DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “on an outside of the upper case” is indefinite because it is ambiguous what part of the earlier statement this limitation is modifying. For example, it could be defining the cooling hose is on the outside, the cooling blocks are on the outside, or the parallel connection of the cooling hose to the cooling block is on the outside. All these possible interpretations have different effective limiting scope and some possible interpretations (i.e. the cooling blocks being on the outside) seem to have no support in the originally filed disclosure. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret this as specifying the hose is on the outside of the upper case, but clarification is requested.
In claim 1, the limitation of the cooling hose being connected “respectively” in parallel to the cooling blocks coupled with the limitation that the cooling hose need only comprise a (single) inlet and/or a (single) outlet is confusing. What does it mean to have parallel connection to all the cooling blocks when the hose can consist of a single inlet and outlet?
In claims 6, 14, and 20, it is unclear what is meant by “avoiding the cooling passage”.
Claim 7 is similarly confusing for the limitation “on an outside of the upper case” as it was for claim 1 above, only now the choices of what this is further modifying includes the connection ports.
Claim 7 is similarly confusing for the hose being potentially limited to a single inlet and outlet when it is also specified as being connected parallel as it was for claim 1 above.
Claims 2-5, 8-13, and 15-19 are indefinite for their dependence on indefinite claims 1 and 7.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sumpf et al (US 2017/0162922).
With respect to claim 1, Sumpf discloses a battery system cooling apparatus comprising a lower case (102, 2402), a plurality of battery modules (e.g. one or two rows of batteries 2008 (fig. 20b) reads on battery modules giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation) mounted in multiple stages on the lower case (fig. 25 shows how these rows of batteries are staged). Sumpf further discloses a plurality of cooling blocks 2002 attached to the outer surface of the batteries (fig. 20b, 25) and defining a cooling passage (par. 0088-0092). Sumpf further discloses an upper case (2404 with or without 104) coupled to the lower case 2402/102 and covering the battery modules and the cooling blocks (fig. 1, 24 and par. 0093 and 0094). Sumpf further discloses a cooling hose 2410 which is outside of the upper case and connected in parallel via 2004 to the cooling blocks 2002 (fig. 24, 25 and par. 0095). Said cooling hose inherently comprising an inlet and outlet.
With respect to claim 2, Sumpf further discloses electrical equipment 2408 that is disposed on an upper side of the battery pack which is over a number of modules (fig. 24) any of which can be construed as being an uppermost battery module. Furthermore, the cooling blocks for each of these modules under the electronics 2408 is adjacent to the outer surface of the electronics giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation. Alternatively, Sumpf teaches that it is important to keep the electronics cool for it to safely run (par. 0093) so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to add a cooling block specifically for the electronics so that the large amounts of heat that it generates can be safely dissipated.
With to claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the electronics 2408 of Sumpf could be placed anywhere on the battery pack and still provide its requisite function. Rearrangement of parts is an obvious manner of design choice (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). If the electronics were located at the top of the battery pack of fig. 24, this would be the most downstream end of the battery pack with respect to the flow of coolant as 2414 is the coolant inlet (par. 0095). This would result in the electrical equipment being the last cooling block that fluid flows through.
With respect to claim 5, the cooling blocks 2002 having upper and lower edges that keep the fluid moving laterally from 2004 to 2006 (fig. 20a). This reads on sealing portions giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf in view of Kim (US 2017/0346146).
With respect to the claim, Sumpf set forth all the limitations of the claim, but did not explicitly recite the lower and upper case as having a T-shaped. However, battery packs such as Sumpf are ultimately for particular application and may have shape constrictions imposed on them by said application. One such example is shown in Kim where the needed battery structure was T-shaped (see fig. 1 and par. 0004 and 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to configure the apparatus of Sumpf to have any shape necessary, such as that taught by Kim, in order to maximize the energy density possible for the battery to the application shape constriction.
Claim(s) 7, 13, 15, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf in view of Arkus et al (USP 11,799,151).
With respect to claim 7, Sumpf set forth all the limitations of the lower case, battery modules, cooling blocks, and the cooling hose (see discussion of claim 1 above). Sumpf did not teach where the connection ports connecte to the cooling hose by passing through the upper case. By contrast, Sumpf teaches the cooling connections are along the side of the device (fig. 24)and hence do not extend through the upper case. Arkus discloses an alternate energy pack where the cooling structure is analogously integrated with the battery modules and teaches that all the fluidic connections can occur on the top of the battery (fig. 3 and col. 5, ll. 7-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to relocate the cooling hose of Sumpf to be along its upper case (as opposed to along the sides) as shown by Arkus because the substitution of one known cooling inlet location for another requires only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 13, the cooling hose of Sumpf extends along the entirety of the energy pack which includes the upper case (fig. 24).
With respect to claims 15, 16, and 19, see the discussion of claims 2, 3, and 5 earlier.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf in view of Arkus as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Park et al (US 2023/0095960).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Sumpf in view of Arkus already disclosed connecting the cooling passage to the cooling block (Sumpf fig. 22 for example) which constitutes a connection port. Sumpf in view of Arkus does not explicitly disclose a locking protrusion with a fastening member seating on the locking protrusion. Park discloses an alternate mechanism for connecting a cooling hose in parallel to multiple cooling plates and shows the use of a connection where a locking protrusion 112a is disposed at the connection port which allows a fastening member seated on the protrusion. See fig. 2-5 and par. 0074. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the connection mechanism of Park for the connections of Sumpf in view of Arkus because the substitution of one known fastening mechanism for another requires only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 12, the fastening mechanism of Park also reads on the a fastening protrusion or groove to define a mutual locking structure. The sealing member 114 of Park constitutes a sealing body.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumpf in view of Arkus as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and further in view of Kim.
Claims 17 and 18 are being rejected over the further teaching of Kim as set forth for claim 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to configure the apparatus of Sumpf and Arkus to have any shape necessary, such as that taught by Kim, in order to maximize the energy density possible for the battery to the application shape constriction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 9, 14, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 6, 14, and 20, the prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 7 and further comprising a bush connected to a cooling block wherein the bush is interposed between the upper case and the cooling block.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, the prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claims 7 and 8 with particular attention to the lowermost cooling block having the longest length and each of the cooling blocks has a progressively smaller length as it gets closer to the uppermost cooling block.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al (US 2020/0161729) and Gu et al (US 2021/0119281) disclose alternate cooling apparatuses with parallel connections between a cooling hose and a plurality of cooling blocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights