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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0406784 to Yoshida, et al.
As to Claim 1, Yoshida ‘784 discloses: (Yoshida ‘784 Figs. 1 and 8 are reproduced herein with Examiner’s notations.)
A battery pack [corresponding to battery unit (2) (Annotated Fig. 1, Par. 38-39)] equipped with a heat non-diffusion cooling structure having a comb shape [corresponding to plate unit (30) forming the top of cooling plate 3 and attached fins (vertical connecting parts (32) and protrusions (37) (Annotated Fig. 8, Par. 56)], the battery pack comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
789
1109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
815
1252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of battery cells [corresponding to the battery stack (7) (Annotated Fig. 1, Par. 39)] arranged in a first direction [corresponding to the thickness direction in which batteries are stacked (Annotated Fig. 1, Par. 39)];
a heat sink [corresponding to the bottom of cooling plate (3) (Annotated Fig. 8, Par. 48, bottom of the cooling plate corresponds to the heat sink} facing the plurality of battery cells in a second direction that is different from the first direction [the second direction corresponding to the direction in which coolant faces the underside of the plurality of battery cells which appears perpendicular to the first direction (Annotated Fig. 8, Par. 48)], the heat sink continuously extending along the plurality of battery cells [corresponding to the bottom of cooling plate (3), which continuously extends along the plurality of battery cells (battery stack (7)) (Annotated Fig. 8)]; and
thermal-conductive blocks [each of applicant’s thermal-conductive blocks includes a base plate, at least one fin, and a first cavity between adjacent fins: With reference to Annotated Fig. 8, the top of plate unit (30) corresponds to the base plate, which together with fins (the vertically connecting parts (32), Par. 54, and protrusions (37), Par. 56) and the cavities between fins correspond closely to thermal-conductive blocks with the sole exception that Yoshida ‘784 discloses a single cooling plate in contact with multiple cells of the plurality of battery cells; however, see the embodiment disclosed in Fig 11, Par 61 in which separate cooling plates (3) each individually contact a single battery cell (1)] between the heat sink and the plurality of battery cells [corresponding to between the coolant and the plurality of battery cells (Annotated Fig. 8)],
wherein the thermal-conductive blocks each include:
a base plate [corresponding to the top of metal plate unit (30), which contacts the battery cells (6) and forms the top of cooling plate (3) (Annotated Fig. 8, Pars. 53 and 56)] …, and
a first cavity [corresponding to the areas between adjacent fins, including the headspace above the heat sink (coolant) to accommodate boiled coolant enabling self-circulation (Annotated Fig. 8, Par. 48)] and at least one fin [corresponding to vertically connecting parts (32) and protrusions (37) (Annotated Fig. 8, Pars. 54 and 56)] alternately arranged in the first direction [fins and cavities alternate in the first direction corresponding to the thickness direction in which battery cells are stacked (Annotated Figs. 1 and 8, Par. 39)], the first cavity and the at least one fin being between the base plate and the heat sink [fins (vertically connecting parts (32) and protrusions (37)) and the first cavity (the headspace between fins to accommodate boiled coolant) are disposed between the base plate (the top of plate unit (30)) and the heat sink (coolant) (Annotated Fig. 8)].
Yoshida ‘784 discloses the thermal conductive blocks each include a base plate on a plurality of battery cells as disclosed above in Fig 8. Furthermore, Yoshida ‘784 also discloses the cooling base plate can be coupled with one single battery cell in Fig 11, Par. 61 in order create cooling thermal runaway one to another to circulate after lowering its temperature in Par. 62-63.
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to modify the battery unit in Fig 8 to be a single battery cell lay out as disclosed in Fig 11 in order to create single coolant passage in between battery cells for a speedy cooling effect as suggested by Yoshida ‘487 in Par. 62-63.
As to Claim 2, Yoshida ‘784 discloses the invention of Claim 1 and additionally discloses:
The battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the at least one fin includes a plurality of fins [corresponding to vertically connecting parts (32) and protrusions (37) (Annotated Fig. 8, Pars. 53 and 56)] adjacent to each other in the first direction with the first cavity therebetween [fins and cavities alternate in the first direction corresponding to the thickness direction in which battery cells are stacked (Annotated Figs. 1 and 8, Par. 39)], and
the plurality of fins are adjacent to each other in a third direction with a second cavity therebetween [the second cavity corresponding to longitudinal coolant passages (8A) (Fig. 4, Par. 44) formed by fins adjacent in a third direction (vertically in Fig. 4, where some fins (vertically connecting parts (32) but not protrusions) are shown as solid squares; See also third direction in Annotated Fig. 1)], the third direction being different from the first direction and the second direction [the third direction, appearing vertically in Fig. 4 and shown in Annotated Fig. 1, is perpendicular to thus different from both the second direction (looking down on Fig. 4; See also Annotated Fig. 1) and the first direction (the thickness direction of cell stacking in which adjacent fins define the first cavity (lateral coolant passages 8B in Fig. 4, the first direction appearing horizontally in Fig. 4; See also first direction in Annotated Fig. 1).
Claims 3 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0406784 to Yoshida, et al. (“Yoshida ‘784”) in view of Welling, J. R. and Wooldridge, C. B., Free-convection heat-transfer coefficients from rectangular vertical fins. Trans. ASME, J. Heat Transfer, 1965, 87, 439-444 (“Welling and Wooldridge”).
As to Claim 3, Yoshida ‘784 discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 2. wherein the plurality of fins are arranged in the first direction and the third direction.
In addition, Yoshida ‘784 notes at Par 46 that cooling plate (3) uses the heat energy of a battery cell (1) with an abnormally increased temperature to cause the coolant to self-circulate (even in times when a pump forcing circulation is not powered), thereby cooling the coolant.
Yoshida ‘784 does not disclose: such that a width of the first cavity in the first direction is less than a width of the second cavity in the third direction.
Welling, J. R. and Wooldridge disclose the effect of gap width among vertical fins on heat transfer is known in the art (See, e.g., Welling, J. R. and Wooldridge, C. B., Free-convection heat-transfer coefficients from rectangular vertical fins. Trans. ASME, J. Heat Transfer, 1965, 87, 439-444 (“Welling and Wooldridge”). Welling and Wooldridge teach that free convection heat transfer coefficients increase with increasing gap width between fins (See Figs. 6 and 7 and discussion beginning at top of second column, p. 442). Thus, before the effective filing date of the invention of Claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known it was possible to alter the pattern of heat dissipation by varying the gap widths between fins positioned in a two-dimensional array.
Both Yoshida et al. and Welling, J. R. and Wooldridge are analogous in the field of electronics that need heat dissipation; thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to modify/vary the width of the gap of Yoshida et al. to be smaller or bigger as needed as taught by Welling and Wooldridge as Welling and Wooldridge discloses free convection heat transfer coefficients can increase with increasing gap width between fins wherein the heat dissipation is important to prevent electronic overheating.
As to Claim 4, Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 3.
Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge does not disclose:
further comprising a third cavity between facing outer fins of thermal-conductive blocks that are adjacent to each other in the first direction.
Nevertheless, this limitation merely recites that an existing structural feature in Claim 3 is a “third cavity.” Accordingly, Claim 4 is commensurate in scope with Claim 3 and is likewise rejected as obvious over Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge for the same reasons articulated as for Claim 3 above.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to just duplicate the cavities as duplicate the parts per MPEP 2144.04.
As to Claim 5, Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 4.
Yoshida ‘784 further discloses:
wherein the third cavity … is at a same level as the first cavity and the second cavity.
The third cavity was defined in parent Claim 4 to be between facing outer fins of thermal-conductive blocks. The outer fins are part of the plurality of fins defined in parent Claim 2 to be adjacent to each other in the first direction with the first cavity therebetween and also to be adjacent to each other in a third direction with the second cavity therebetween. It therefore follows that the first and second cavities, defined by the same fins, are on the same level as each other. The “same level” in Claim 5 for the first, second, and third cavities is apparent from the specification to be between the opposing surfaces of the base plate and the heat sink.
Yoshida ‘784 discloses corresponding structures for these two surfaces. Applicant’s base plate corresponds to the top of plate unit (30) (the top of cooling plate (3)) as shown in Fig 8. Applicant’s heat sink corresponds to the bottom of cooling plate (3) in Fig 8.
The vertically connecting parts (32) and protrusions (37) of Yoshida ‘784 in Fig. 8 are a series of fins disposed in the first (battery stacking) direction, with cavities alternating in between. These cavities form lateral passages (8B) (corresponding to applicant’s first cavity) and longitudinal passages (8A) (corresponding to applicant’s second cavity) as shown in Fig. 4, both at the same level. As applicant’s third cavity is defined by certain of the same fins as those defining applicant’s first cavity, it follows that the third cavity must be at the same level as both the first cavity and likewise the second cavity.
Neither Yoshida ‘784 nor Welling and Wooldridge discloses:
wherein the third cavity is between adjacent base plates in the first direction…
The third cavity was defined in parent Claim 4 to be between facing outer fins of thermal-conductive blocks. The additional limitation that the third cavity is between adjacent base plates indicates that the facing outer fins are commensurate in width with the facing edges of the respective base plates upon which they are mounted. In other words, each of the facing outer fins are mounted so as to be flush with the edge of the corresponding base plate. Applicant has provided no evidence of a functional advantage to limiting the facing outer fins to be flush with the edges of the base plates upon which they are mounted.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill sin the art to modify the third cavity of Yoshida ‘784 in view of Wellington and Wooldridge to be between adjacent base plates in the first direction represents a mere rearrangement of parts and has no patentable significance as rearrangement of part. [See MPEP §2144.04 VI. C. (Rearrangement of Parts): In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claims 6 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0406784 to Yoshida, et al. (“Yoshida ‘784”) in view of Welling, J. R. and Wooldridge, C. B., Free-convection heat-transfer coefficients from rectangular vertical fins. Trans. ASME, J. Heat Transfer, 1965, 87, 439-444 (“Welling and Wooldridge”), and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0273278 to Yoshida, et al. (“Yoshida ‘278”).
As to Claim 6, Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 4, as well as:
further comprising an insulating sheet [corresponding to separators (6) in Yoshida ‘784, See Fig. 8, Pars. 41-42]…,
the third cavity is between adjacent base plates adjacent in the first direction between adjacent base plates (see claim discussion of claim 5)
wherein: … a width of the third cavity in the first direction is greater than a width of the first cavity in the first direction. [See Welling and Wooldridge Figs. 6 and 7 and associated discussion beginning at top of second column on page 442 teaching the effect of gap width among vertical fins on free convection heat transfer coefficients. Welling and Wooldridge demonstrate that prior to the effective filing date of the invention of Claim 6, to alter the pattern of heat dissipation beneath a single cell and beneath the area between adjacent cells by altering the relative widths of the first and third cavities, respectively. Discussion of claim 3]
Yoshida ‘278 discloses:
further comprising an insulating sheet between adjacent base plates [See Figs. 4 and 5 showing separators (6) disposed between each battery cell (1) and extending into slit (33) in metal sheet (31) (corresponding to a base plate) of cooling plate (3) to define heat insulating portions (8) separating thermal coupling portions (10) beneath each battery cell; See also Pars 22-24 and 48], and
wherein: the third cavity is …on the insulating sheet between adjacent base plates…(See references from previous paragraph indicating separators (6) extend into top of cooling plate (3). Thus, the separators (6) of Yoshida ‘278 extending to define heat insulating portions (8) in metal sheet (31) (a segmented base plate) afford the battery pack of Claim 6 having an insulating sheet between adjacent base plates and extending into a third cavity between those base plates.
Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge does not disclose: that the insulating sheet is between adjacent base plates.
Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge, and Yoshida ‘278 are analogous in the field of electronics need heat dissipation, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill sin the art to modify the battery of Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge to add additional insulation sheet between adjacent base plates as taught by Yoshida ‘278 in order to achieve individual cooling effect among battery cells as suggested by Yoshi et al.
As to Claim 7, Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge and further in view of Yoshida ‘278 discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 6, as well as:
wherein: the insulating sheet is further between the plurality of battery cells that are adjacent to each other in the first direction [See separators (6) in Yoshida ‘784, Fig. 8, Pars. 41-42], and
the insulating sheet extends at least partially between the thermal-conductive blocks that are adjacent to each other in the first direction [See Yoshida ‘278 Figs. 4 and 5 showing separators (6) disposed between each battery cell (1) and extending into slit (33) in metal sheet (31) (corresponding to a base plate) of cooling plate (3) to define heat insulating portions (8) separating thermal coupling portions (10) beneath each battery cell; See also Pars 22-24 and 48. The Examiner also notes that thermal-conductive blocks are defined in parent Claim 1 to include “a base plate” and thus the present limitation “extends at least partially between the thermal-conductive blocks” is already encompassed within the limitation of parent Claim 6 reciting an insulating sheet “between adjacent base plates.”]
As to Claim 8, Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge and further in view of Yoshida ‘278 discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 7, as well as:
wherein: the insulating sheet extends in the second direction from between adjacent ones of the plurality of battery cells to between adjacent thermal-conductive blocks [The Examiner notes that thermal-conductive blocks are defined in parent Claim 1 to include “a base plate” and thus the present limitation “the insulating sheet extends in the second direction from between adjacent ones of the plurality of battery cells to between adjacent thermal-conductive blocks” is already encompassed within the limitations of parent Claim 7 reciting “the insulating sheet is further between the plurality of battery cells that are adjacent to each other in the first direction” and “the insulating sheet extends at least partially between the thermal-conductive blocks that are adjacent to each other in the first direction.”], and
an extending end of the insulating sheet is in the third cavity between outer, facing fins of thermal-conductive blocks that are adjacent to each other in the first direction. [Yoshida ‘278 at Figs 4 and 5 discloses separators (6) disposed between each battery cell (1) and extending into slit (33) in metal sheet (31) (corresponding to a base plate) of cooling plate (3) to define heat insulating portions (8) separating thermal coupling portions (10) beneath each battery cell; See also Pars 22-24 and 48. These thermal coupling portions provide a route for heat dissipation for each cell. As applicant’s individualized mechanism for heat dissipation for each cell is the thermal conductive block, extension of the insulating sheet to the lower portions of the outer edge of each thermal conductive block (the third cavity defined in the first direction by the space between facing outer fins of thermal conductive blocks) represents an obvious extension of the principle of Yoshida ‘278 yielding predictable results in separating heat dissipation from individual cells to achieve the objective of preventing thermal runaway by heat transfer to adjacent cells.
As to Claim 9, Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge and further in view of Yoshida ‘278 discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 7.
Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge and further in view of Yoshida ‘278 does not disclose:
wherein: the insulating sheet has a first thickness in the first direction between the plurality of battery cells that are adjacent to each other, and
the insulating sheet has a second thickness in the first direction between the base plates of the thermal-conductive blocks that are adjacent to each other,
the second thickness being different from the first thickness.
Although applicant has recited multiple location dependent thicknesses for the insulating sheet, applicant’s specification is silent on the criticality of the difference in thickness at locations where the sheet is between cells as versus between base plates. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. [See MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A.]
Further it would have been obvious for person with ordinary skills in the art modify the thickness of insulating sheet of Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge and further in view of Yoshida ‘278 to be thicker or thinner depending on the heat dissipation needs at particular location.
As to Claim 10, Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge and further in view of Yoshida ‘278 discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 9. wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness (see discussion of claim 9).
As to Claim 11, Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge and further in view of Yoshida ‘278 discloses the battery pack as claimed in Claim 7, wherein the insulating sheet surrounds corners of facing side surfaces of the base plates of the thermal-conductive blocks that are adjacent to each other, and portions of top and bottom surfaces of the base plates adjacent to the side surfaces(see e.g. discussion of claim 9)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for person with ordinary skills in the art modify the battery cell of Yoshida ‘784 in view of Welling and Wooldridge and further in view of Yoshida ‘278 to apply the insulation on various locations within the battery cell wherever the overheated location of as taught by Yoshida ‘278 in order to create individual heat dissipation zone as suggested by Yoshida et al. ‘278.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Hinton, et al. (US2003/0165734 A1) discloses a corrugated cooling fin for dissipating heat from prismatic battery cells [See Pars. 22-24 and Fig. 1]. Melack, et al. (US2020/0052256 A1) discloses a battery system anticipating an embodiment of Claim 1 having a thermal conductive block with one fin [See Pars. 45-48 and Fig. 5A]. Melack, et al. (US2019/0393570 A1) discloses “feathered” fins (See Pars. 51-53 and Fig. 4B]. Hitoshi, et al. (JP2020/047507A) discloses cooling a battery cell with at least one heat dissipation structure between the cell and a cooling member [See Pars. 19-24 and Figs. 1 and 2]. Yoichiro (JP2012/243619A) discloses a plurality of thermally conductive plate-like fins fully or partially reaching between a cell and a heat sink [See Pars. 30-33 and Figs. 1 and 2]. Robert, et al. (US2017/0133644 A1) discloses a thermal base assembly having a comb shaped structure for dissipating heat from a battery cell [See Pars. 30 and 33-35 and Figs. 4A, 5A, and 5B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G IZZO whose telephone number is (571)270-0705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:30 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, 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.
/C.G.I./
Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights