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 5-14 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 5, it is unclear what “each formed as a plurality” means, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2021 104761 U1 (“Kirchhoff”).
Regarding claim 1, Kirchhoff teaches battery packs with a frame formed from several frame parts connected to at least one strut, typically welded thereto ([0016]). Kirchhoff teaches the frame may include clearances for cooling lines or other components ([0077]) and teaches a cooling liquid ([0083]). Kirchhoff teaches a base part and cover parts ([0027]). Kirchhoff teaches frame parts can be connected by means of welding or a screw connection ([0076]). Kirchhoff teaches a cooling module can be made up of one or more cooling plates ([0030]). Kirchhoff teaches a supply line and a return line of a coolant supply ([0058]). Kirchhoff teaches creating a circumferential seal between a cover part and lower part of the device housing by using an adhesive and/or sealing compound, and that alternatively, spot joining or spot welding also be used ([0063]).
Kirchhoff does not use the same terminology to describe each part of the battery pack. However, taking into consideration the level of ordinary skill in the art, the structure and components of the battery pack are considered obvious. Kirchhoff teaches the concepts of covers/plates surrounding a plurality of battery modules to form a housing, frames to support the structure, a cooling module, and a circumferential seal, as discussed above.
As to claims 2-14, the claims pertain to the cooling plates, cooling passages, and supply/distribution/discharge of refrigerant (i.e. coolant). In view of the teachings of Kirchhoff above, the number of cooling plates, how they are connected (e.g. welding), the location and shape of cooling passages and supply/distribution/discharge lines are all considered obvious when considering the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 15-23, the claims pertain to locations of sealers in grooves and holes connecting and sealing different parts of the structure. Considering the level of ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of Kirchhoff, as discussed above, adding an adhesive/sealer into a groove or in a fastening hole to connect/seal different parts of a structure is considered obvious.
As to claims 24-41, Kirchhoff teaches the battery packs can be cast with an insulating compound inside the frame ([0018]), encapsulating the battery cells and electrically insulating the electrical contacts ([0021]). Kirchhoff teaches two battery cells can be bonded together in a material-locking manner with the interposition of an adhesive ([0080]). Kirchhoff teaches connection openings ([0064]), and fastening elements such as nuts, bolts, or similar ([0066]). Bus bars for electrically connecting terminals of battery cells are well known in the art. In view of the teachings of Kirchhoff and considering the level of ordinary skill in the art, the limitations of claims 24-41 are considered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights