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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant amended claim 1 to include presently cancelled claims 2-4. Applicant argues that Nagai does not provide the claimed multiple grooves are in dense dot-like arrangement. Applicant submits that fig. 2 and 5 of Nagai provide two different embodiments, and fig. 4 of Nagai, which is based on the embodiment of fig. 2, does not disclose or suggest a dot-like arrangement. Indeed, Nagai provides in fig. 2 and fig. 5 embodiment 1 and embodiment 2.
However, in both embodiments, Nagai discloses wherein the grooves are configured between every two electrode bodies, or under each electrode body, which may correspond with the claimed dense dot-like arrangement due to the frequency of the grooves. That is, the sectional views of figs. 2 and 5 can correspond with the perspective that observes the dot-like arrangement as claimed, while fig. 4 shows the extension of the length of the grooves in the first embodiment. The examiner notes that the instant specification does not explicitly define the claimed dot-like arrangement.
However, Nagai may be further modified by Burgers to teach that the multiple grooves are in a dot-like arrangement having a different structure. Burgers teaches a similar battery cell cooling structure having indents and corresponding protrusions under battery cells, wherein the indents and protrusions form small cylinders (see e.g., Burgers; figs. 1, 2A-B, 5A-B, 6, [0038], regarding protrusions 30 to connect battery unit 10 and cooling plate 20), which may correspond to the claimed multiple grooves in a dot-like arrangement. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groove structure of Nagai to have a dot-like arrangement as disclosed by Burgers in order to resist mechanical load and temperature variation, and provide generally low thermal resistance between the battery unit and cooling plate (see e.g., Burgers; [0038]-[0039]).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (US-20210167340-A1), and in further view of Burgers (US-20120107663-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagai discloses a battery comprising: at least one battery cell (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 2, 5 showing the battery with electrode body cells); a thermal management component (see e.g., Nagai; figs. 1-2, 5, [0030]-[0031], [0045]-[0050], regarding cooler 30), configured for accommodating a fluid to adjust a temperature of the at least one battery cell (see e.g., Nagai; [0046], regarding cooler 30 with refrigerant flowing through, [0045] regarding cooler 30 for cooling the secondary battery); and a connector (see e.g., Nagai; figs. 1-2, [0047]- [0050], regarding heat conducting member 40), provided between a first surface of the at least one battery cell and the thermal management component (see e.g., Nagai; figs. 1-2, 5), and configured for making the thermal management component attached to the first surface (see e.g., Nagai; figs. 1-2, 5, which shows member 40 connecting the cooler 30 to the surface of the battery, [0047] regarding wherein member 40 may be a heat-dissipating adhesive and therefore glues cooler 30 to the battery), wherein the first surface is a concave-convex surface (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 2-3, 5, which shows the first surface of the battery cell having concave structure), wherein the connector is an adhesive layer (see e.g., Nagai; [0047], regarding conducting member 40 is a heat-dissipating adhesive), wherein the first surface has multiple grooves (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 5, regarding the second embodiment wherein the first surface has two grooves 124, or embodiment of fig. 2 wherein the first surface extends across multiple cells and each cell shows a groove), the adhesive layer has a second surface and a third surface opposite to each other in a thickness direction thereof (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 1, regarding the faces of member 40), the second surface is connected to the thermal management component (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 1, wherein the second surface may be the surface connected to cooler 30), and the third surface has multiple protrusions, wherein the protrusions are embedded in the grooves (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 2, 5, regarding protrusion 42).
Regarding the claimed multiple grooves in a dot-like arrangement. The instant specification does not explicitly define the claimed dot-like arrangement. Nagai provides in fig. 2 and fig. 5, regarding either embodiment 1 or embodiment 2, wherein the grooves are configured between every two electrode bodies, or under each electrode body, which may correspond with the claimed dense dot-like arrangement due to the frequency of the grooves. That is, the sectional views of figs. 2 and 5 can correspond with the perspective that observes the dot-like arrangement as claimed, while fig. 4 shows the extension of the length of the grooves in the first embodiment.
However, Nagai may be further modified by Burgers to teach that the multiple grooves are in a dot-like arrangement having a different structure. Burgers teaches a similar battery cell cooling structure having indents and corresponding protrusions under battery cells, wherein the indents and protrusions form small cylinders (see e.g., Burgers; figs. 1, 2A-B, 5A-B, 6, [0038], regarding protrusions 30 to connect battery unit 10 and cooling plate 20), which may correspond to the claimed multiple grooves in a dot-like arrangement. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groove structure of Nagai to have a dot-like arrangement as disclosed by Burgers in order to resist mechanical load and temperature variation, and provide generally low thermal resistance between the battery unit and cooling plate (see e.g., Burgers; [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nagai teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the grooves are tapered (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 2, 5, regarding the shape of the groove which gradually narrows in width).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nagai teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the at least one battery cell comprises a casing (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 1, [0031], regarding case 120) and an end cover (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 1, 2, 5, [0010], [0033], [0042], regarding upper wall 128), the casing comprises a bottom wall and a side wall (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 1, [0010], regarding bottom wall, figs. 2, 5 which shows the side walls), the side wall surrounds the bottom wall (see e.g., Nagai; figs. 1, 2, 5), one end of the side wall is connected to the bottom wall (see e.g., Nagai; figs. 1, 2, 5), the other end of the side wall defines an opening, the end cover covers the opening (see e.g., Nagai; fig. 1, 2, 5, [0010], [0033], [0042], regarding upper wall 128), and the first surface is an outer surface of the bottom wall (see e.g., Nagai; figs. 1, 2, 5). Nagai discloses the upper wall 128 as connected to an upper end of the peripheral walls 126 (see e.g., Nagai; [0042]). Therefore, structurally, the upper wall disclosed by Nagai is the same as the end cover which covers the opening defined by the peripheral walls.
Regarding claim 11, Nagai discloses an electric device, comprising the battery according to claim 1, wherein the battery is configured to provide electric energy (see e.g., Nagai; [0030], regarding that the battery module may be used in an electric device such as a vehicle).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights