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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 9A contains text that is too small to be legible on the inset of the figure describing the “aspect ratio”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has a duplicate phrase “at least a distance” on line 12. Claim 1 also has a period instead of a comma, colon, or semicolon on line 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the positive lead" and “the negative lead” in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima et al. (US 2009/0226800 A1, hereafter Ueshima).
With regard to claim 1, Ueshima teaches a battery system comprising:
a plurality of battery cell modules (batteries 10), each battery cell module having a positive lead (positive terminal 101) and a negative lead (negative terminal 102) [0045-0046, fig. 1-2]; and
a bus bar (bus bars 12 and 13) disposed to be in electrical communication with a positive lead of a first battery cell module of the plurality of battery cell modules and a negative lead of a second battery cell module (series connection) of the plurality of battery cell modules, the bus bar including a plurality of heat exchange members (cooling fins 120 and 130) in thermal communication with a surrounding working fluid (air/refrigerant) [0055-0059, 0070];
wherein each of the plurality of heat exchange members have a first dimension (length) and a second dimension (height), the second dimension being orthogonal to the first dimension and at least a distance from a bottom of a heat exchange member the plurality of heat exchange members in contact with the positive and negative leads to a top of the heat exchange member (equal to height so would be the same dimension) [0055-0059, fig. 1-2];
wherein the thermal communication with the working fluid occurs over the length of the first dimension (air refrigerant flows along length direction as seen in fig. 1)[0055-0059, 0070, fig. 1-2].
Ueshima does not explicitly teach the first (length) dimension being at least a distance between the positive lead and the negative lead, however Ueshima shows that the length of the first dimension (left to right) appears to be longer than the distance between positive and negative terminals of adjacent cells (in the front to rear direction) and would therefore render the claimed distance obvious [0055-0059, 0070, fig. 1-2].
Ueshima does not explicitly teach a ratio of the first dimension (length) to the second dimension (height) is around at least 2:5. However, Ueshima shows that the length of the first dimension (length of fins in the left to right direction) appears to be longer than the second dimension (height of fins) and would therefore render the claimed range obvious [0055-0059, 0070, fig. 1-2].
PNG
media_image1.png
592
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Ueshima teaches the bus bar is in thermal and electrical communication with the positive lead and negative lead [0055-0059, 0070-0073, fig. 1-2].
With regard to claim 6, Ueshima teaches the battery cell modules (batteries 10) are connected in series [0055-0059].
With regard to claim 7, Ueshima teaches the plurality of heat exchange members are fins (cooling fins) [0071].
With regard to claim 12, Ueshima teaches the plurality of heat exchange members are fins (cooling fins) [0071] but does not explicitly teach they have a trapezoidal shape. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require a change in shape and they would perform the same function (cooling). See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, and 12 above, and further in view of Hermann et al. (US 2016/0218401 A1, hereafter Hermann).
With regard to claim 3, Ueshima does not teach battery cell modules connected in parallel. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hermann teaches using bus bars to connect leads (first terminals 104 and second terminals 106) in parallel [0110]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the parallel connection of Hermann with the bus bars and leads of Ueshima for the benefit of altering interconnections for different power requirements [Hermann 0110].
With regard to claim 4, the leads of Ueshima would necessarily be electrically conductive but Ueshima does not explicitly teach the claimed thermal conductivity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hermann teaches the use of aluminum or copper for terminals (leads) [0108]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use aluminum or copper as the lead material of Ueshima as Hermann teaches they are suitable conductive materials that are also thermally conductive [0108] and as evidenced by Chan et al. (US 2010/0304192 A1) copper (385 W/(m*K)) and aluminum (205 W/(m*K)) [0013] have thermal conductivity values that would fall within the claimed range. Modified Ueshima would not explicitly teach the claimed heat transfer, however they would be capable of performing the claimed function due to the use of thermally conductive materials such as aluminum or copper.
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With regard to claim 5, Ueshima teaches a second bus bar disposed to connect a positive lead of the second battery cell module and a negative lead of a third battery cell module (multiple cell modules are connected by multiple bus bars 12 and 13 as seen in fig. 1-2) [0055-0059, 0070, fig. 1-2].
With regard to claim 8, Ueshima teaches a metal bus bar but does not explicitly teach aluminum or copper. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hermann teaches the use of aluminum or copper for bus bars [0077]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use aluminum or copper as the bus bar material of Ueshima as Hermann teaches they are suitable conductive materials [0077].
With regard to claim 13, Ueshima teaches a metal bus bar but does not explicitly teach the claimed thermal conductivity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hermann teaches the use of aluminum or copper for bus bars [0077]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use aluminum or copper as the bus bar material of Ueshima as Hermann teaches they are suitable conductive materials [0077] and as evidenced by Chan et al. (US 2010/0304192 A1) copper (385 W/(m*K)) and aluminum (205 W/(m*K)) [0013] have thermal conductivity values that would fall within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 14, the leads of Ueshima would necessarily be electrically conductive but Ueshima does not explicitly teach the claimed thermal conductivity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hermann teaches the use of aluminum or copper for terminals (leads) [0108]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use aluminum or copper as the lead material of Ueshima as Hermann teaches they are suitable conductive materials that are also thermally conductive [0108] and as evidenced by Chan et al. (US 2010/0304192 A1) copper (385 W/(m*K)) and aluminum (205 W/(m*K)) [0013] have thermal conductivity values that would fall within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, and 12 above, and further in view of Ghosh et al. (US 2008/0076016 A1, hereafter Ghosh).
With regard to claim 9, Ueshima does not explicitly teach the bus bar includes vent holes. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ghosh teaches the use of vent holes (openings 68) in a bus bar [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the vent holes (openings) of Ghosh with the bus bar of Ueshima for the benefit of conveying cooling air flow through the bus bar [Ghosh 0039].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, and 12 above, and further in view of Scheucher (US 2008/0213652 A1, hereafter Scheucher).
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Ueshima does not teach a temperature sensor or heater. However, in the same field of endeavor, Scheucher teaches the use of a temperature sensor [0053, 0056] and heater elements surrounding battery cells [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the temperature sensor and heater of Scheucher with the battery system of Ueshima for the benefit of being able to maximize the operating duty cycle of the battery system [Scheucher 0056].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, and 12 above, and further in view of Reineccius et al. (US 2016/0093843 A1, hereafter Reineccius) and Muis (US 2010/0062329 A1, hereafter Muis).
With regard to claim 15, Ueshima teaches a bus bar in contact with a positive lead of a first battery cell and a negative lead of a second battery cell (series connection) [0055-0059, 0070] but does not explicitly teach a circuit board. However, in the same field of endeavor, Reineccius teaches the use of a circuit board with slots that correspond to terminals of battery cells and holes for attachment (mounting) using screws or bolts [0049]. It would have been obvious to use the circuit board of Reineccius with the battery system of Ueshima to enable connection to devices such as battery management systems to monitor cell health [Reineccius 0049].
Modified Ueshima does not explicitly teach the bus bar including mounting holes. However, in the same field of endeavor, Muis teaches the use of holes in bus bars to mount bus bars to terminals [0113]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mounting holes of Muis with the bus bars of Ueshima since it is taught to be an effective way of coupling bus bars to terminals (leads) [Muis 0113].
Modified Ueshima would not teach the relative location of the mounting holes or the leads and circuit board. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since the mounting holes would provide the same function of allowing for attachment of components and it would only require a rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, and 12 above, and further in view of Bourke et al. (US 2007/0087266 A1, hereafter Bourke).
With regard to claim 16, Ueshima does not explicitly teach a plurality of battery systems (modules). However, in the same field of endeavor, Bourke teaches the use of a plurality of modules, a bus bar (117) to connect a first and second module, an electronics monitoring module (battery control module), a wiring harness (high voltage harness connector 804), and a contactor [0012, 0055, 0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery module arrangement and components of Bourke with the battery system of Ueshima for the benefit of allowing for a series of battery modules in a self-contained assembly that supports system components and allows for data retrieval from all modules simultaneously [Bourke 0010, 0012].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, and 12 above, and further in view of Hermann and Muis.
With regard to claim 17, Ueshima teaches a thermal mass (bus bar) with a rectangular base and including a plurality of heat exchange members (cooling fins 120 and 130) in thermal communication with a surrounding working fluid (air/refrigerant) [0055-0059, 0070, fig. 1-2] wherein each of the plurality of heat exchange members have a first dimension (length) and a second dimension (height), the second dimension being orthogonal to the first dimension and at least a distance from a bottom of a heat exchange member the plurality of heat exchange members in contact with the positive and negative leads to a top of the heat exchange member (equal to height so would be the same dimension) [0055-0059, fig. 1-2];
wherein the thermal communication with the working fluid occurs over the length of the first dimension (air refrigerant flows along length direction as seen in fig. 1)[0055-0059, 0070, fig. 1-2].
Ueshima does not explicitly teach the first (length) dimension being at least a distance between the positive lead and the negative lead, however Ueshima shows that the length of the first dimension (left to right) appears to be longer than the distance between positive and negative terminals of adjacent cells (in the front to rear direction) and would therefore render the claimed distance obvious [0055-0059, 0070, fig. 1-2].
Ueshima does not explicitly teach a ratio of the first dimension (length) to the second dimension (height) is around at least 2:5. However, Ueshima shows that the length of the first dimension (length of fins in the left to right direction) appears to be longer than the second dimension (height of fins) and would therefore render the claimed range obvious [0055-0059, 0070, fig. 1-2].
Ueshima does not explicitly teach a ratio of the length to the width of the rectangular base or the relationship between the height and the width. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since Ueshima teaches the same shape with a thin rectangular base as seen in fig. 1-2 and changes in shape would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
The bus bar of Ueshima would necessarily be electrically conductive but Ueshima does not explicitly teach the claimed thermal conductivity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hermann teaches the use of aluminum or copper for terminals (leads) [0108]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use aluminum or copper as the lead material of Ueshima as Hermann teaches they are suitable conductive materials that are also thermally conductive [0108] and as evidenced by Chan et al. (US 2010/0304192 A1) copper (385 W/(m*K)) and aluminum (205 W/(m*K)) [0013] have thermal conductivity values that would fall within the claimed range. Modified Ueshima would not explicitly teach the claimed heat or electrical transfer, however they would be capable of performing the claimed function due to the use of electrically and thermally conductive materials such as aluminum or copper.
Modified Ueshima does not explicitly teach the bus bar including mounting holes. However, in the same field of endeavor, Muis teaches the use of holes in bus bars to mount bus bars to terminals [0113]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mounting holes of Muis with the bus bars of Ueshima since it is taught to be an effective way of coupling bus bars to terminals (leads) [Muis 0113].
With regard to claim 18, Ueshima teaches the plurality of heat exchange members are fins (cooling fins) [0071].
With regard to claim 19, Ueshima teaches the plurality of heat exchange members are fins (cooling fins) [0071] but does not explicitly teach they have a trapezoidal shape. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require a change in shape and they would perform the same function (cooling). See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima, Hermann, and Muis as applied to claims 17-19 above, and further in view of Ghosh.
With regard to claim 20, Ueshima does not explicitly teach the thermal mass (bus bar) includes vent holes. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ghosh teaches the use of vent holes (openings 68) in a bus bar [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the vent holes (openings) of Ghosh with the thermal mass (bus bar) of Ueshima for the benefit of conveying cooling air flow through the bus bar [Ghosh 0039].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
