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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 5-9, 14, and 16-19 are 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.
Claims 5, 14, and 16 recite the limitation “the second and/or third cooling wall” in lines 2-3. Although “a second cooling wall” is previously recited in claim 1, line 2, “a third cooling wall” is not introduced in the respective base claims from which claims 5, 14, and 16 depend, and therefore lacks proper antecedent basis. “A third cooling wall” is introduced in claim 3; however, claims 5, 14, and 16 do not presently depend from claim 3.
Claim 6 recites “the third side” in line 9 and “the third cooling wall” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Accordingly, it is suggested to recite “the second side and an opposite third side” before subsequent reference thereto. Furthermore, claim 6 depends from claim 1, which does not recite “a third cooling wall.”
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 6.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Milde et al. (DE 102017005315 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation, cited in IDS filed 12/22/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Milde teaches a cell cooling unit for multi-sided cooling of a prismatic battery cell of a battery module (Fig. 4, [0024, 0025], L-shaped elements 6, 7 each having cooling channels 11, 13 and defining a cooling structure around energy storage elements 17; the energy storage elements 17 correspond to prismatic battery cells and a plurality thereof forms a battery module), comprising:
a first cooling wall for arrangement on a first side of the prismatic battery cell (Fig. 3, [0024], bottom portion 10 of L-shaped element 6 arranged along a side of energy storage element 17, see annotated figure),
and a second cooling wall for arrangement on a second side of the battery cell (Fig. 3, [0024], wall section 12 of L-shaped element 6 arranged along another side of energy storage element 17, see annotated figure),
wherein the second cooling wall connects to the first cooling wall at right angles (Fig. 3, L-shaped element 6 comprises bottom portion 10 connected to wall section 12 forming an L-shaped cross-section),
wherein the first cooling wall has at least one first cooling channel portion through which a liquid coolant can flow (Fig. 3, [0024], cooling channel 11 within bottom portion 10, see annotated figure),
PNG
media_image1.png
739
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the second cooling wall has at least one second cooling channel portion through which a liquid coolant can flow (Fig. 3, [0024], cooling channel 13 within wall section 12, see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 2, Milde teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Milde further teaches a limitation wherein the at least one first cooling channel portion and the at least one second cooling channel portion are fluidly connected to one another (Fig. 4, [0025], connection of the cooling channels 11, 13 through openings 20).
Specifically, Milde teaches that cooling channels 11 and 13 communicate with connection openings 20 and are interconnected within the cooling circuit. Accordingly, the cooling channel 11 of bottom portion 10 (claimed first cooling channel) is fluidly connected to the cooling channel 13 of wall section 12 (claimed second cooling channel), as claimed
Regarding claim 3, and claim 11, Milde teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 2 as stated above. Milde further teaches a limitation wherein the cell cooling unit has a third cooling wall for arrangement on a third side of the battery cell (Fig. 3, wall section 12 of adjacent L-shaped element 7 positioned on the opposite side of the same energy storage element 17, see annotated figure),
wherein the third cooling wall perpendicularly connects to the first cooling wall and lies opposite the second cooling wall (Fig. 3, the third cooling wall comprises wall section 12 of L-shaped element 7 connected to its associated bottom portion 10 at a right angle and positioned opposite wall section 12 of L-shaped element 6 across energy storage element 17, see annotated figure),
in particular wherein the third cooling wall has at least a third cooling channel portion which is fluidly connected to the first cooling channel portion (Fig. 4, [0025], cooling channel 13 within wall section 12 of L-shaped element 7, wherein cooling channels 11, 13, and 14 are interconnected via connection openings 20 and a cooling circuit).
Regarding claim 5, claim 14, and claim 15, Milde teaches all limitations of claims 1, 2, and 3, as stated above. Milde further teaches a limitation wherein the cell cooling unit has a coolant supply connection and a coolant discharge connection, which are arranged on the second and/or third cooling wall ([0015]: connection openings allow the coolant to be supplied to or removed from the cooling channels; [0025]: L-shaped elements 6, 7 and the I-shaped element 8 have corresponding connection openings on their underside).
Specifically, Milde teaches connection openings 20 that communicate with cooling channels 13, and permit coolant to be supplied to and removed from the cooling channels, thereby corresponding to the claimed coolant supply connection and coolant discharge connection ([0015, 0025]). Additionally, Milde teaches connection openings located on the L-shaped elements 6 and 7 themselves, namely on the underside of the L-shaped elements, which communicate with cooling channels 13 disposed within the wall sections 12. Accordingly, Milde teaches coolant supply and discharge connections arranged on the cooling walls corresponding to the claimed second and/or third cooling wall.
Regarding claim 6, Milde teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Milde further teaches a cooling arrangement with a cell cooling unit according to claim 1 (Fig. 4), the cooling arrangement comprises the prismatic battery cell, which has a cell width in a first direction, a cell length in a second direction and a cell height in a third direction (Fig. 4, energy storage element 17 having width, length, and height dimensions), which has the first side and an opposite fourth side, which delimit the battery cell in the first direction and which represent the two largest sides of the battery cell in terms of surface area, which has a fifth side and an opposite sixth side which delimit the battery cell with respect to the second direction, and which has the second side and the third side, which delimit the battery cell with respect to the third direction (Fig. 4, energy storage element 17 having opposing sides defining its sides), wherein the maximum wall width of the second cooling wall and/or the third cooling wall corresponds to the cell width or is smaller (Fig. 4, width of wall sections 12 is smaller than the width of energy storage elements 17).
Regarding claim 10, Milde teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In another interpretation, claim 1 can be mapped as following:
Milde teaches a cell cooling unit for multi-sided cooling of a prismatic battery cell of a battery module (Fig. 4, [0024, 0025], L-shaped elements 6, 7 each having cooling channels 11, 13 and defining a cooling structure around energy storage elements 17; the energy storage elements 17 correspond to prismatic battery cells and a plurality thereof forms a battery module), comprising:
a first cooling wall for arrangement on a first side of the prismatic battery cell (Fig. 3, [0024], wall section 12 of L-shaped element 6 arranged along a side of energy storage element 17)
and a second cooling wall for arrangement on a second side of the battery cell (Fig. 3, [0024], bottom portion 10 of L-shaped element 6 arranged along another side of energy storage element 17),
wherein the second cooling wall connects to the first cooling wall at right angles (Fig. 3, L-shaped element 6 comprises bottom portion 10 connected to wall section 12 forming an L-shaped cross-section),
wherein the first cooling wall has at least one first cooling channel portion through which a liquid coolant can flow (Fig. 3, [0024], cooling channel 13 within wall section 12),
and the second cooling wall has at least one second cooling channel portion through which a liquid coolant can flow (Fig. 3, [0024], cooling channel 11 within bottom portion 10).
Milde further teaches a battery module for a motor vehicle (Fig. 1, [0019]), with multiple prismatic battery cells (energy storage elements 17, Fig. 4) which are arranged next to one another in the first direction (Fig. 4, energy storage elements 17 arranged adjacent one another within compartments formed by wall sections 12), wherein each of the battery cells is assigned a cell cooling unit according to claim 1 (as discussed above under another interpretation), which is arranged on the associated battery cell, so that the first cooling wall of at least one of the cell cooling units is located between two battery cells arranged adjacent to one another and rests in particular on both of these battery cells (wall sections 12 disposed between adjacent energy storage elements 17, Fig. 4).
Specifically, Milde teaches that the energy storage elements 17 are arranged in compartment structures formed by wall sections 12, wherein the wall sections 12 contain cooling channels 13, and 14 and are positioned between adjacent energy storage elements 17 (Fig. 4). Accordingly, the wall sections 12 correspond to the claimed first cooling wall located between adjacent battery cells and contacting opposing sides of the adjacent battery cells.
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.
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, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milde, as applied to claims 1, 2, and 3 above, and further in view of Schuler et al. (EP 3944401 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation) and Puglia et al. (US 20230369686 A1) and
Regarding claim 4, claim 12, and claim 13, Milde teaches all limitations of claims 1, 2, and 3, as stated above. Milde does not teach a limitation wherein the second cooling wall has a recess for a cell degassing opening of the battery cell, wherein the second cooling wall has a wall width in a first direction and a wall length in a second direction, wherein the wall width varies along the second direction and is smaller in the region of the recess for the cell degassing opening compared to a maximum wall width of the second cooling wall in the first direction.
However, Schuler teaches a battery module including a U-shaped body 104 having a central portion 110 and side portions 108 formed from a cooling plate 114 containing an integrated cooling channel 116 (Fig. 1, [0036, 0038]). Schuler further teaches a vent channel 700 for removing gases leaking from battery cells ([0054]). The vent channel 700 may be part of cover 400 (Fig. 4, [0056]). Accordingly, Schuler teaches a cooling structure integrated with a venting structure for directing gases released from battery cells. Further, Milde, and Schuler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery cell cooling arrangements.
Schuler does not teach a recess for a cell degassing opening of the battery cell, wherein the wall has a wall width in a first direction and a wall length in a second direction, wherein the wall width varies along the second direction and is smaller in the region of the recess for the cell degassing opening compared to a maximum wall width of the second cooling wall in the first direction.
However Puglia teaches this limitation. Specifically Puglia teaches a cell unit including a unit frame 1110 having a recess 1116 configured to accommodate and align with a vent of the cell (Fig. 11A; [0178]). Puglia further teaches that recess 1116 may be aligned with the vent of the cell to aid in directing and funneling vent gases ([0183]). As illustrated in Fig. 11A, recess 1116 removes material from a localized portion of the frame, thereby reducing the width of the frame in the recess region relative to adjacent portions of the frame. Thus, Puglia teaches a wall structure having a width that varies along its length and is smaller in the region of the recess than a maximum wall width elsewhere along the structure.
Further, modified Milde, and Puglia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of thermal management of battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling-wall arrangement of Milde to incorporate the vent-channel arrangement of Schuler for removing gases leaking from the battery cells ([0054] of Schuler) and the recess structure of Puglia to aid in directing and funneling vent gases ([0183] of Puglia).
Regarding claim 16, Milde, as modified by Schuler and Puglia, teaches all limitations of claim 4, as stated above. Milde further teaches a limitation wherein the cell cooling unit has a coolant supply connection and a coolant discharge connection, which are arranged on the second and/or third cooling wall ([0015]: connection openings allow the coolant to be supplied to or removed from the cooling channels; [0025]: L-shaped elements 6, 7 and the I-shaped element 8 have corresponding connection openings on their underside).
Specifically, Milde teaches connection openings 20 that communicate with cooling channels 13, and permit coolant to be supplied to and removed from the cooling channels, thereby corresponding to the claimed coolant supply connection and coolant discharge connection ([0015, 0025]). Additionally, Milde teaches connection openings located on the L-shaped elements 6 and 7 themselves, namely on the underside of the L-shaped elements, which communicate with cooling channels 13 disposed within the wall sections 12. Accordingly, Milde teaches coolant supply and discharge connections arranged on the cooling walls corresponding to the claimed second and/or third cooling wall.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milde, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ke et al. (US 20240266634 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Milda teaches all limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Milda does not teach a limitation wherein the battery cell has two cell poles which are arranged on the fifth and/or sixth side of the battery cell, in particular one of which is arranged on the fifth side and one on the sixth side.
However, Ke teaches this limitation. Specifically, Ke discloses a battery cell 100 having two first side faces 101, two second side faces 102, a top face 103, a bottom face 104, and two electrode terminals E ([0006, 0025, 0156]; Fig. 5). Ke further teaches that the electrode terminals E may be disposed on the two second side faces 102 of the battery cell, respectively ([0022,0150], Fig. 47). Thus, Ke teaches two cell poles arranged on opposite side faces of the battery cell, corresponding to the claimed fifth side and sixth side.
Additionally, Ke teaches cooling units 202 disposed on the top face 103 and bottom face 104 and a cooling unit 201 disposed on the first side faces 101 of the battery cell (Fig. 47; [0150]), while the electrode terminals E are positioned on the second side faces 102 that are not occupied by the cooling structures. Accordingly, Ke teaches separating the cell poles from the cooled surfaces of the battery cell so that the cooling components may be placed on the remaining battery-cell surfaces to implement more efficient cooling ([0150]).
Further, Milde, and Ke are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery cell cooling arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery cell arrangement of Milde to position the cell poles on opposite side faces as taught by Ke because Ke teaches that locating the terminals on side faces separate from the cooled surfaces allows cooling components to implement more efficient cooling of the battery cell ([0150]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milde, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Schuler et al. (EP 3944401 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Milda teaches all limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Milda does not teach a limitation wherein the first cooling wall protrudes in the second direction at least beyond one of the fifth and sixth sides of the battery cell.
However, Schuler teaches this limitation. Specifically, Schuler teaches a battery module including a U-shaped body 104 having a central portion 110 and side portions 108 formed from a cooling plate 114 containing an integrated cooling channel 116 ([0036, 0038]). Schuler further teaches that the cooling plate 114 is bent at bent portions 118 such that at least one rib 120 protrudes from the U-shaped body 104 ([0014, 0032, 0039]). As shown in Figs. 5 and 6, ribs 120, 120' extend outward beyond the side boundaries of battery cell 102. Schuler further teaches that the ribs may protrude in the same direction or in opposite directions and may extend longitudinally along the frame element ([0039, 0053], Figs. 5-6). Because ribs 120, 120' are formed integrally from cooling plate 114 by bending operations, Schuler teaches a protruding portion of the cooling-wall structure extending beyond a side of the battery cell. Further, Schuler teaches the ribs 120 is designed to increase the rigidity of the frame element 106 and supports for positioning the battery cells 102 ([0014, 0039, 0040]). Thus, Schuler teaches the claimed protrusion of the cooling wall beyond one of the fifth and sixth sides of the battery cell.
Further, Milde, and Schuler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery cell cooling arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling-wall arrangement of Milde to include a protruding cooling-wall portion as taught by Schuler in order to increase the rigidity of the cooling structure and to facilitate support and positioning of the battery cells, as taught by Schuler ([0014, 0039, 0040]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milde, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kruse et al. (US 20220185124 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Milda teaches all limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Milda does not teach a limitation wherein the battery cell has a releasable cell degassing opening, in particular in the form of a predetermined breaking point, on the second side or on the third side.
However, Kruse teaches this limitation. Specifically, Kruse teaches battery cells 14 having a cooling arrangement including a housing cover 26 configured as a cooling cover and provided with cooling channels through which a cooling medium flows to cool the battery cells ([0042, 0044, 0045], Fig. 1). Kruse further teaches degassing devices 24 arranged on the upper side 18, which may be configured as bursting membranes, valves, or the like that permit gases to escape from the battery cells in order to prevent overpressure and explosion of the battery cells ([0043]). Kruse additionally teaches a degassing region adjacent the battery cells through which gases escaping from the degassing devices are guided and further teaches that the degassing region may extend directly to and through an opening formed in the housing cover itself ([0016]). Accordingly, Kruse teaches a releasable cell degassing opening in the form of a predetermined breaking point within a battery-cell cooling arrangement.
Further, Milde, and Kruse are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery cell cooling arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooled battery-cell arrangement of Milde to incorporate the releasable degassing opening taught by Kruse in order to reduce battery-cell overpressure and prevent explosion ([0016,0044-0046]). In addition, placement of the releasable degassing opening on the second side or the third side of the battery cell would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending on the particular cooling-wall configuration. See also MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milde, as modified by Ke, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Schuler et al. (EP 3944401 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Milda, as modified by Ke, teaches all limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Modified Milda does not teach a limitation wherein the first cooling wall protrudes in the second direction at least beyond one of the fifth and sixth sides of the battery cell.
However, Schuler teaches this limitation. Specifically, Schuler teaches a battery module including a U-shaped body 104 having a central portion 110 and side portions 108 formed from a cooling plate 114 containing an integrated cooling channel 116 ([0036, 0038]). Schuler further teaches that the cooling plate 114 is bent at bent portions 118 such that at least one rib 120 protrudes from the U-shaped body 104 ([0014, 0032, 0039]). As shown in Figs. 5 and 6, ribs 120, 120' extend outward beyond the side boundaries of battery cell 102. Schuler further teaches that the ribs may protrude in the same direction or in opposite directions and may extend longitudinally along the frame element ([0039, 0053], Figs. 5-6). Because ribs 120, 120' are formed integrally from cooling plate 114 by bending operations, Schuler teaches a protruding portion of the cooling-wall structure extending beyond a side of the battery cell. Further, Schuler teaches the ribs 120 is designed to increase the rigidity of the frame element 106 and supports for positioning the battery cells 102 ([0014, 0039, 0040]). Thus, Schuler teaches the claimed protrusion of the cooling wall beyond one of the fifth and sixth sides of the battery cell.
Further, modified Milde, and Schuler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery cell cooling arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling-wall arrangement of modified Milde to include a protruding cooling-wall portion as taught by Schuler in order to increase the rigidity of the cooling structure and to facilitate support and positioning of the battery cells, as taught by Schuler ([0014, 0039, 0040]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milde, as modified by Ke, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kruse et al. (US 20220185124 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Milda, as modified by Ke, teaches all limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Modified Milda does not teach a limitation wherein the battery cell has a releasable cell degassing opening, in particular in the form of a predetermined breaking point, on the second side or on the third side.
However, Kruse teaches this limitation. Specifically, Kruse teaches battery cells 14 having a cooling arrangement including a housing cover 26 configured as a cooling cover and provided with cooling channels through which a cooling medium flows to cool the battery cells ([0042, 0044, 0045], Fig. 1). Kruse further teaches degassing devices 24 arranged on the upper side 18, which may be configured as bursting membranes, valves, or the like that permit gases to escape from the battery cells in order to prevent overpressure and explosion of the battery cells ([0043]). Kruse additionally teaches a degassing region adjacent the battery cells through which gases escaping from the degassing devices are guided and further teaches that the degassing region may extend directly to and through an opening formed in the housing cover itself ([0016]). Accordingly, Kruse teaches a releasable cell degassing opening in the form of a predetermined breaking point within a battery-cell cooling arrangement.
Further, modified Milde, and Kruse are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery cell cooling arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooled battery-cell arrangement of modified Milde to incorporate the releasable degassing opening taught by Kruse in order to reduce battery-cell overpressure and prevent explosion ([0016,0044-0046]). In addition, placement of the releasable degassing opening on the second side or the third side of the battery cell would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending on the particular cooling-wall configuration. See also MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milde, as modified by Schuler, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kruse et al. (US 20220185124 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Milda, as modified by Kruse, teaches all limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Modified Milda does not teach a limitation wherein the battery cell has a releasable cell degassing opening, in particular in the form of a predetermined breaking point, on the second side or on the third side.
However, Kruse teaches this limitation. Specifically, Kruse teaches battery cells 14 having a cooling arrangement including a housing cover 26 configured as a cooling cover and provided with cooling channels through which a cooling medium flows to cool the battery cells ([0042, 0044, 0045], Fig. 1). Kruse further teaches degassing devices 24 arranged on the upper side 18, which may be configured as bursting membranes, valves, or the like that permit gases to escape from the battery cells in order to prevent overpressure and explosion of the battery cells ([0043]). Kruse additionally teaches a degassing region adjacent the battery cells through which gases escaping from the degassing devices are guided and further teaches that the degassing region may extend directly to and through an opening formed in the housing cover itself ([0016]). Accordingly, Kruse teaches a releasable cell degassing opening in the form of a predetermined breaking point within a battery-cell cooling arrangement.
Further, modified Milde, and Kruse are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery cell cooling arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooled battery-cell arrangement of modified Milde to incorporate the releasable degassing opening and venting arrangement taught by Kruse in order to reduce battery-cell overpressure and prevent explosion ([0016,0044-0046]). In addition, placement of the releasable degassing opening on the second side or the third side of the battery cell would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending on the particular cooling-wall configuration. See also MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights