 68 is explicit in stating that 216(1)-216(6) are “multiple serially connected parallel fluid chambers.” The fact that serpentine channels are present between these connections does not preclude the claim language.
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, 5-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palanchon (US 2013/0244077 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Palanchon discloses an apparatus comprising: a plurality of layers of battery cell groups 102(i) stacked in a first direction (vertical direction of Figure 1), wherein each layer comprises a plurality of cells 106 arranged in an array (paragraph 50); a plurality of thermal management components 110/210 provided between adjacent two layers of battery cell groups 102(i) in the same vertical direction (see Figure 1); wherein the thermal management components 110/210 can contain thermal transfer fluid (paragraph 54), the thermal management components 110/210 are considered a plurality for containing multiple components 216(i) joined linearly in a second direction perpendicular to the stack (paragraph 68 and Figure 15).
Regarding claim 2, Palanchon discloses that the components 216(i) are connected via connecting portions (paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 3, Palanchon discloses that the thickness of the connecting portion is smaller than the thickness of other parts of the thermal management component in the first direction, such that there is a gap between the connecting portion and the battery cell, and the gap is configured to get out of the way of connection position between an end cover and a side wall of the battery cell (see Figure 23).
Regarding claim 5, Palanchon discloses that one of the two connected connecting portions is provided with a first step structure, and the other is provided with a second step structure, the first step structure and the second step structure are provided opposite to each other in the first direction, and overlap each other to form a plane (see Figure 23).
Regarding claim 6, Palanchon discloses one of the two connected connecting portions is provided with a protrusion in the second direction, and the other is provided with an groove in the second direction, the protrusion is provided corresponding to the groove, and the protrusion is accommodated in the groove to achieve the connection of the two connecting portions (claim 50).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Palanchon discloses that the connecting portion is provided with a reinforcing rib 324/326 protruding towards the battery cell and that the reinforcing rib is accommodated in space formed by the end cover and an electrode terminal of the battery cell (see Figure 23).
Regarding claim 9, Palanchon discloses that a surface shape of the thermal management component matches a surface shape of the battery cell (paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 10, Palanchon discloses that the plurality of the battery cells of the battery cell group are bonded to the thermal management component in the first direction (paragraph 105).
Regarding claim 12, Palanchon discloses that the battery is configured to supply electrical energy to the power consumption apparatus (paragraph 4).
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanchon as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of German (US 2009/0301700 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Palanchon does not disclose welds. German—in an invention for battery arrays with heat exchanger plates—discloses the use of welding to join the heat exchanger plates for its low error rate, production of heat exchanger tube bundles with virtually no leakage, and its rapidity (paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to weld the components of Palanchon together for the advantages described in German.
Regarding claim 11, Palanchon does not disclose an insulating layer. German discloses utilizing plastic for its heat exchanger plate materials for their electrically insulating properties, low weight, and long-term durability (paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize electrically insulating materials in Palanchon for their advantages properties as discussed in German.
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights