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 statements (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024, 05/31/2024, 11/21/2024, 11/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US PGPub 2007/0122695, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electrochemical cell system, comprising:
a first electrochemical cell (figure 1, battery 11, multiple of which can be seen);
a second electrochemical cell (battery 11, multiple of which can be seen);
a first planar sheet (closer of panels 21 in figure 1) contacting the first electrochemical cell, the first planar sheet including a first plurality of dimples (protrusions 22); and
a second planar sheet (further of panels 21 in figure 1) contacting the second electrochemical cell, the second planar sheet extending parallel to the first planar sheet (see figure 1), the second planar sheet separated from the first planar sheet by a separation distance (seen in figure 2), the second planar sheet including a second plurality of dimples (protrusions 22);
wherein the first plurality of dimples and the second plurality of dimples are both configured to induce turbulence in an air stream flowing parallel to the first planar sheet and the second planar sheet (figure 2). As can be seen in the figure, any air streams flowing through barriers 20 would have to flow around the dimples, creating turbulence.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the first plurality of dimples protrude outward from the first planar sheet and the second plurality of dimples protrude outward from the second planar sheet (figures 1 and 2, see protrusions 22 on panels 21).
Claim 16 and 20-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asahina et al. (US 8298700, hereinafter Asahina).
Regarding claim 16, Asahina discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a first planar sheet (figure 2, plate 4, multiple of which can be seen) including a first base surface and a first plurality of dimples (portions 5) extending from the first base surface; and
a second planar sheet (plate 4, multiple of which can be seen) including a second base surface and a second plurality of dimples (portions 5) extending from the second base surface,
wherein the first planar sheet and the second planar sheet are configured to be placed together such that the second plurality of dimples occupy void areas between the first plurality of dimples while the first base surface faces the second base surface (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Asahina discloses a first electrochemical cell disposed on the first planar sheet opposite the first base surface; and a second electrochemical cell disposed on the second planar sheet opposite the second base surface (figure 2, batteries within cases 2).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Asahina discloses dimples configured to induce turbulence of an air stream flowing along the first planar sheet, creating local eddies having a velocity greater than a bulk velocity of the air stream by a factor of at least about 5 or 10 (see figure 2). Based on the angles present in the dimples of Asahina, the apparatus of Asahina would be fully capable of producing turbulence as recited.
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2007/0122695, hereinafter Kim) in view of Park et al. (US PGPub 2023/0128584, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not explicitly disclose an additional plurality of electrochemical cells contacting the planar sheets. Park teaches a planar sheet (figure 1, frame 40) with dimples (figure 3, protrusions 620) that contacts an electrochemical cell and an additional plurality of electrochemical cells (cells 200). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kim with additional cells contacting the planar sheets for the purpose of meeting the desired power requirements with as many cells as are needed.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2007/0122695, hereinafter Kim) in view of Stone et al. (US PGPub 2016/0201148, hereinafter Stone).
Regarding claim 4, Kim is silent to the dimples having a triangular shape. Stone teaches a planar sheet contacting an electrochemical cell (figure 5) having a plurality of dimples (protrusions 211) that have distal surfaces with a triangular shape (paragraph 0036). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Kim with the triangular shape of Stone because Stone states that protrusions may have a variety of shapes including round and triangular (paragraph 0036), indicating that these shapes are both known to be suitable and perform similarly.
Regarding claim 5, Kim is silent to the triangular shape. Stone is relied upon, as above, to teach dimples having a triangular shape, and further to teach each of the distal surfaces adjoins three adjacent surfaces, the three adjacent surfaces contacting a base portion of the first planar sheet (paragraph 0036). Based on the description in Stone of triangular cross section, the protrusions of Stone would have three adjacent vertical surfaces contacting the base portion at item 202a in figure 2. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Kim with the triangular shape of Stone because Stone states that protrusions may have a variety of shapes including round and triangular (paragraph 0036), indicating that these shapes are both known to be suitable and perform similarly.
Regarding claim 6, Kim is silent to the triangular shape. Stone is relied upon, as above, to teach the triangular shape, and also to teach each of the three adjacent surfaces have a rectangular shape (paragraph 0036, figures 2 and 2a). As can be seen in figure 2a, the protrusions with rectangular cross section have rectangular adjacent surfaces. Although triangular cross section protrusions are not shown, they would have similar adjacent surfaces. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Kim with the triangular shape of Stone because Stone states that protrusions may have a variety of shapes including round and triangular (paragraph 0036), indicating that these shapes are both known to be suitable and perform similarly.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2007/0122695, hereinafter Kim) in view of Stone et al. (US PGPub 2016/0201148, hereinafter Stone), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Asahina et al. (US 8298700, hereinafter Asahina).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kim and Stone are silent to filleted surfaces and oblique surfaces. Asahina teaches protrusions having distal surfaces and adjacent surfaces (figure 2) wherein adjoinment between the distal surface and the adjacent surfaces includes a filleted surface and at least one adjacent surface is an oblique surface (see figures 3c and 4c). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the combination of Kim and Stone with the filleted and oblique surfaces of Asahina because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for turbulence in cooling gas, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2007/0122695, hereinafter Kim) in view of Asahina et al. (US 8298700, hereinafter Asahina).
Regarding claim 9, Kim is silent to the second plurality of dimples being configured to contact the first planar sheet in spaces between the first plurality of dimples. Asahina teaches plates having dimples (figure 2) wherein the second plurality of dimples is configured to contact the first planar sheet in spaces between the first plurality of dimples (see figure 2). Although it is noted that the dimples do not contact the planar sheet, they would clearly be capable of (i.e. configured to) do so, meeting the claim. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kim with the staggered dimples of Asahina for the purpose of allowing smaller gaps to achieve higher air flow for greater cooling.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2007/0122695, hereinafter Kim) in view of Stone et al. (US PGPub 2016/0201148, hereinafter Stone) and Asahina et al. (US 8298700, hereinafter Asahina).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses a planar sheet configured to be placed between electrochemical cells to improve heat dispersion from the electrochemical cells, the planar sheet including:
a base surface (figure 1, panel 21); and
a plurality of dimples (portions 5) protruding outward from the base surface, the plurality of dimples each including: a distal surface (see figure 1)
Kim is silent to the dimples having a triangular shape. Stone teaches a planar sheet contacting an electrochemical cell (figure 5) having a plurality of dimples (protrusions 211) that have distal surfaces with a triangular shape (paragraph 0036). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Kim with the triangular shape of Stone because Stone states that protrusions may have a variety of shapes including round and triangular (paragraph 0036), indicating that these shapes are both known to be suitable and perform similarly.
Kim and Stone are silent to filleted surfaces. Asahina teaches protrusions having distal surfaces and adjacent surfaces (figure 2) wherein adjoinment between the distal surface and the adjacent surfaces includes a filleted surface (see figures 3c and 4c). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the combination of Kim and Stone with the filleted surfaces of Asahina because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for turbulence in cooling gas, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the plurality of dimples include a hollowed area opposite the distal surface (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Kim and Stone are silent to oblique surfaces. Asahina teaches protrusions having distal surfaces and adjacent surfaces (figure 2) wherein at least one adjacent surface is an oblique surface (see figures 3c and 4c). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the combination of Kim and Stone with the oblique surfaces of Asahina because such a change in shape would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for turbulence in cooling gas, as evidenced by the references. See In re Dailey, supra.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kim discloses dimples configured to induce turbulence of an air stream flowing along the first planar sheet, creating local eddies having a velocity greater than a bulk velocity of the air stream by a factor of at least about 5 or 10 (see figures 1 and 2). Based on the angles present in the dimples of Kim, the apparatus of Kim would be fully capable of producing turbulence as recited.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina et al. (US 8298700, hereinafter Asahina) in view of Stone et al. (US PGPub 2016/0201148, hereinafter Stone).
Regarding claim 17, Asahina is silent to the dimples having a triangular shape. Stone teaches a planar sheet contacting an electrochemical cell (figure 5) having a plurality of dimples (protrusions 211) that have distal surfaces with a triangular shape (paragraph 0036). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the protrusions of Asahina with the triangular shape of Stone because Stone states that protrusions may have a variety of shapes including polygonal and triangular (paragraph 0036), indicating that these shapes are both known to be suitable and perform similarly. Asahina also dislcoses protrusions having distal surfaces and adjacent surfaces (figure 2) wherein adjoinment between the distal surface and the adjacent surfaces includes a filleted surface (see figures 3c and 4c).
Regarding claim 18, Asahina discloses protrusions having distal surfaces and adjacent surfaces (figure 2) wherein at least one adjacent surface is an oblique surface (see figures 3c and 4c).
Regarding claim 19, Asahina discloses protrusions having distal surfaces and adjacent surfaces (figure 2) wherein adjoinment between the distal surface and the adjacent surfaces includes a filleted surface (see figures 3c and 4c).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 is deemed to include allowable subject matter because it recites a particular configuration of the corners not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses battery casings having plates with dimples.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774