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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/24/2026 was received. Claims 1, 17 were amended. Claims 2, 16, 19 were cancelled. Claim 21 was newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 4/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) on claim 16 is withdrawn because Applicant cancelled claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) on claims 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 14 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A) on claim 2 is withdrawn because Applicant cancelled claim 2. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Jiao et al. (CN 112490561 A) on claim 6 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1), Jiao et al. (CN 112490561 A), and Janzen et al. (US 20200198476 A1) on claim 7 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1), Jiao et al. (CN 112490561 A), and Silha et al. (US 20220344777 A1) on claim 8 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Janzen et al. (US 20200198476 A1) on claim 9 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Schworm et al. (US 20020125860 A1) on claim 12 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Nagahama et al. (US 20220367963 A1 ) on claim 13 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Main (US 20230075123 A1) on claim 15 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A) on claim 19 is withdrawn because Applicant cancelled claim 19.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A).
Regarding claim 1: Hess et al. disclose an accumulator package with a housing (par. 1). The accumulator package (10) (equivalent to a battery pack) (par. 45, fig. 1) for supplying power to an external device (80) (equivalent to electronic device) (par. 57, fig. 6), comprising:
a housing (12) (par. 46, fig. 1) formed with a plurality of accommodating cavities (35) (par. 46-48, fig. 3); and
a plurality of cells (36) disposed in the plurality of accommodating cavities (35) (par. 48, fig. 3); wherein each cell among the plurality of cells (36) has an outer peripheral surface, and an outer wall surface of the housing (12) has a heat conducting elements (30) (the entire outer surface of the housing (12) acts as a heat dissipation surface, allowing heat to escape through all sides) (par. 46, 65, fig. 1, 3, 5).
Hess et al. fail to explicitly disclose a distance between at least part of the outer peripheral surface and an intra-cavity wall surface of a respective accommodating cavity among the plurality of accommodating cavities is greater than or equal to 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm. However, Lee et al. teaches an energy storage system (abstract). The energy storage system comprises a plurality of battery modules (10) (equivalent to cells), a pair of rack frames (21), a first heat transfer member (30), and a second heat transfer member (40) (a combination of the frame (21), the first heat transfer member (30), and the second heat transfer member (40) is equivalent to a housing) (par. 30, fig. 3,4). Lee et al. disclose the first heat transfer member (30) and the second heat transfer member (40) need to contact the battery module (10) (as the battery module (10) contacts the heat transfer members (30, 40), the distance between the battery module (10) and the heat transfer members (30, 40) is 0 mm.) in order to prevent a loss in terms of heat conduction efficiency and energy density (par. 44). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 0 mm distance of Lee et al. as the distance between the outer peripheral surface of the cell (36) and the intra-cavity wall surface of the housing (12) of Hess et al. because Lee et al. teach a good contact can prevent a loss in terms of heat conduction efficiency and energy density (par. 44).
Hess et al. fail to explicitly disclose a heat dissipation area of the heat dissipation surface is larger than or equal to 4.5 dm2 and smaller than or equal to 7 dm2. However, Hess et al. recognize a larger heat exchange surface results in better passive cooling despite requiring a bigger and heavier housing (par. 47, 52). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the area of the heat exchange surface to yield the optimal balance between the passive cooling effect and the size/weight of the battery pack. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the heat dissipation area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that a larger heat dissipation surface area results in greater heat dissipation and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the area of the heat dissipation surface. In the instant case, the accumulator package of Hess et al. would not operate differently with the claimed heat dissipation area, since the heat conducting elements (30) are intended to dissipate heat from cells (36) to the outside. The accumulator package would function appropriately having the claimed heat dissipation area. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Hess et al. fail to explicitly disclose a ratio of a capacity of the battery pack to the heat dissipation area is higher than or equal to 1.2 Ah/dm2 and lower than or equal to 3.5 Ah/dm2. However, Hess et al. recognize a larger heat exchange surface results in a better passive cooling (par. 47) and the heat is transferred from the cells (36) to the outside (par. 52-53). In addition, Zhang et al., disclosing an energy storage device (par. 2), recognize that increasing the number of battery cells in a battery pack results in higher power capacity and generates more heat (par. 91). As the battery pack with higher power capacity generates more heat and the battery pack with higher heat exchange surface area can increases the passive cooling, the precise ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the heat dissipation area would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the area of the heat dissipation area to yield the optimal balance between the good passive cooling and the sufficient capacity of the battery pack. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the heat dissipation area cannot be considered critical.
Regarding claim 3: Hess et al. disclose thermal conductivity of the housing (12) is greater than or equal to 1 W/mk (par. 12, 42).
Regarding claim 4: Hess et al. disclose the housing (12) is tightly sealed (equivalent to no heat dissipation opening) (par. 15, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5: Hess et al. disclose the housing (12) has a cylindrical structure with the outer wall surface and two opposite end surfaces (see fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
685
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10: Hess et al. disclose the inner surface (70) of the cavity (35a) is formed with protruding elevations (72) (equivalent to fitting ribs) (par. 65, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11: Hess et al. disclose the cell (60) is a cylindrical cell (par. 35, fig. 2). Hess fail to explicitly disclose an axial length of the cell is greater than or equal to 60 mm and less than or equal to 75 mm, and a diameter of a cross section of the cell is greater than or equal to 15 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm. However, a standard cylindrical 18650 cell has a diameter of 18 mm and an axial length of 65 mm as evidenced by Hays et al. (US 20230085778 A1) in par. 57. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the standard cylindrical 18650 cell in the accumulator package of Hess et al. because it is a standard cylindrical cell.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the size of the cells, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the accumulator package would function appropriately having the claimed cylindrical cell size.
Regarding claim 14: Hess et al. disclose a coupling element (24) (equivalent to a terminal block) on which the plurality of plug contacts (26) are disposed and a terminal cover (a terminal cover is shown in fig. 1) (par. 56, fig. 1) provided with grids corresponding to the plurality of plug contacts (26) (fig. 1) (the coupling element (24) includes a terminal cover as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21: Hess et al. disclose the housing (12) (par. 46, fig. 1) has a plurality of accommodating cavities (35) (equivalent to openings) (par. 46-48, fig. 3), wherein the accommodating cavities (35) abut the plurality of cells (36), and the accommodating cavities (35) extend through the housing along the longitudinal extension direction of the cells (36) (fig. 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A) as applied in claim 5 above and further in view of Jiao et al. (CN 112490561 A).
Regarding claim 6: Hess et al. in view Lee et al. and Zhang et al. of disclose a second housing part (16) (equivalent to an end cover assembly) covering one end of the cylindrical cells (36) (par. 60, fig. 2). Hess et al., Lee et al., and Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a panel assembly disposed on one end surface of the cylindrical structure; an electronic control assembly disposed on another end surface of the cylindrical structure. However, Jiao et al. disclose a battery pack (par. 1). The battery pack (10) comprises a sealing element (7) (equivalent to a panel assembly) disposed on both end surface of the cylindrical structure (par. 87, fig. 13); a power supply board (12) (equivalent to an electronic control assembly) disposed on another end surface of the cylindrical structure (par. 49, fig. 12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sealing element (7) and the power supply board (12) of Jiao et al. in the accumulator package of Hess et al. because Jiao et al. teach that the sealing element (7) can provide waterproof sealing performance of cells (par. 87) and the power supply board (12) can control the output power (par. 63, 64).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1), Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A), and Jiao et al. (CN 112490561 A) as applied in claim 6 above and further in in view of Janzen et al. (US 20200198476 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Hess et al. in view of Lee et al., Zhang et al., and Jiao et al. disclose an accumulator package with a housing as described in paragraph 5 above. Hess et al., Lee et al., Zhang et al., and Jiao et al. fail to explicitly disclose a fixing member configured to penetrate through and connect the end cover assembly, the panel assembly, the electronic control assembly, and the housing along a longitudinal extension direction of the cell. However, Janzen et al. disclose an accumulator (abstract). The accumulator (1) comprises a threaded rod (17) (equivalent to a fixing member). The threaded rod (17) passes through respective spacers (16), two housing parts (2a and 2b) (par. 36, 43, fig. 1, 11). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the threaded rod (17) of Janzen et al. in the accumulator package of Hess et al. because Janzen et al. teach the threaded rods (17) can secure the battery modules (4) to the housing (2) (par. 37).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1), Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A), and Jiao et al. (CN 112490561 A) as applied in claim 6 above and further in in view of Silha et al. (US 20220344777 A1).
Regarding claim 8: Hess et al. in view of Lee et al., Zhang et al., and Jiao et al. disclose an accumulator package with a housing as described in paragraph 5 above. Hess et al., Lee et al., Zhang et al., and Jiao et al. fail to explicitly disclose the housing is fixed to at least one of the panel assembly and the electronic control assembly through ultrasonic welding. However, Silha et al. disclose a battery pack (abstract). The battery pack comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (2100) (equivalent to the electronic control assembly) (par. 87). The PCB (2100) is securely coupled to (e.g., by welding) and supported by a housing or a frame of the battery pack (2000) (par. 87). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use welding method of Silha et al. to secure the power supply board (12) of Jiao et al. to the housing (12) of Hess et al. because Silha et al. teach this is a method to secure PCB board to the battery pack (par. 87).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Janzen et al. (US 20200198476 A1).
Regarding claim 9: Hess et al. in view of Lee et al. and Zhang et al. disclose an accumulator package with a housing as described in paragraph 4 above. Hess et al., Lee et al., and Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a metal insert is disposed in the housing. However, Janzen et al. disclose an accumulator (abstract). The accumulator (1) comprises a limiting plate (13b) (equivalent to a metal insert) (par. 36, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the limiting plate (13b) of Janzen et al. in the accumulator package of Hess et al. because Janzen et al. teach a cooling chamber (10b) can be formed between the limiting plate (13b) and the bottom (14b) (par. 38, fig. 3) and transfer heat (par. 6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Schworm et al. (US 20020125860 A1 ).
Regarding claim 12: Hess et al. in view of Lee et al. and Zhang et al. disclose an accumulator package with a housing as described in paragraph 4 above. Hess et al., Lee et al., and Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a distance from the intra-cavity wall surface to the outer wall surface is greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm. However, Schworm et al. disclose a mains-independent power supply unit having at least one rechargeable battery element (abstract). The mains-independent power supply unit comprises two mignon cell rechargeable batteries (3) (equivalent to cells) and bracketlike metal parts (5) (equivalent to a housing) (par. 26, fig. 1). The wall thickness (equivalent to a distance from the intra-cavity wall surface to the outer wall surface) of the metal parts (5) is between 1 mm and a few millimeters (par. 27). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wall thickness (equivalent to the distance from the intra-cavity wall surface to the outer wall surface) of 1 mm to a few millimeters of Schworm et al. as the distance from the intra-cavity wall surface to the outer wall surface of Hess et al. because Schworm et al. teach that this thickness provides a sufficiently large volume to ensure a thermal capacity which reliably prevents the maximum permissible peak temperature from being exceeded in the event of a short circuit (par. 27). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Nagahama et al. (US 20220367963 A1 ).
Regarding claim 13: Hess et al. disclose a plurality of plug contacts (26) (equivalent to metal terminals) configured to be electrically connected to the plurality of cells (36) and used for outputting electrical energy (par. 56, fig. 1). Hess et al., Lee et al., and Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a creepage distance between metal terminals among the plurality of metal terminals is greater than 8 mm and less than or equal to 20 mm. However, Nagahama et al. recognize that increasing the height of the partition walls between terminals reduces the risk of short-circuiting due to longer creepage distances, but also increases the size of the battery pack (par. 85). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the creepage distance via adjusting the height of the partition walls between terminals to yield the optimal balance between the short-circuiting suppress and the compact size of the battery pack. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210013560 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Main (US 20230075123 A1).
Regarding claim 15: Hess et al. in view of Lee et al. and Zhang et al. disclose an accumulator package with a housing as described in paragraph 4 above. Hess et al., Lee et al., and Zhang et al fail to explicitly disclose the housing comprises at least two sub-housings which are independent, and the battery pack further comprises an intermediate member disposed between different ones of the at least two sub-housings and sealingly connected to the different sub-housings. However, Main discloses a battery arrangement (abstract). The battery arrangement (30) comprise separate chambers (38a, 38b, 38c) (equivalent to at least two sub-housings) for a respective battery module (32) (par. 37, 39, fig. 2); and a side wall (44) (equivalent to an intermediate member) disposed between the separate chambers (38a, 38b, 38c). The chamber (38a, 38b, 38c) is sealed by the side wall (44), seals (46, 50) (par. 37, fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the separate chamber (38a, 38b, 38c) and the side wall (44) of Main in the accumulator package of Hess et al. because Main teaches the separate chambers (38a, 38b, 38c) can prevent thermal propagation (par. 37).
Claims 17, 18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A). The rejections are restated below to address the amendment.
Regarding claim 17: Hess et al. disclose an accumulator package with a housing (par. 1). The accumulator package (10) (equivalent to a battery pack) (par. 45, fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (12) (par. 46, fig. 1) having a cylindrical structure with an outer wall surface and two opposite end surfaces (see fig. above), wherein a plurality of accommodating cavities (35) (par.46-48, fig. 3) are formed in the cylindrical structure; and
a plurality of cells (36) disposed in the plurality of accommodating cavities (35) and extending along a longitudinal extension direction(par. 48, fig. 3);
wherein the plurality of accommodating cavities (35) (equivalent to openings) (par. 46-48, fig. 3) abutting the plurality of cells (36), and the accommodating cavities (35) extend through the housing along the longitudinal extension direction of the cells (36) (fig. 3).
Hess et al. fail to explicitly disclose a ratio of a capacity of the battery pack to an area of a cross section of the cylindrical structure is higher than or equal to 8 Ah/dm2 and lower than or equal to 17 Ah/dm2. However, Zhang et al. disclose an energy storage device (par. 2). Zhang et al. recognize that increasing the number of battery cells in a battery pack results in higher power capacity and generates more heat (par. 91). Zhang et al. further recognize increasing the cross-sectional area improves heat dissipation, but increases the overall pack size (par. 95-97, fig. 9, 10) (fig. 10 represents smaller cross section with poor heat dissipation for the center battery cell and fig. 9 represents bigger cross section with better heat dissipation).
As the battery pack with higher power capacity generates more heat and the battery pack with bigger cross section area can increases the heat dissipation, the precise ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the area of the cross section of the cylindrical structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the area of the cross section of the cylindrical structure to yield the optimal balance between the good heat dissipation capability and the sufficient capacity of the battery pack. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the area of the cross section of the cylindrical structure cannot be considered critical.
Regarding claim 18: Hess et al. disclose thermal conductivity of the housing (12) is greater than or equal to 1 W/mk (par. 12, 42).
Claim 20 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. (DE 102017109919 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104752654 A) as applied in claim 17 above and further in view of Janzen et al. (US 20200198476 A1).
Regarding claim 20: Hess et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose an accumulator package with a housing as described in paragraph 12 above. Hess et al. and Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a metal insert is disposed in the housing. However, Janzen et al. disclose an accumulator (abstract). The accumulator (1) comprises a limiting plate (13b) (equivalent to a metal insert) (par. 36, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the limiting plate (13b) of Janzen et al. in the accumulator package of Hess et al. because Janzen et al. teach a cooling chamber (10b) can be formed between the limiting plate (13b) and the bottom (14b) (par. 38, fig. 3) and transfer heat (par. 6).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Hess and Lee do not disclose or suggest the claimed relationship between the capacity of the battery pack and the heat dissipation area, namely, that the ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the heat dissipation area is higher than or equal to 1.2 Ah/dm2 and lower than or equal to3.5 Ah/dm2.
Hess and Zhang do not disclose or suggest the claimed relationship between the capacity of the battery pack and the area of a cross section of the cylindrical structure of the house.
Hess and Zhang do not disclose or suggest the claimed plurality of openings.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The performance and the operation safety of the battery pack are related to the two parameters (the capacity of the battery pack and the heat dissipation area). Hess teaches a larger heat exchange surface results in a better passive cooling. Zhang teaches higher capacity gives better performance. However, higher capacity also generates more heat as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill would have a motivation to have a sufficient capacity of the battery pack with a sufficient heat dissipation area, so that the battery pack can be operated in a safe temperature range. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would adjust the ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the area of the heat dissipation area to yield the optimal balance between the good passive cooling capability and the sufficient capacity of the battery pack as taught by Hess and Zhang. In addition, A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements that claimed ratio provides a balanced relationship between battery capacity and the available heat dissipation surface of the housing is unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The performance and the operation safety of the battery pack are related to the two parameters (the capacity of the battery pack and the area of a cross section of the cylindrical structure of the house). Higher capacity gives better performance. However, higher capacity also generates more heat as taught by Zhang. As Zhang teaches that bigger cross section results in better heat dissipation, one of ordinary skill would have motivation to increase the area of a cross section of the cylindrical structure of the house for the battery pack with higher capacity, so that the battery pack can be operated in a safe temperature range. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would adjust the ratio of the capacity of the battery pack to the area of a cross section of the cylindrical structure of the house yield the optimal balance between the good heat dissipation capability and the sufficient capacity of the battery pack as taught by Hess and Zhang. In addition, A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements that claimed ratio provides a balanced relationship between battery capacity, cross-sectional area, and heat dissipation performance in the context of a housing that directly supports the cells and dissipates heat through the housing is unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the accommodating cavities of Hess are equivalent to openings. The accommodating cavities abut the cells and extend through the housing along the longitudinal extension direction of the cells. In addition, the instant spec describes the housing is provided with no heat dissipation opening in par. 24, 49, 60. It is unclear that if there is another openings in the housing (10) in the instant application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights