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 filed May 22,2025 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received December 30, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: for not referring back to “one or more liquid cooling pipes” (antecedent basis given in claim 1, line 6 and claim 11, line 6) in the proper manner. (For non-limiting example, claim 1 further cites “at least one of the liquid cooling pipes” instead of ‘at least one of the one or more liquid cooling pipes; claim 3 recites “two liquid cooling pipes” instead of setting forth ‘the at least one or more liquid cooling pipes comprise two liquid cooling pipes’. The claims objected to are replete with these issues, often multiple in each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 18, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: for not referring back to “one or more coolant conveying pipes” (antecedent basis given in claim 1, line 6 and claim 11, lines 5-6) in the proper manner. (For non-limiting example, claim 1 further cites “each of the coolant conveying pipe” instead of ‘each of the at least one of the one or more coolant conveying pipe; claim 3 recites “two coolant conveying pipes” instead of setting forth ‘the at least one or more coolant conveying pipes comprise two coolant conveying pipes’. The claims objected to are replete with these issues, often multiple in each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: reciting “each of the coolant conveying pipe” (each paired with a singular noun) (line 7). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: for not referring back to “one or more first port connectors” (antecedent basis given in claim 4, line 2 and claim 14, line 2) in the proper manner. For non-limiting example, further recitations states “at least one of the first port connectors” rather than ‘at least one of the one or more port connectors (see claims 4-6, 14-16; multiple times in some of the claims). Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 3, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0162992 (Sumpf Jr. et al.) in view of US 2013/0344369 (Miyakawa et al.) and US 2024/0218209 (Hu).
As to claim 1, Sumpf Jr. et al. teach a liquid cooling system, comprising:
a housing (module housing [100]) (figs. 1);
a battery cell module comprising a plurality of battery cells (para 0037), wherein the battery cell module is disposed in an inner cavity of the housing (figs. 2-5; para 0048, cells seen in rows [502A], 502B]);
and a liquid cooling assembly (thermal-exchange tube [300] / thermal-exchange tube [2002] with terminating structures [2004, 2006] (only labeled in the embodiment starting fig. 20A, but seen to be present in fig. 3 as well) provided inside the housing (figs. 3, 20A; para 0021), wherein the liquid cooling assembly comprises one or more coolant conveying pipes (portions that interface with terminating structures [2004], [2006]) and one or more liquid cooling pipes (thermal-exchange tubes), each of the coolant conveying pipe is communicated with at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (fig. 3, figs. 21-25; para 0080-0081, 0095-0096), an outer side surface of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (thermal-exchange tubes [300] / [2002]) is an arc concave surface, the arc concave surface matches an outer side surface of at least one of the battery cells [2504, 2506], the arc concave surface is connected to the outer side surface of at least one of the battery cells (figs. 13, 25). Curable adhesive is provided at a connection position between the arc concave surface and at least one of the battery cells (fig. 8, 13; para 0010, 0037, 0067, 0078).
Sumpf Jr et al. do not teach that the adhesive is (a) a thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape, and (b) a thickness of the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape ranges from 0.01 mm to 10 mm.
With respect to (a): in the same field of endeavor, Miyakawa et al. teach of using double-sided tape as adhesive layers between batteries and heat transfer materials (para 0097). The substitution of double-sided tape for curable adhesive between batteries and a heat transfer element would yield the predictable result of acting as an adhesive, where the substituted components and their functions (adhesive) were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute a double-sided tape for a curable adhesive between batteries and a heat transfer element, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as an adhesive, where the substituted components and their functions (adhesive) were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b): Hu et al. teach that a commercial double-sided tape is 5.2 mm. The combination of having a thickness of a double-sided tape of 5.2 mm with the cooling structure would yield the predictable results, as each element performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine having a thickness of a double-sided tape of 5.2 mm with the cooling structure, as the combination would yield the predictable results, as each element performs the same function as it does separately. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 3, Sumpf Jr et al. teach the liquid cooling assembly comprises two coolant conveying pipes (portions associated with the terminating structures [2004, 2006]) and two liquid cooling pipes (thermal exchange tubes [2002]), the two coolant conveying pipes are respectively provided on two sides of the battery cell module, the two liquid cooling pipes are respectively provided on two sides of at least one of the battery cells, and the two liquid cooling pipes are respectively communicated with the two coolant conveying pipes (figs. 20A-0025; para 0084-0096).
As to claim 11, Sumpf Jr et al. teach a battery system, comprising:
a liquid cooling system, wherein the liquid cooling system comprises a housing (module housing [100]) (figs. 1), a battery cell module comprising a plurality of battery cells (para 0037), and a liquid cooling assembly (thermal-exchange tube [300] / thermal-exchange tube [2002] with terminating structures [2004, 2006] (only labeled in the embodiment starting fig. 20A, but seen to be present in fig. 3 as well)), the battery cell module is disposed in an inner cavity of the housing (figs. 2-5; para 0048, cells seen in rows [502A], 502B]), the liquid cooling assembly (thermal-exchange tube [300] / thermal-exchange tube [2002] with terminating structures [2004, 2006] (only labeled in the embodiment starting fig. 20A, but seen to be present in fig. 3 as well)) provided inside the housing (figs. 3, 20A; para 0021), the liquid cooling assembly comprises one or more coolant conveying pipes (portions that interface with terminating structures [2004], [2006]) and one or more liquid cooling pipes (thermal-exchange tubes), at least one of the coolant conveying pipe is communicated with at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (figs. 3, 21-25; para 0080-0081, 0095-0096), an outer side surface of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (thermal-exchange tubes [300] / [2002]) is an arc concave surface, the arc concave surface matches an outer side surface of at least one of the battery cells [2504, 2506], the arc concave surface is connected to the outer side surface of at least one of the battery cells (figs. 13, 25). Curable adhesive is provided at a connection position between the arc concave surface and at least one of the battery cells (fig. 8, 13; para 0010, 0037, 0067, 0078).
Sumpf Jr et al. teach a battery cell connection system provided on a top of the battery cell module and electrically connected to each of the battery cells (electronics to interconnect the battery cells (which would include each of the battery cells) (fig. 24; para 0093); and
a battery cell control system provided in the inner cavity of the housing and electrically connected to each of the battery cells (within the clamshell and attached to the battery cells (which would include each of the battery cells)) (fig. 24; para 0093).
Sumpf Jr et al. do not teach that the adhesive is (a) a thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape, and (b) a thickness of the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape ranges from 0.01 mm to 10 mm.
With respect to (a): Miyakawa et al. teach of using double-sided tape as adhesive layers between batteries and heat transfer materials (para 0097). The substitution of double-sided tape for curable adhesive between batteries and a heat transfer element would yield the predictable result of acting as an adhesive, where the substituted components and their functions (adhesive) were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute a double-sided tape for a curable adhesive between batteries and a heat transfer element, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as an adhesive, where the substituted components and their functions (adhesive) were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b): Hu et al. teach that a commercial double-sided tape is 5.2 mm. The combination of having a thickness of a double-sided tape of 5.2 mm with the cooling structure would yield the predictable results, as each element performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine having a thickness of a double-sided tape of 5.2 mm with the cooling structure, as the combination would yield the predictable results, as each element performs the same function as it does separately. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 13, Sumpf Jr et al. teach the liquid cooling assembly comprises two coolant conveying pipes (portions associated with the terminating structures [2004, 2006]) and two liquid cooling pipes (thermal exchange tubes [2002]), the two coolant conveying pipes are respectively provided on two sides of the battery cell module, the two liquid cooling pipes are respectively provided on two sides of at least one of the battery cells, and the two liquid cooling pipes are respectively communicated with the two coolant conveying pipes (figs. 20A-25; para 0084-0096).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf Jr et al., Miyakawa et al., and Hu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of US 2016/0301117 (Tyler et al.).
As to claim 2, the combination (Sumpf Jr et al., Miyakawa et al., and Hu) renders obvious that the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape is a solid flexible adhesive tape, a side of the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape is adhered to the arc concave surface, another side of the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape is adhered to part of the outer side surface of at least one of the battery cells (note: flexibility is a characteristic of tape; regarding the structural interface, see the rejection to claim 1 for details of the rejection, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake)
The combination does not render obvious that the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape has a thermal conductivity greater than 1 W/mK and a bonding strength greater than 0.9 megapascal.
However, Tyler et al., in the same field of endeavor (thermally conductive adhesive between pieces in battery module) teach that an adhesive member should have a thermal conductivity between approximately 0.5-5 W/mK (overlaps claimed range, thus rendering it obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)) and a bond strength between 5-50 MPa (fits the claimed range) (para 0045, 0049). The motivation for having an adhesive member with a thermal conductivity between approximately 0.5-5 W/mK and a bond strength between 5-50 MPa (as taught by Tyler et al. and applied to the double sided tape rendered obvious) is to allow heat transfer between the battery and heat transfer structure and to prevent delamination between the battery cell and heat transfer structure (para 0045, 0049). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have an adhesive member with a thermal conductivity between approximately 0.5-5 W/mK and a bond strength between 5-50 MPa to allow heat transfer between the battery and heat transfer structure and to prevent delamination between the battery cell and heat transfer structure.
As to claim 12, the combination (Sumpf Jr et al., Miyakawa et al., and Hu) renders obvious that the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape is a solid flexible adhesive tape, a side of the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape is adhered to the arc concave surface, another side of the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape is adhered to part of the outer side surface of at least one of the battery cells (note: flexibility is a characteristic of tape; regarding the structural interface, see the rejection to claim 1 for details of the rejection, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake)
The combination does not render obvious that the thermally conductive double-sided adhesive tape has a thermal conductivity greater than 1 W/mK and a bonding strength greater than 0.9 megapascal.
However, Tyler et al., in the same field of endeavor (thermally conductive adhesive between pieces in battery module) teach that an adhesive member should have a thermal conductivity between approximately 0.5-5 W/mK (overlaps claimed range, thus rendering it obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)) and a bond strength between 5-50 MPa (fits the claimed range) (para 0045, 0049). The motivation for having an adhesive member with a thermal conductivity between approximately 0.5-5 W/mK and a bond strength between 5-50 MPa (as taught by Tyler et al. and applied to the double sided tape rendered obvious) is to allow heat transfer between the battery and heat transfer structure and to prevent delamination between the battery cell and heat transfer structure (para 0045, 0049). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have an adhesive member with a thermal conductivity between approximately 0.5-5 W/mK and a bond strength between 5-50 MPa to allow heat transfer between the battery and heat transfer structure and to prevent delamination between the battery cell and heat transfer structure.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf Jr et al., Miyakawa et al., and Hu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of US 2025/0132411 (Schroter et al.).
As to claim 4, Sumpf Jr et al. teach the liquid cooling assembly further comprises one or more first port connectors (hose barbs [2206], [2208]), at least one of the first port connectors is disposed at a connection position between at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (terminating ends [2004], [2006]) and at least one of the coolant conveying pipes (thermal exchange tube [200]), at least one of the liquid cooling pipes is communicated with at least one of the coolant conveying pipes through at least one of the first port connectors (hose barbs [2006], [2008]) (figs. 20A-25; para 0091-0092). Note: Although the labeled version of Sumpf Jr et al. is applied to the embodiment seen in figs. 20A-25, the structure regarding the terminating ends and barbs are also applicable to the embodiment seen in fig. 3, as the same parts are seen and describe (para 0080-0081) even if they are not labeled.
Sumpf Jr et al. do not teach the liquid cooling pipes and the first port connectors are made of plastic.
However, Scroter et al., in the same field of endeavor (cooling device; see figs. 1-4), teach of using plastic materials (para 0015). The motivation for using plastic materials is to reduce weight and cost, while providing insulating properties (para 0016). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to use plastic materials (as taught by Scroter et al., and applied to Sumpf Jr et al.’s structure (i.e. the liquid cooling pipes and the first port connectors)) in order to reduce weight and cost, while providing insulating properties.
As to claim 14, Sumpf Jr et al. teach the liquid cooling assembly further comprises one or more first port connectors (hose barbs [2206], [2208]), at least one of the first port connectors is disposed at a connection position between at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (terminating ends [2004], [2006]) and at least one of the coolant conveying pipes (thermal exchange tube [200]), at least one of the liquid cooling pipes is communicated with at least one of the coolant conveying pipes through at least one of the first port connectors (hose barbs [2006], [2008]) (figs. 20A-25; para 0091-0092). Note: Although the labeled version of Sumpf Jr et al. is applied to the embodiment seen in figs. 20A-25, the structure regarding the terminating ends and barbs are also applicable to the embodiment seen in fig. 3, as the same parts are seen and describe (para 0080-0081) even if they are not labeled.
Sumpf Jr et al. do not teach the liquid cooling pipes and the first port connectors are made of plastic.
However, Scroter et al., in the same field of endeavor (cooling device; see figs. 1-4), teach of using plastic materials (para 0015). The motivation for using plastic materials is to reduce weight and cost, while providing insulating properties (para 0016). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to use plastic materials (as taught by Scroter et al., and applied to Sumpf Jr et al.’s structure (i.e. the liquid cooling pipes and the first port connectors)) in order to reduce weight and cost, while providing insulating properties.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf Jr et al., Miyakawa et al., and Hu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Schroter et al., as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, further in view of US 2024/0347812 (Bellenfant et al.).
As to claim 5, Sumpf Jr et al. teach at least one of the coolant conveying pipes (terminating ends [2004], [2006]) comprises a liquid inlet pipe [2414] and a liquid outlet pipe (same structure; para 0095), the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are communicated with at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (thermal exchange tube [2000]) through at least one of the first port connectors (hose barbs [2208, 2206], seen in figs.20A-25; para 0085-0096).
Sumpf et al. do not teach the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are disposed on a same side of the battery cell module and the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are connected to a same end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes.
However, Bellenfant et al., in the same field of endeavor (thermal regulation) teaches a structure wherein two circuits are present (fig. 4), which yield the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are disposed on a same side of the battery cell module and the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are connected to a same end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (para 0063-0064). The substitution of one straight circuit (as in Sumpf et al.) with two cross-current circuits (as in Bellenfant et al.) would yield the predictable result of providing cooling (substituted components and their functions were known in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one straight circuit with two cross-current circuits, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing cooling (substituted components and their functions were known in the art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 6, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Bellenfant et al., relied upon to render obvious the dual concurrent circuit (fig. 4) would have at least one of the first port connectors connected to a first end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes, the liquid cooling assembly further comprises one or more second port connectors, at least one of the second port connectors is connected to a second end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes, a first coolant channel and a second coolant channel are provided inside at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (multiple circuits), the first coolant channel is communicated with the liquid inlet pipe through at least one of the first port connectors, the second coolant channel is communicated with the liquid outlet pipe through at least one of the first port connectors, and the first coolant channel and the second coolant channel are communicated at the second end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes through at least one of the second port connectors (total communication though the devices (para 0063). See the rejection to claim 5 for details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 7, Sumpf et al. teach the liquid inlet pipe [2141] and the liquid outlet pipe (opposite not shown; para 0095) are a corrugated pipe (due to the presence of ridges as seen in fig. 24), and the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are in an interference fit with at least one of the first port connectors (hose barbs [2206], [2208]) (adjacent ones, seen in fig. 24). Regarding corrugated, the above claim interpretation is taken barring further specification of the manner/shape associated with being corrugated. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 15, Sumpf Jr et al. teach at least one of the coolant conveying pipes (terminating ends [2004], [2006]) comprises a liquid inlet pipe [2414] and a liquid outlet pipe (same structure; para 0095), the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are communicated with at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (thermal exchange tube [2000]) through at least one of the first port connectors (hose barbs [2208, 2206], seen in figs.20A-25; para 0085-0096).
Sumpf et al. do not teach the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are disposed on a same side of the battery cell module and the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are connected to a same end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes.
However, Bellenfant et al., in the same field of endeavor (thermal regulation) teaches a structure wherein two circuits are present (fig. 4), which yield the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are disposed on a same side of the battery cell module and the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are connected to a same end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (para 0063-0064). The substitution of one straight circuit (as in Sumpf et al.) with two cross-current circuits (as in Bellenfant et al.) would yield the predictable result of providing cooling (substituted components and their functions were known in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one straight circuit with two cross-current circuits, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing cooling (substituted components and their functions were known in the art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 16, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Bellenfant et al., relied upon to render obvious the dual concurrent circuit (fig. 4) would have at least one of the first port connectors connected to a first end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes, the liquid cooling assembly further comprises one or more second port connectors, at least one of the second port connectors is connected to a second end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes, a first coolant channel and a second coolant channel are provided inside at least one of the liquid cooling pipes (multiple circuits), the first coolant channel is communicated with the liquid inlet pipe through at least one of the first port connectors, the second coolant channel is communicated with the liquid outlet pipe through at least one of the first port connectors, and the first coolant channel and the second coolant channel are communicated at the second end of at least one of the liquid cooling pipes through at least one of the second port connectors (total communication though the devices (para 0063). See the rejection to claim 5 for details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 17, Sumpf et al. teach the liquid inlet pipe [2141] and the liquid outlet pipe (opposite not shown; para 0095) are a corrugated pipe (due to the presence of ridges as seen in fig. 24), and the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are in an interference fit with at least one of the first port connectors (hose barbs [2206], [2208]) (adjacent ones, seen in fig. 24). Regarding corrugated, the above claim interpretation is taken barring further specification of the manner/shape associated with being corrugated. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 ais/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf Jr et al., Miyakawa et al., and Hu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of US 2022/0077549 (Erhart et al.).
As to claim 8, Sumpf Jr et al. do not teach a battery disconnect unit, the battery disconnect unit is provided in the inner cavity of the housing and is electrically connected to each of the battery cells, the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a liquid cooling plate, the liquid cooling plate is provided on a top of the battery disconnect unit, and the liquid cooling plate is communicated with at least one of the coolant conveying pipes.
However, Erhart et al. teach a battery disconnect unit (BDU [80]), the battery disconnect unit is provided in the inner cavity of the housing [70] and is electrically connected to each of the battery cells (para 0036; fig. 3), the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a liquid cooling plate [60] (para 0045, 0074), the liquid cooling plate is provided on a top of the battery disconnect unit (top is merely perspective (i.e. structure may be turned in any direction/viewed in any direction as a basis), thus being on top is met barring specification). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The motivation for having a battery disconnect unit, the battery disconnect unit is provided in the inner cavity of the housing and is electrically connected to each of the battery cells, the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a liquid cooling plate, the liquid cooling plate is provided on a top of the battery disconnect unit in order to allow higher loads to be applied to the battery system (para 0045). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) for having a battery disconnect unit, the battery disconnect unit is provided in the inner cavity of the housing and is electrically connected to each of the battery cells, the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a liquid cooling plate, the liquid cooling plate is provided on a top of the battery disconnect unit in order to allow higher loads to be applied to the battery system
Regarding the liquid cooling plate is communicated with at least one of the coolant conveying pipes, this limitation is either (a) expected, or (b) obvious.
Regarding (a): As it is an addition to the cooling system, communication between the cooling system itself would be present.
Regarding (b): If it is shown that a completely different secondary circuit that is not connected is present, then, at the very least, having one integrated system would be obvious. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). See also MPEP §2144.04(V)(B).
As to claim 9, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Erhart et al., relied upon to render obvious the disconnect system and liquid cooling plate (see the rejection to claim 8 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) further teaches the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a thermally conductive insulating part, the liquid cooling plate is provided on the battery disconnect unit by the thermally conductive insulating part, and the thermally conductive insulating part is in contact with the liquid cooling plate and the battery disconnect unit (para 0062). The motivation for having a thermally conductive insulating part, the liquid cooling plate is provided on the battery disconnect unit by the thermally conductive insulating part, and the thermally conductive insulating part is in contact with the liquid cooling plate and the battery disconnect unit is to have high thermal conductivity and low electrical conductivity (para 0062). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a thermally conductive insulating part, the liquid cooling plate is provided on the battery disconnect unit by the thermally conductive insulating part, and the thermally conductive insulating part is in contact with the liquid cooling plate and the battery disconnect unit in order to have high thermal conductivity and low electrical conductivity.
As to claim 18, Sumpf Jr et al. do not teach a battery disconnect unit, the battery disconnect unit is provided in the inner cavity of the housing and is electrically connected to each of the battery cells, the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a liquid cooling plate, the liquid cooling plate is provided on a top of the battery disconnect unit, and the liquid cooling plate is communicated with at least one of the coolant conveying pipes.
However, Erhart et al. teach a battery disconnect unit (BDU [80]), the battery disconnect unit is provided in the inner cavity of the housing [70] and is electrically connected to each of the battery cells (para 0036; fig. 3), the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a liquid cooling plate [60] (para 0045, 0074), the liquid cooling plate is provided on a top of the battery disconnect unit (top is merely perspective (i.e. structure may be turned in any direction/viewed in any direction as a basis), thus being on top is met barring specification). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The motivation for having a battery disconnect unit, the battery disconnect unit is provided in the inner cavity of the housing and is electrically connected to each of the battery cells, the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a liquid cooling plate, the liquid cooling plate is provided on a top of the battery disconnect unit in order to allow higher loads to be applied to the battery system (para 0045). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) for having a battery disconnect unit, the battery disconnect unit is provided in the inner cavity of the housing and is electrically connected to each of the battery cells, the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a liquid cooling plate, the liquid cooling plate is provided on a top of the battery disconnect unit in order to allow higher loads to be applied to the battery system
Regarding the liquid cooling plate is communicated with at least one of the coolant conveying pipes, this limitation is either (a) expected, or (b) obvious.
Regarding (a): As it is an addition to the cooling system, communication between the cooling system itself would be present.
Regarding (b): If it is shown that a completely different secondary circuit that is not connected is present, then, at the very least, having one integrated system would be obvious. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). See also MPEP §2144.04(V)(B).
As to claim 19, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Erhart et al., relied upon to render obvious the disconnect system and liquid cooling plate (see the rejection to claim 18 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) further teaches the liquid cooling assembly further comprises a thermally conductive insulating part, the liquid cooling plate is provided on the battery disconnect unit by the thermally conductive insulating part, and the thermally conductive insulating part is in contact with the liquid cooling plate and the battery disconnect unit (para 0062). The motivation for having a thermally conductive insulating part, the liquid cooling plate is provided on the battery disconnect unit by the thermally conductive insulating part, and the thermally conductive insulating part is in contact with the liquid cooling plate and the battery disconnect unit is to have high thermal conductivity and low electrical conductivity (para 0062). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a thermally conductive insulating part, the liquid cooling plate is provided on the battery disconnect unit by the thermally conductive insulating part, and the thermally conductive insulating part is in contact with the liquid cooling plate and the battery disconnect unit in order to have high thermal conductivity and low electrical conductivity.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 ais/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf Jr et al., Miyakawa et al., and Hu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Erhart et al., as applied to claims 8-9 and 18-19 above, further in view of US 2021/0028425 (Xiao et al.) and US 2018/0269545 (Liu et al.).
As to claim 10, the combination renders obvious the cooling system of Sumpf Jr et al. in conjunction with that of Erhardt et al. (see the rejection to claims 8-9 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
The combination does not teach (a) the thermally conductive insulating part is made of silica gel, (b) the liquid cooling plate is made of metal, and (c) at least one of the coolant conveying pipes is welded to the liquid cooling plate.
With respect to (a), Xiao et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of using a heat conductive silica gel adhesive as an interface with a thermal-dissipation member (para 0076). The motivation for having the thermally conductive insulating part is made of silica gel is to prevent separation such that better heat conduction effect is achieved (para 0076). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the thermally conductive insulating part made of silica gel in order to prevent separation such that better heat conduction effect is achieved. (Note: Silica (i.e. glass) is an electronically insulating material, as a property of the material thereof.)
With respect to (b), Liu et al., in the same field of endeavor (associated with cooling), teaches of using metal as heat conducting materials (para 0034). The substitution of metal for an unstated heat conductive material (as the cooling plate) would yield the predictable result of acting as a heat conductive material, where the substituted components and their functions (adhesive) were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to metal for an undisclosed material as the cooling plate material, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as a heat conductive material, where the substituted components and their functions (heat conduction) were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (c), Liu et al. teach of welding two separate heat conductive structure (para 0034). The combination of having two separate cooling structures welded (at least one of the coolant conveying pipes welded to the liquid cooling plate would yield the predictable result of providing connected cooling structures) would provide the predictable result of providing cooling, wherein each separate element would perform the same function (cooling) as it does separately. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have two separate cooling structures welded (at least one of the coolant conveying pipes welded to the liquid cooling plate would yield the predictable result of providing connected cooling structures), as the combination would provide the predictable result of providing cooling, wherein each separate element would perform the same function (cooling) as it does separately. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 20, the combination renders obvious the cooling system of Sumpf Jr et al. in conjunction with that of Erhardt et al. (see the rejection to claims 8-9 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
The combination does not teach (a) the thermally conductive insulating part is made of silica gel, (b) the liquid cooling plate is made of metal, and (c) at least one of the coolant conveying pipes is welded to the liquid cooling plate.
With respect to (a), Xiao et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of using a heat conductive silica gel adhesive as an interface with a thermal-dissipation member (para 0076). The motivation for having the thermally conductive insulating part is made of silica gel is to prevent separation such that better heat conduction effect is achieved (para 0076). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the thermally conductive insulating part made of silica gel in order to prevent separation such that better heat conduction effect is achieved. (Note: Silica (i.e. glass) is an electronically insulating material, as a property of the material thereof.)
With respect to (b), Liu et al., in the same field of endeavor (associated with cooling), teaches of using metal as heat conducting materials (para 0034). The substitution of metal for an unstated heat conductive material (as the cooling plate) would yield the predictable result of acting as a heat conductive material, where the substituted components and their functions (adhesive) were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to metal for an undisclosed material as the cooling plate material, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as a heat conductive material, where the substituted components and their functions (heat conduction) were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (c), Liu et al. teach of welding two separate heat conductive structure (para 0034). The combination of having two separate cooling structures welded (at least one of the coolant conveying pipes welded to the liquid cooling plate would yield the predictable result of providing connected cooling structures) would provide the predictable result of providing cooling, wherein each separate element would perform the same function (cooling) as it does separately. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have two separate cooling structures welded (at least one of the coolant conveying pipes welded to the liquid cooling plate would yield the predictable result of providing connected cooling structures), as the combination would provide the predictable result of providing cooling, wherein each separate element would perform the same function (cooling) as it does separately. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights