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 .
Drawings
2. The drawings were received on 9/27/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 20210399362 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses an integrated battery cooling module (50, 50’) comprising a battery stack (100, 100’) having a top end, a front end, a bottom end separated from the top end by a height of the front end, a back end separated from the front end by a length of the top end; a frame (10, 80; 10’, 80’) at least partially enclosing the battery stack on the front end and the back end, the frame compressing the battery stack between the front end and the back end; and a cooling plate (58’) bonded to and structurally reinforcing the frame and in physical contact with one of the top end and the bottom end of the battery stack [Fig. 1-8, 16, 20-21; paragraph 0072-0086, 0090, 0096, 0099-0105]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches that the battery stack comprises multiple cooling plates (with every cooling module) and in physical contact with the other of the top and the bottom end of the battery stack [Fig. 1, 16, 20-21; paragraph 0090, 0096, 0099-0105].
Regarding claim 3, Tang teaches that the cooling plates each include a plurality of cooling fins [Fig. 2-3, 20-21; paragraph 0012, 0074, 0100].
Regarding claim 4, Tang teaches that the cooling plates each include cooling channels for circulating liquid [paragraph 0023, 0090, 0102].
Regarding claim 6, Tang teaches that the cooling plate is one of an air-cooling heat sink and a liquid-cooling heat sink and the cooling plate is interchangeable with the other of the air-cooling heat sink and the liquid-cooling heat sink [paragraph 0012, 0021, 0100].
Regarding claim 8, Tang teaches that the cooling plate is integrally formed with the battery cooling module [Fig. 20-21].
7. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 20210399362 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of You et al (US 20120325447 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tang remains silent that the cooling channels serpentine between the front end and the back end. However, it is known in the art to utilize serpentine cooling channels for better heat transfer as taught by You [Fig. 1-4, 6; paragraph 0043-0046, 0049]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
8. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 20210399362 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Choi et al (US 20180331336 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tang remains silent that the cooling plate is bonded to the battery stack via a thermal adhesive. However, it is known in the art to bond cooling plate to the battery stack via a thermal adhesive in order to improve a heat transfer amount, a heat transfer rate, and the like between the secondary batteries and the cooling plate as taught by Choi [Fig. 6-7; paragraph 0072-0073, 0076, 0079-80]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
9. Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 20210399362 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tang discloses an integrated battery cooling module, comprising a battery stack (100, 100’) having a top end, a bottom end, a front end, a back end, a first side, and a second side; a frame (10, 80; 10’, 80’) at least partially enclosing the battery stack on the front end, back end, first side, and second side; and a cooling plate (58’) bonded to the frame and in physical contact with one of the top end and the bottom end of the battery stack, the cooling plate including a plurality of cooling fins [Fig. 1-8, 16, 20-21; paragraph 0012, 0072-0086, 0090, 0096, 0099-0105]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Regarding claim 10, Tang teaches that the battery stack comprises multiple cooling plates (with every cooling module) and in physical contact with the other of the top and the bottom end of the battery stack [Fig. 1, 16, 20-21; paragraph 0090, 0096, 0099-0105].
Regarding claim 11, Tang teaches that the cooling plate extends from the front end, back end, first side, and second side of the frame [Fig. 16, 20-21].
Regarding claim 12, Tang teaches that the cooling fins (53) extend from the first side to the second side [Fig. 2-3].9
Regarding claim 13, Tang teaches that the battery stack is compressed by the frame (10, 80; 10’, 80’) between the front end and the back end [Fig. 1, 16, 20-21].
10. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 20210399362 A1) as applied in claim 9 and further in view of Choi et al (US 20180331336 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Tang remains silent that the cooling plate is bonded to the battery stack via a thermal adhesive. However, it is known in the art to bond cooling plate to the battery stack via a thermal adhesive in order to improve a heat transfer amount, a heat transfer rate, and the like between the secondary batteries and the cooling plate as taught by Choi [Fig. 6-7; paragraph 0072-0073, 0076, 0079-80]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
11. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al (US 20230318066 A1) in view of You et al (US 20120325447 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Williams discloses an integrated battery cooling module comprising a battery stack (210A, 210B) having a top end, a bottom end, a front end, a back end, a first side, and a second side; a frame (710, 300) at least partially enclosing the battery stack on the front end, back end, first side, and second side; and a cooling plate (320) bonded to the frame and in physical contact with one of the top end and the bottom end of the battery stack [Fig. 2-5, 7; paragraph 0084-0088, 0098-0105, 0114-0115]. Williams remains silent that the cooling plate comprises cooling fins. However, it is known in the art to utilize cooling fins for better heat transfer as taught by You [Fig. 1-4, 6; paragraph 0043-0046, 0049]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
12. Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 20210399362 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Tang discloses an integrated battery cooling module, comprising a battery stack (100, 100’) having a top end, a bottom end, a front end, a back end, a first side, and a second side; a frame (10, 80; 10’, 80’) at least partially enclosing the battery stack on the front end, back end, first side, and second side; and a cooling plate (58’) bonded to the frame and in physical contact with one of the top end and the bottom end of the battery stack. Tang further teaches that the cooling plate comprises cooling channels (56) for cooling liquid. [Fig. 1-8, 16, 20-21; paragraph 0012, 0072-0086, 0090, 0096, 0099-0105]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Regarding claim 16, Tang teaches that the battery stack comprises multiple cooling plates (with every cooling module) and in physical contact with the other of the top and the bottom end of the battery stack [Fig. 1, 16, 20-21; paragraph 0090, 0096, 0099-0105].
Regarding claim 17, Tang teaches that the cooling plate extends from the front end, back end, first side, and second side of the frame [Fig. 16, 20-21].
Regarding claim 19, Tang teaches that the battery stack is compressed by the frame (10, 80; 10’, 80’) between the front end and the back end [Fig. 1, 16, 20-21].
13. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 20210399362 A1) as applied in claim 15 and further in view of You et al (US 20120325447 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Tang remains silent that the cooling channels serpentine between the front end and the back end. However, it is known in the art to utilize serpentine cooling channels for better heat transfer as taught by You [Fig. 1-4, 6; paragraph 0043-0046, 0049]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
14. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 20210399362 A1) as applied in claim 15 and further in view of Choi et al (US 20180331336 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Tang remains silent that the cooling plate is bonded to the battery stack via a thermal adhesive. However, it is known in the art to bond cooling plate to the battery stack via a thermal adhesive in order to improve a heat transfer amount, a heat transfer rate, and the like between the secondary batteries and the cooling plate as taught by Choi [Fig. 6-7; paragraph 0072-0073, 0076, 0079-80]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights