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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6 November 2023 and 8 August 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement set forth in the Office action dated 5 May 2026 is withdrawn. Claims 16-20 are hereby rejoined and concurrently examined with claims 1-15.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 11, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 2 recites “between corresponding ones of the crossbeams”
Claim 3 line 4 recites “the corresponding ones of the battery cells”
Claim 11 line 3 recites “corresponding ones of the crossbeams”
Claim 17 line 4 recites “corresponding ones of the battery cells”
Claim 20 line 4 recites “corresponding ones of the battery cells”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
The recitation “relative to a lower portion of the adjoining battery cell channel” in claim 12 is relative which renders the claim indefinite. The recitation “relative to a lower portion of the adjoining battery cell channel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to where the side wall is sealing. Careful reading of paragraph 41 of the instant disclosure does not provide clarity. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation as follows: “The thermal plate system according to claim 11, wherein: the sidewalls being adhered to the crossbeams and the bottom plate such that a lower portion of each battery cell channel is sealed”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrmann et al. (DE 102008061755, hereinafter, Herrmann).
Regarding claim 1, Herrmann teaches a thermal plate system (Herrmann Description ¶ 1, holding and cooling device) for supporting a plurality of battery cells included as a part of a high voltage battery pack (Herrmann Description ¶ 9, for at least one energy storage unit), comprising:
a bottom plate configured for supporting a bottom surface of one or more of the battery cells, wherein the bottom plate is shaped relative to a longitudinal axis, a width axis, and a height axis (Herrmann Description ¶ 11, a stable mounting of energy storage units such as batteries by the provision of a cooling base plate is possible on the cohesively a plurality of holding elements are attached);
a plurality of crossbeams configured for supporting a side of one or more of the battery cells, wherein the crossbeams are intermittently spaced along an upper surface of the bottom plate relative to the longitudinal axis and shaped to project widthwise across the upper surface relative to the width axis and heightwise upwardly from the surface relative to the height axis (Herrmann Figs. 1-3, crossbeams extending upwards from the cooling base plate and supporting battery cells in between); and
wherein the bottom plate and the crossbeams together form a monolithic, one-piece structure operable for thermally conducting heat away from and physically supporting the battery cells (Herrmann Abstract, a set of retaining elements (105) fastened to a cooling base plate (120) in a firmly bonded manner by soldering or welding; Description ¶ 11, due to the cohesive connection between the cooling base plate and the holding elements, a high heat transfer from the energy storage elements to the cooling base plate is made possible).
Regarding claim 2, Herrmann teaches “the cooling base plate 120 can, for example, internal channels 300 to conduct refrigeration or refrigerant (Herrmann ¶ 52, Fig. 3). The circulated coolant would conduct heat from the battery cells through the cooling base plate.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Herrmann teaches a spring element corresponding to spring clips that “is designed to thermally contact the retaining elements by a spring force on the retaining element or the energy storage unit insertable into the retaining bag in an inserted condition” (Herrmann Abstract). “Will the battery cells 130 charged or discharged, these cells can 130 laterally expand or contract by internal chemical processes. By the spring element 140 it is ensured that despite such a lateral expansion or such a lateral contraction sufficient pressure on the memory cells 130 is exercised, allowing a good heat conduction from the surfaces of the storage cells to the holding elements 105 becomes possible” (Herrmann Description ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 6, Herrmann teaches a thermally conductive material applied to the crossbeams to facilitate thermally enhancing heat transfer between the battery cells and the crossbeams (Herrmann ¶ 59, “Also, the two battery cells can 130 by a preferably full-surface glued sheet 150 be surrounded, which in turn ensures heat conduction”, the batteries being glued and in contact with the holding elements would also mean the holding elements are coated in the glued sheet that ensures heat conduction).
Regarding claim 7, Herrmann teaches crossbeams with a substantially planar shape (Herrmann Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of the one-piece structure being formed as part of an extrusion process is a product-by-process limitation and this is not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure. See MPEP 2113. Herrmann teaches the thermal plate system including a monolithic, one-piece structure and is considered to meet the claimed limitation.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Herrmann (DE 102008061755).
Regarding claim 5, Herrmann teaches a spring element that maintains sufficient pressure on the battery cells during the expansion of the battery cells, but does not teach that the spring element has a convex shape. However, the court has held that the shape configuration is considered to be a matter of design choice within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (DE 102008061755) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2022170491, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claims 8-9, Herrmann teaches crossbeams but not that the crossbeams have a substantially wave or hour-glass shape. In a related field of endeavor, Wang teaches a battery comprising two layers of battery units, each comprising a plurality of battery cells with curved outer walls, and each layer of battery units having a wave shape, and a thermal management component that is located between layers of battery units and has a wave shape corresponding to the wave shape of each layer of battery units (Wang Abstract). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the retaining element of Herrmann with the shape of the thermal management component of Wang. One would be motivated to do so because in the case that the cells are cylindrical, which Applicant identifies as a possible embodiment in paragraph 43 of the instant disclosure, the wavy shape of the thermal management component would increase contact area and improve cooling (Wang Summary of the Invention ¶ 13).
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 above because paragraph 43 of Applicant’s instant disclosure describes Fig. 8 of the instant disclosure to have both a wave shape and an hourglass shape, and there is no other description of any difference.
Claims 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (DE 102008061755) in view of Stephens et al. (WO 2019169080, hereinafter Stephens).
Regarding claim 10, Herrman teaches the thermal plate system of claim 1, but does not teach that one or more opposed longitudinal ends of the bottom plate are shaped to include an interlock operable for connecting with an interlock of another bottom plate or sidewall of the battery tray. In a related field of endeavor, Stephens teaches a battery tray with a tray floor that may have panel sections, each with their own cross member portion that integrally extends upward from the base portion of the panel section, that have interlocking connections that connect with adjacent panels and front and rear end panel sections (Stephens ¶ 38-41, Fig. 2A). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the invention of Herrmann with the teachings of Stephens. One would be motivated to do so to have a battery enclosure that is incrementally changeable based on the number of floor panels used (Stephens ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 11, Herrmann in view of Stephens teaches the thermal plate system further comprising side reinforcement members 26 that are disposed on both sides of the panel sections. The cross-member portions 48 extend laterally between and engage interior surfaces of the side reinforcement members (Stephens ¶ 41, Fig. 2A). Thus, battery cell channels are defined between both side reinforcement members and adjoining cross member portions.
Regarding claim 12, Herrmann in view of Stephens teaches the thermal plate system wherein the side reinforcement members adhered to the cross-member portions seal a lower portion of each battery cell channel (See above rejection for claim 11, Stephens ¶ 41, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Herrman in view of Stephens teaches the thermal plate system wherein the “peripheral frame member 26 may also include coolant passages or channels 24 that interconnects with at least one of the enclosed coolant channels 22 of the floor structure 20 for transferring the liquid coolant through the portions of the battery tray 10 desired to be cooled” (Stephens ¶ 37, Figs. 2A - 6).
Regarding claim 14, Herrman in view of Stephens teaches the thermal plate system of claim 11, further comprising a cold plate configured for supporting lower surfaces of the bottom plate and the sidewalls (Herrmann ¶ 54, “a cooling of the cooling base plate 120 over soldered pipes 500, For example, flat tubes, done.”, Fig. 5 cooling base plate above a second structure 500 labeled as soldered pipes.)
Regarding claim 16, Herrman in view of Stephens teaches a battery pack for a vehicle (Stephens ¶ 4, “battery modules contained in the tray”, “battery tray or structure for an electric vehicle”), comprising:
a monolithic multifunctional unified structure thermal plate having a plurality of crossbeams intermittently spaced along a bottom plate, the crossbeams shaped to extend widthwise across the bottom plate and upwardly away from the bottom plate (Herrmann Abstract, a set of retaining elements (105) fastened to a cooling base plate (120) in a firmly bonded manner by soldering or welding; Stephens Fig. 2A, cross member portions extending widthwise across and upward from the panel sections); and
a plurality of battery cells disposed between the crossbeams such that a bottom of the battery cells is supported upon the bottom plate and opposed sides of the battery are supported by adjoining pairs of the crossbeams(Stephens Abstract, battery modules supported at the upper surface of the tray floor structure; Stephens ¶ 7 and 41, the battery containment area holds battery modules, cross member portion 48 may serve as a containment barrier between sections of the battery containment area).
Regarding claim 17, Herrmann in view of Stephens teaches a spring element corresponding to spring clips that “is designed to thermally contact the retaining elements by a spring force on the retaining element or the energy storage unit insertable into the retaining bag in an inserted condition” (Herrmann Abstract). “Will the battery cells 130 charged or discharged, these cells can 130 laterally expand or contract by internal chemical processes. By the spring element 140 it is ensured that despite such a lateral expansion or such a lateral contraction sufficient pressure on the memory cells 130 is exercised, allowing a good heat conduction from the surfaces of the storage cells to the holding elements 105 becomes possible” (Herrmann Description ¶ 60).
Herrmann in view of Stephens does not teach that the spring element has a convex shape. However, the court has held that the shape configuration is considered to be a matter of design choice within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 18, Herrman in view of Stephens teaches “the cooling base plate 120 can, for example, internal channels 300 to conduct refrigeration or refrigerant (Herrmann paragraph beginning with “3 shows a schematic side view”, Fig. 3). The circulated coolant would conduct heat from the battery cells through the cooling base plate.
Regarding claim 19, Herrmann in view of Stephens teaches a vehicle (Stephens ¶ 4, electric vehicle, such as an all-electric or hybrid-electric vehicle) comprising:
a monolithic multifunctional unified structure thermal plate having a plurality of crossbeams intermittently spaced along a bottom plate, the crossbeams shaped to extend widthwise across the bottom plate and upwardly away from the bottom plate (Herrmann Abstract, a set of retaining elements (105) fastened to a cooling base plate (120) in a firmly bonded manner by soldering or welding; Stephens Fig. 2A, cross member portions extending widthwise across and upward from the panel sections);
a plurality of battery cells, which store and supply electrical power (Herrmann ¶ 60, battery cells 130 charged or discharged), disposed between the crossbeams such that a bottom of the battery cells is supported upon the bottom plate and opposed sides of the battery are supported by adjoining pairs of the crossbeams(Stephens Abstract, battery modules supported at the upper surface of the tray floor structure; Stephens ¶ 7 and 41, the battery containment area holds battery modules, cross member portion 48 may serve as a containment barrier between sections of the battery containment area).
Although Herrmann in view of Stephens does not explicitly mention an electric motor operable for generating mechanical power suitable for propelling the vehicle in response to electrical power provided from the battery cells, Stephens discloses an electric vehicle such as an all-electric or hybrid-electric vehicle (Stephens ¶ 4) and is expected to possess an electric motor, as an electric motor is a defining feature of an electric vehicle. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 20, Herrmann in view of Stephens teaches the vehicle of claim 19, further comprising:
a spring element corresponding to spring clips that “is designed to thermally contact the retaining elements by a spring force on the retaining element or the energy storage unit insertable into the retaining bag in an inserted condition” (Herrmann Abstract). “Will the battery cells 130 charged or discharged, these cells can 130 laterally expand or contract by internal chemical processes. By the spring element 140 it is ensured that despite such a lateral expansion or such a lateral contraction sufficient pressure on the memory cells 130 is exercised, allowing a good heat conduction from the surfaces of the storage cells to the holding elements 105 becomes possible” (Herrmann Description ¶ 60).
Herrmann in view of Stephens does not teach that the spring element has a convex shape. However, the court has held that the shape configuration is considered to be a matter of design choice within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04.
a thermally conductive material applied to the crossbeams to facilitate thermally enhancing heat transfer between the battery cells and the crossbeams (Herrmann ¶ 59, “Also, the two battery cells can 130 by a preferably full-surface glued sheet 150 be surrounded, which in turn ensures heat conduction”, Fig. 11, the batteries being glued and in contact with the holding elements would also mean the holding elements are coated in the glued sheet that ensures heat conduction); and
a coolant system configured for circulating a coolant through a plurality of apertures formed within an interior cavity of the bottom plate (Herrmann ¶ 52, Fig. 3, “the cooling base plate 120 can, for example, internal channels 300 to conduct refrigeration or refrigerant.” The circulated coolant would conduct heat from the battery cells through the cooling base plate), wherein the coolant system includes a cold plate disposed relative to the bottom plate to facilitate dissipating heat from the bottom plate (Herrmann ¶ 61, “a cooling of the cooling base plate 120 for example, over soldered pipes 500 takes place, in a further embodiment, a cooling base plate 120 be used in the internal channels 300 for guiding a coolant or refrigerant”, soldered pipes 500, corresponding to the cold plate, further cools the cooling base plate).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
