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 Interpretation
In Claim 4, “a thickness of the case in the first direction” is interpreted in line with Fig. 5: a thickness of one wall of the case, b, rather than both walls of the case, 2b.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/203,286 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of 18/203,286 discloses a plurality of cooling plates including a plurality of chambers containing a phase change material (lines 9-10).
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/203,286 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 6 discloses that the plurality of cooling plates are made of aluminum and Claim 12 discloses that the phase change material is a paraffin-based material.
Claim 7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/203,286 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of 18/203,286 discloses a battery module comprising a cooling fin including a phase change material (lines 9-10), at least one battery cell having one surface in contact with the phase change material of the cooling fin (lines 1-3), and a cooling channel coupled to one end surface of the battery cell perpendicular to the one surface of the battery cell, receiving heat from the cooling fin including the phase change material, and dissipating the heat to an outside (lines 7-8).
Claim 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/203,286 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 14 of 18/203 discloses an elastic pad (surface pressure pad) installed between a cooling plate and a battery cell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 12 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: Claim 12 recites the limitation “a surface pressure pad interposed between the cooling fin including the phase change material,” but does not state the second object that the surface pressure pad is between.
Claim 12 is interpreted in accordance with paragraph 0057 and Fig. 10: the surface pressure pad is interposed between the cooling fin and the battery cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 20170222283 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches a cooling plate/fin (part 20) comprising:
a case having one surface in contact with a heat source (0076, Fig. 5 – at least one surface of each cooling plate/fin 20 contact a battery/heat source 10) and having a hollow part therein (0032, Fig. 1 – cooling part 21); and
a cooling material filled in the hollow part, wherein the cooling material includes a phase change material having a heat transfer coefficient greater than or equal to a predetermined value at a predetermined temperature (0148, 0149 – the hollow part can comprise capsules that contain phase change materials. The phase change materials would necessarily have a heat transfer coefficient that is greater than or equal to a predetermined value at a predetermined temperature).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi teaches the cooling fin of Claim 1. The case has a rectangular parallelepiped shape in which the cooling material is filled (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi teaches the colling fin of Claim 3. When a thickness direction perpendicular to the one surface of the case is referred to as a first direction, and a longitudinal direction of the cooling fin perpendicular to the first direction is referred to as a second direction, a thickness of the case in the first direction at a predetermined position in the second direction is greater than 0.1 times and less than or equal to 0.5 times a width of the hollow part in the first direction (0038-0039, 0058, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi teaches the cooling fin of Claim 3. The case includes at least one support step protruding inwards by a predetermined depth from a surface in contact with the heat source (Fig. 2 – ribs 22 can be viewed as a support step).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi teaches the cooling fin of Claim 5. A thickness of the case at each edge portion thereof is greater than a thickness of the case at one side other than the edge portion (Fig. 1 – the edges of the case, which do not comprise the cooling parts 21, are thicker than the parts of the case which comprise the cooling parts 21).
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng (US 20230030003 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zeng teaches a cooling fin (part 18) comprising:
a case having one surface in contact with a heat source (Fig. 1 – the thermal energy storage member 18 contacts one side of the battery 16) and having a hollow part therein (Abstract – the thermal energy storage member includes an adsorption chamber and an adsorbent material disposed within the adsorption chamber); and
a cooling material filled in the hollow part, wherein the cooling material includes a phase change material (0032 – the thermal energy storage member/cooling fin includes an adsorbent material. Thermal energy from the battery cells vaporizes the absorbate from the adsorbent material which removes heat from the system) having a heat transfer coefficient greater than or equal to a predetermined value at a predetermined temperature (the absorbate would necessarily have heat transfer coefficient greater than or equal to a predetermined value at a predetermined temperature).
Regarding Claim 7, Zeng teaches a battery module (Abstract) comprising:
a cooling fin (Fig. 1 – part 18) including a phase change material (0032 – the thermal energy storage member/cooling fin includes an adsorbent material. Thermal energy from the battery cells vaporizes the absorbate from the adsorbent material which removes heat from the system),
at least one battery cell having one surface in contact with the cooling fin (Fig. 1 – part 16) so that the battery cell is cooled by the phase change material of the cooling fin; and
a cooling channel coupled to one end surface of the battery cell perpendicular to the one surface of the battery cell (parts 20 and 28) (0008, 0033, Fig. 1), receiving heat from the cooling fin including the phase change material, and dissipated the heat to an outside.
Regarding Claim 12, Zeng teaches the battery module of Claim 7. Zeng teaches that a surface pressure pad (compression layer) may be interposed in the middle of a cooling fin (between a cooling fin), which would reduce pressure applied from the battery cell (0046, Fig. 3: parts 18, 24, and 36).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20170222283 A1) in view of Amir (Paraffin as Phase Change Material).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi teaches the cooling fin of Claim 1. The case may be made of aluminum (0069). Choi does not teach that the cooling material includes a paraffin-based material.
Amir teaches that paraffin is a phase change material that can be encapsulated (4.1 Encapsulation of PPCMs) and that it is safe, reliable, inexpensive, and non-irritating (3. Paraffin-based phase change materials).
Choi and Amir are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely phase change materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the phase change material of Choi to be paraffin as Amir teaches it as a phase change material that can be encapsulated that is safe, reliable, inexpensive, and non-irritating.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US 20230030003 A1) in view of Sohn (US 20110300428 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Zeng teaches the battery module of Claim 7. Zeng does not teach a gap filler interposed between the at least one battery cell and the cooling channel and having a thermal conductivity higher than or equal to a predetermined value.
Sohn teaches a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells attached to a plurality of cooling plates, where one of the cooling plates has a coolant flow passage (Abstract) and can be viewed as a cooling channel. A thermal pad can be placed each of the battery cells and the cooling plates to increase heat dissipating efficiency of the battery cells (0044).
Zeng and Sohn are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely cooling for batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of Zeng by applying a thermal pad between the batteries and cooling channel as taught by Sohn in order to increase the heat dissipating efficiency of the battery cells.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US 20230030003 A1) in view of Katayama (US 20130146249 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Zeng teaches the battery module of Claim 7. Zeng does not teach a gap filler interposed between the at least one battery cell and the cooling channel and having a thermal conductivity higher than or equal to a predetermined value.
Katayama teaches a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells and a cooling plate (Abstract). A deformable heat transfer sheet and electrically insulative sheet, which together can be viewed as a gap filler, are disposed between the cooling surface of the battery cells and the cooling plate (0028, 0029). This allows for the elimination of gaps between the cooling surfaces of the battery cells and the cooling plates, which improves the cooling of the batteries (0047).
Zeng and Katayama are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely cooling for batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng by adding the heat transfer sheet and the electrically insulative sheet taught by Katayama in order to improve the cooling of the batteries.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Zeng teaches the battery module of Claim 8. The cooling fin including the phase change material extends toward the gap filler so that an end of the cooling fin is embedded in the gap filler by a predetermined interval (Katayama: 0047 – the weight of the cooling fin would compress the heat transfer sheet, meaning that the cooling fin can be viewed as embedded in the gap filler by the amount of compression). The gap filler includes a sealing part fixing the cooling fin including the phase change material (Katayama: 0039 – the heat transfer sheet can have an adhesive property and can thus be viewed as a sealing part fixing the cooling fin).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Zeng teaches the battery of Claim 9. The cooling fin including the phase change material extends to the direction of perpendicular to one surface of the battery cell by a predetermined interval (Zeng: Fig. 1 – the thermal energy storage member 18 has a thickness). The cooling channel and the gap filler extends in an extension direction of the cooling fin including the phase change material by the same interval of the cooling fin (Zeng: Fig. 1 – the cooling plate extends in the thickness direction of the cooling fin. The gap filler would also extend in the thickness direction by the same amount).
Alternatively, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Zeng teaches the battery module of Claim 8. The cooling fin including the phase change material extends to one side surface and an opposing side surface of the battery cell (Zeng: Fig. 1 – parts 16 and 18), the cooling channel or the gap filler is coupled to both of the one end surface and an opposing end surface of the battery cell (Zeng: Fig. 1; Katayama: 0039 – the surface of the battery cell contacting the cooling fin and its opposing surface can be viewed as end surfaces. The edges of those surfaces contact the heat transfer sheet portion of the gap filler and can be viewed as coupled to it), and each of the gap fillers includes a sealing part between the battery cells (Katayama: Fig. 7A-C – the heat transfer sheet/gap filler is a continuous sheet and would therefore be present between the battery cells).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues presented above, Zeng teaches the battery module of Claim 7. Zeng does not teach a surface pressure pad interposed between the cooling fin including the phase change material.
Katayama teaches a deformable heat transfer sheet that can be disposed between the cooling surface of battery cells and a cooling plate (0028). The heat transfer sheet compresses to eliminate gaps between the cooling surfaces of the battery cells and the cooling plate, which improves the cooling of the batteries (0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery module of Zeng to include a heat transfer sheet as taught by Katayama between the surface of the battery and the thermal energy storage member/cooling fin in order to eliminate gaps and improve cooling of the battery.
The heat transfer sheet/surface pressure pad would reduce the pressure applied from the battery cell (Katayama: 0047) and would necessarily have a thermal conductivity greater than or equal to a predetermined value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lindstrom (US 20200358057 A1) teaches a cooling plate comprising a plugged channel containing phase change material (0038).
Nam (US 20200136211 A1) teaches a cooling plate (part 100) including a case (part 110 and a heat transfer material (part 120) within the case. The heat transfer material may be a phase change material (0045, Fig. 1).
Dede (US 20200136216 A1) teaches a case/PCM shell (part 112) comprising a capsule (part 134) that contains PCM (Abstract, 0038, Fig. 3A).
Hu (US 20240039081 A1) teaches a battery module comprising a cooling unit/fin through which a coolant flow through. The cooling unit/fin is arranged between adjacent battery cells has a coolant flowing through (Abstract). The coolant can be supplied from supply lines (parts 38 and 40) formed in the side walls (part 12) (Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights