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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2023 and 05/13/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1,2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinders US20060124287A1.
Regarding claim 1, Reinders discloses an apparatus for cooling a battery (heat exchanger unit 111 [Para 0085]), said apparatus comprising: a spacer element disposed in the cooling channel (“spacer element” encompasses any physical projection or structure located inside a channel that establishes or maintains a standoff distance between opposing walls or adjacent surfaces. According to FIG. 12 The strip comprises individual fins 216 each provided with louvres 218 in the form of elongate slots penetrating through the laminate [Para 0091]). Note: The preamble "for cooling a battery" is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention [see MPEP 2111.02]. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Reinders discloses at least a portion of the spacer element extends to an edge of the cooling channel (The louvres 20 are arranged in groups. A first group 220 serves to direct flow into the surface, while a second group 222 directs flow out of the surface. [Para. 0091] This proves that the louvres reach the inlet/ outlet boundary of the fluid passage).
Regarding claim 5 Reinders discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the spacer element comprises an undercut that extends substantially along the cooling channel (The strip comprises individual fins 216 each provided with louvres 218 in the form of elongate slots penetrating through the laminate. [Para 0091]).
Claims 1,2, 5, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon US20110052960A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses an apparatus for cooling a battery (The secondary battery module 10 may include a plurality of the cooling conduits 12 [Para 0047], said apparatus comprising: a spacer element disposed in the cooling channel 1 (the cooling conduits 12 and a spacer 17 disposed inside the shown cooling conduit 12 [Para 0067].
Regarding claim 2, Kwon discloses at least a portion of the spacer element extends to an edge of the cooling channel (FIG 2D illustrates an example of structure showing the cooling conduits 12 extend to the edge of the cooling channel that is the edge of the unit batteries)
Regarding claim 5, Kwon discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the spacer element comprises an undercut that extends substantially along the cooling channel (FIGS. 6A through 6L are cross-sectional views illustrating various shapes of a spacer that may be disposed in a cooling conduit [Para. 0037]; FIGS. 6D and 6F show the spacer element having an undercut).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon discloses A battery comprising the apparatus (The secondary battery module 10 may include a plurality of the cooling conduits 12 [Para 0047])
Regarding claim 7, Kwon discloses A vehicle comprising the battery of claim 6 (A secondary battery used for a car or an apparatus to store electric power [Para 0006])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hirsch US20200235447A1.
Regarding claim 3 Kwon discloses the limitations of claims 1 as outlined above.
Kwon fails to explicitly teach the compression element disposed within two cooling plates
Hirsch teaches the apparatus comprises two of the cooling plates between which a compression element is disposed, wherein the spacer element of the respective cooling plate is disposed on a side of the cooling plates facing away from the compression element. (a pressure structure 34, which spaces the two studded plates 32, 33 apart from one another and connects them to one another, formed by a monolithic and inherently elastic pressure body 34′. [Para. 0024])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at that time of invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Kwon by incorporating two of the cooling plates between which a compression element is disposed, wherein the spacer element of the respective cooling plate is disposed on a side of the cooling plates facing away from the compression element. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because through the plate-shaped spring element, the respective energy storage unit lies against the respective heat conduction plate over the full surface area and the thermal resistance between the respective energy storage unit and the respective heat conduction plate is reduced [Para.0014]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 4 Kwon in view of Hirsch discloses the limitations of claims 3 as outlined above.
Kwon further teaches the spacer element of one of the two cooling plates is disposed offset from the spacer element of the other of the two cooling plates (the spacer 17 may have a structure where a plurality of protrusions 21. [Para 0067] FIG 6F shows the protrusions disposed in an offset configuration)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to CALEB UCHECHUKWU ORJI whose telephone number is (571)270-3370. The
examiner can normally be reached 7:00am- 5:00pm ET Mon-Thur.
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,
Joshua Allen, can be reached at telephone number 5712703176. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status
information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have
questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CALEB U ORJI/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights