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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 10, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0214041).
Regarding claim 1, Harada teaches a battery module (paragraph [0046]) (see figure 2) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (i.e., four prismatic battery cells) (paragraph [0046]) arranged side by side in a first direction (see figure 2) (paragraph [0046]), each of the plurality of battery cells having a prismatic shape (paragraph [0046]) (see figure 2); and
a partition wall member (i.e., cell holders) provided between the plurality of battery cells (i.e., alternately arranging) (paragraph [0046], [0056], [0090]-[0092]) and having an insulating property (paragraph [0055]), wherein
the partition wall member includes a main body portion (i.e., planar portion) and a plurality of protrusions (paragraph [0092]) protruding from the main body portion toward at least one battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (see figure 13),
each of the plurality of protrusions has
a first end portion (i.e., cooling medium inlet) and a second end portion (i.e., cooling medium outlet) (paragraph [0061], [0092]) facing each other in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (see figure 13), and
an intermediate portion (i.e., baffle plate) located between the first end portion and the second end portion (paragraph [0099]),
a cooling medium path (i.e., cooling channel) along the second direction is formed between the plurality of protrusions (paragraph [0092]), and
when viewed in the second direction, a cross-sectional area of the cooling medium path is decreased from the first end portion toward the intermediate portion and is increased from the intermediate portion toward the second end portion (see figure 13 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Harada teaches wherein a width of the cooling medium path in the first direction is narrowed in a tapered form from the first end portion toward the intermediate portion (see figure 13 above) and is widened in a tapered form from the intermediate portion toward the second end portion (see figure 13 above).
Regarding claim 10, Harada teaches wherein the partition wall member is formed in a case that accommodates the plurality of battery cells (paragraph [0055]) (see figure 6), that supports the plurality of battery cells in at least the first direction (paragraph [0055]), and that forms a unit including the plurality of battery cells (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 12, Harada teaches wherein the plurality of protrusions are formed in one piece with the partition wall member.
Regarding claim 14, Harada teaches wherein a cooling medium flowing through the cooling medium path is air (paragraph [0046]).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0214041).
Regarding claim 7, Harada teaches the batter as described above in claim 1 including the tapered areas as described above in claim 4.
Harada does not teach the specifics of the width of the cooling medium path in the first direction has a taper angle of more than 0.2° and less than 0.5°.
However, the taper angle constitute a result-effective variable that directly influences coolant flow characteristics, pressure loss, flow uniformity, and heat transfer performance, as know in the art of fluid mechanics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select or optimize the taper angle through routine experimentation to achieve a desired balance between cooling efficiency and flow resistance. Selecting a taper angle within the claimed range therefore would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation absent evidence that the claimed range yields unexpected results or is critical.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate either:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2.
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art whether alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest the limitations “wherein a width of the cooling medium path in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction is narrowed in a tapered form from the first end portion toward the intermediate portion and is widened in a tapered form from the intermediate portion toward the second end portion.” as recited in claim 2 in combination with claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0229749). Kim teaches a cooling path with a tapered form from a first end to an intermediate end (see figure 8) (paragraph [0023]).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights