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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant correctly observes that the previous Office action characterized certain portions of Smith too broadly. In particular, Applicant argues that Smith's gap G is located between thermal fin 86 and heat exchanger plate 72 rather than between adjacent battery cells. The Examiner agrees that Smith's gap G is not relied upon in this action as the claimed inter-cell air gap. Smith teaches that gap G is between thermal fin 86 and heat exchanger plate 72 and may contain thermal interface material 94 (Smith, [0060]- [0068]). The rejection has therefore been clarified.
The rejection does not require Smith, standing alone, to disclose the claimed cooperating upper and lower spacer arrangement. Park is relied upon for that teaching.
Park expressly discloses upper case 101 and lower case 102 with battery cells positioned therebetween, each case having integral spacer features 110 (Park, [0015], [0024]- [0027]). More importantly, Park's claim 4 expressly recites lower spacers projecting from the lower case and upper spacers projecting from the upper case, with the upper and lower spacers projecting toward one another, and claim 5 provides that the upper and lower spacer patterns are aligned. Park therefore provides express—not merely inferential—support for opposed upper and lower spacer structures acting on the same battery-cell grouping.
Applicant further argues that Park's spacer features are integral to the cases and do not establish an inter-cell air gap. This argument is not persuasive. Park teaches that its spacers only partially surround neighboring cells and that ventilation openings are positioned at the interfaces between neighboring cells such that heat is discharged along those interfaces (Park, [0019], [0026]- [0031]). Thus, Park's spacer structure is not a continuous solid wall filling the entire region between adjacent cells. Rather, the spacer structures position the cells while leaving open inter-cell regions associated with ventilation and heat removal.
Applicant argues with respect to claims 2 and 11 that Smith paragraph [0049] does not disclose a bus bar. This argument is acknowledged. The present rejection does not rely upon Smith paragraph [0049] as teaching a bus bar.
Instead, Park teaches connection through-holes exposing the battery-cell terminals, mounting features for an electrical connection member, and metal connection plate 300 mounted to the case and electrically connecting the battery-cell terminals (Park, [0020]- [0024], [0034]- [0037]; Figs. 1 and 4-7). Park further teaches an FPCB coupled to the connection member for voltage detection. The combination of the supporting structure and conductive connection plate constitutes or at least suggests the claimed bus bar module because it performs the conventional bus-bar-module function of supporting conductive members that electrically interconnect battery-cell terminals.
Applicant's argument that Park uses cylindrical cells whereas Smith uses pouch cells does not establish nonobviousness. Smith expressly states that battery cells having other geometries, including prismatic cells, may be utilized (Smith, [0046]). Moreover, Park teaches that the geometry of the spacer may be selected to complement the cross-section of the battery cells. Modification of spacer geometry in response to the selected cell geometry is therefore expressly contemplated by the combined teachings.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, and 14, Applicant argues that neither Smith nor Park literally identifies the claimed "cross-shaped rib" and "elongated rib." The Examiner has reconsidered the previous characterization and does not maintain that Smith's longitudinal axes A1 and A2 themselves constitute a cross-shaped rib. Rather, Park teaches spacers configured to engage multiple neighboring cells and occupying the interstitial region between such cells. When applied to rectangular/prismatic cells expressly contemplated by Smith, a cross-shaped rib is a predictable geometry for extending into the spaces between four neighboring cell corners. Similarly, converting a row of aligned spacer projections into a continuous elongated rib is a predictable structural alternative where continuous spacing along the row is desired. The length of that rib is subject to routine optimization according to the longitudinal extent over which support is desired.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Applicant argues that the previous statement concerning "design choice" lacked articulated reasoning. The rejection has been clarified. Park teaches that spacer outer edges may complement the cross-section of the battery cells (Park, claim 8), and Smith teaches prismatic cells as an alternative geometry. Thus, the reason for positioning the spacers in the corner-defined interstitial spaces is not merely an unsupported assertion of design choice; it follows directly from adapting Park's geometry-complementary spacer to the rectangular geometry of Smith's expressly contemplated prismatic cells. Doing so predictably supports and separates neighboring cells while minimizing interference with their broad side surfaces.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues that Smith's disclosure of multiple battery arrays does not necessarily establish two rows within a single cell grouping. This argument is acknowledged. The rejection is clarified to rely upon Park, which expressly claims that the plurality of spacers is arranged in a matrix of rows and columns (Park, claim 6), and whose illustrated battery arrangement is correspondingly two-dimensional. Park therefore provides direct support for arranging the cells in multiple rows.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant repeats its arguments concerning Smith's gap G and the alleged Smith bus-bar disclosure. As explained above, Smith's gap G is no longer relied upon as the inter-cell gap, and Smith paragraph [0049] is not relied upon for a bus bar. Park supplies the opposed spacer arrangement and electrical interconnection structure, while Smith supplies the traction-battery environment and heat exchanger plate. Applicant further argues that there is no reason to combine Park's cylindrical-cell case with Smith's pouch-cell array. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not require bodily incorporation of Park's complete case into Smith. The obvious inquiry concerns what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Smith expressly permits alternative cell geometries including cylindrical and prismatic cells, and both references address the same recognized engineering concerns of retaining plural battery cells in a stable arrangement and removing heat generated during operation. Park additionally expressly identifies compact construction, simplified assembly, stable mounting, and heat removal as advantages of its integral spacer architecture. A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had reason to employ Park's integral opposed spacer teachings in Smith's traction-battery arrangement.
Regarding new claims 16-20, Applicant states only that the newly recited features are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record. This assertion has been considered but is not persuasive.
Park teaches the separate and physically distinct upper and lower structures required by claim 16. Smith teaches lithium-ion cells and expressly contemplates prismatic cell geometry, teaching claim 17. Park's integral case spacers eliminate the need for separate dedicated cell-to-cell spacer members, teaching or suggesting claim 18. Park's geometry-complementary multi-cell spacer, when applied to Smith's prismatic cells, teaches the corner-aligned upper spacer of claim 19. Finally, the combination of Park's upper electrical-connection/spacer assembly and opposed lower spacer teaching with Smith's heat exchanger plate teaches the arrangement of claim 20 for the reasons set forth in detail above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200058971 A1) in further view of Park et al. (US 20150287964 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a battery pack for an electrified vehicle, i.e., a traction battery pack, including a battery cell grouping. Smith specifically teaches that battery pack 24 is an exemplary electrified-vehicle traction battery and includes battery arrays 25 that are battery assemblies or groupings of battery cells (Smith, Abstract; [0041]- [0046]; Fig. 2). Smith further teaches that battery cells 56 may be arranged in a row to form a cell stack/battery array 25 and that the battery array is supported by structural components (Smith, [0046]- [0049]).
Smith further teaches upper and lower structural portions associated with the battery-cell grouping. In particular, array frame 66 includes a top wall 78 and a bottom wall 80 connected by frame arms 82, with the top wall establishing a portion of the upper surface of the battery array and the bottom wall establishing a portion of the base of the battery array (Smith, [0049]- [0050]; Figs. 3-4).
Smith does not expressly teach the claimed arrangement in which a first spacer feature of an upper assembly structure and a second spacer feature of a lower assembly structure cooperate to establish an air gap between adjacent battery cells.
Park teaches this general opposed-space arrangement. Park discloses a battery pack case having an upper case 101 and a lower case 102, with battery cells 200 mounted therebetween, wherein each of the upper and lower cases is integrally provided with a plurality of spacers 110 for supporting the battery cells (Park, [0015], [0024]- [0025]; Figs. 1-3). Park further teaches that the spacers protrude from the inner portions of the cases toward the battery cells and partially surround neighboring cells (Park, [0019], [0026]- [0027]). Park's claim 4 expressly recites lower spacers projecting from an inner surface of the lower case and upper spacers projecting from an inner surface of the upper case, the upper spacers and lower spacers projecting from the respective inner surfaces toward one another and claim 5 expressly provides that the upper and lower spacer patterns are aligned.
Park further teaches that spaces/interfaces are maintained between neighboring battery cells and are placed in fluid communication with ventilation openings so that heat can be discharged from between the respective cells (Park, [0015], [0024], [0028]- [0031]; Figs. 1-3). Park explains that ventilation opening 120 is located at the interface between neighboring battery cells and that heat is discharged along those interfaces (Park, [0031]). Thus, Park teaches maintaining open inter-cell regions between neighboring cells while the opposed upper and lower spacer structures position and support the cells.
Smith and Park are analogous art because both relate to structural arrangements for supporting and thermally managing plural battery cells in a battery pack, including battery packs suitable for electric or hybrid electric vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith's traction-battery cell grouping using Park's opposed upper and lower integral spacer arrangement. The park expressly identifies the advantages of its integral spacer arrangement as stable mounting of the battery cells, compact construction, simplified assembly, and effective removal of heat generated by the battery cells (Park, [0015]- [0018]). Applying Park's opposed spacer arrangement to Smith's traction battery would therefore have predictably maintained cell spacing and alignment while providing open inter-cell regions for thermal management. The modification constitutes the application of a known battery-cell supporting and spacing technique to a known battery-cell grouping for the same known purposes of cell positioning, structural stability, and thermal management.
Regarding claim 2, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Smith teaches a heat exchanger plate 72, sometimes referred to as a cold plate, positioned beneath the battery array 25 and configured to thermally manage battery cells 56 (Smith, [0048], [0050]; Fig. 2). Smith therefore teaches the claimed lower assembly structure in the form of a heat exchanger plate.
Park teaches the corresponding upper electrical interconnection assembly. Park provides connection through-holes at the case corresponding to the electrode terminals of the cells and provides protrusions for mounting a connection member to the case (Park, [0020]- [0021]). Park teaches that the connection member is preferably a metal plate 300 and electrically connects the electrode terminals of the battery cells (Park, [0021], [0024], [0034]- [0037]; Figs. 1 and 4-7). Park further teaches an FPCB 400 coupled to the metal plate for detecting cell voltage (Park, [0022], [0024]).
Thus, Park teaches a module associated with the upper cell-terminal region that includes conductive members for electrically interconnecting the cells and a supporting case/frame structure. Such an assembly corresponds to a bus bar module under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Park's known cell-terminal electrical connection assembly in Smith's traction battery while retaining Smith's heat exchanger plate 72, because Park's metal connection plate provides the known function of electrically interconnecting neighboring battery-cell terminals while Smith's heat exchanger plate provides the known function of removing heat from the battery cells. The combination would predictably integrate electrical interconnection and thermal management into the same battery cell block.
Regarding claim 3, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Park teaches upper and lower cases 101, 102 positioned on opposite sides of the battery cells, each case being integrally provided with spacers 110 that protrude inwardly toward the battery cells (Park, [0015], [0019], [0024]- [0027]; Figs. 1-3). Park claim 4 more specifically recites upper spacers and lower spacers projecting from the respective inner surfaces toward one another.
Accordingly, when the upper case/electrical-connection structure is arranged over the battery cells, Park's upper spacer features necessarily protrude downwardly toward the cells.
Smith teaches heat exchanger plate 72 beneath battery array 25 (Smith, [0048], [0050]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Park's lower-cell-supporting spacer functionality into the upper surface of Smith's heat exchanger plate 72 rather than provide a redundant separate lower supporting member immediately adjacent the heat exchanger. Such integration would reduce part count, simplify assembly, positively locate the cells relative to the heat exchanger, and preserve the known spacing function of Park while maintaining the thermal-management function of Smith. Forming the known spacer projection integrally on the component already supporting the bottom of the cell grouping is no more than the predictable integration of known structural functions into a single component.
The resulting arrangement includes an upper spacer protruding downwardly toward the cell grouping and a lower spacer protruding upwardly from the heat exchanger plate toward the cell grouping.
Regarding claim 4, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Park teaches that a spacer may be configured to simultaneously engage or partially surround four neighboring battery cells and that its geometry occupies the interstitial region defined by the four neighboring cells (Park, [0019], [0026]- [0027]; Figs. 2-3). Park further claims spacer cross-sections that are substantially diamond-shaped, and spacers configured to support a plurality of battery cells (Park, claims 7 and 11-12).
The particular cross-sectional rib geometry selected for a spacer located at the intersection of four neighboring cells represents a predictable geometrical implementation of Park's multi-cell spacer. A person of ordinary skill would have selected a cross-shaped rib where rectangular/prismatic cells are employed so that individual arms of the rib extend into the spaces defined between the neighboring cell corners. Such configuration provides the same known functions expressly taught by Park, positioning multiple neighboring cells, maintaining spacing, and providing structural support, with a geometry complementary to rectangular cells.
The claimed cross-shaped configuration would therefore have been an obvious design selection dictated by the geometry of the cells being supported.
Regarding claim 5, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Park teaches spacer projections extending from a case surface toward the battery cells (Park, [0019], [0026]-[0027]), while Smith teaches that battery cells may be arranged longitudinally as a cell stack and that the associated battery-array structures extend along the longitudinal axis of the battery array (Smith, [0046]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to configure the lower spacer as an elongated rib extending along a plurality of adjacent cells rather than as multiple discrete projections. A continuous elongated rib is a known and predictable alternative to a series of aligned individual spacer projections where the desired function is to maintain a substantially uniform cell-to-cell spacing along a row. Such an arrangement reduces the number of individual molded features while providing continuous positioning and support. The particular use of a continuous rather than interrupted spacer represents a routine structural design choice producing the predictable result of maintaining spacing along the cell row.
Regarding claim 6, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Smith teaches that the battery array 25 extends longitudinally along axis A1 (Smith, [0049]), and Park teaches spacer structures distributed along the cell grouping for maintaining the arrangement of the battery cells. Once the spacer is implemented as the elongated rib discussed with respect to claim 5, the extent of the rib along the lower assembly structure is a result-effective design parameter governed by the number and arrangement of cells requiring support. Extending the rib across a majority of the length of the lower assembly structure would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization where support and spacing are desired across a majority of the battery-cell row. No criticality or unexpected result is apparent from merely extending the known spacer rib over more than one-half the length of the supporting structure.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Smith teaches that its battery cells may have geometries other than pouch geometry, including prismatic geometry (Smith, [0046]). Park teaches spacer features occupying the interstitial spaces defined by neighboring cells and configured to support multiple neighboring cells (Park, [0019], [0026]- [0027]; claims 7, 8, and 11-12).
When Park's multi-cell spacer arrangement is applied to the prismatic cells expressly contemplated by Smith, the natural interstitial locations for the spacer features are the spaces between the corners of neighboring rectangular/prismatic cells. It would have been obvious to configure the spacer geometry to complement the exterior geometry of the cells being supported, as Park itself teaches spacer outer edges that complement the cross-section of the battery cells (Park, claim 8).
Accordingly, arranging the first and second spacer features to align with and fill spaces between corners of adjacent prismatic cells would have been the predictable application of Park's expressly taught geometry-complementary spacer concept to Smith's expressly contemplated prismatic battery cells. Such positioning predictably maximizes cell support while preserving separation between the broad cell faces.
Regarding claim 9, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Park expressly claims that its plurality of spacers may be arranged in a matrix of rows and columns (Park, claim 6), and Figs. 1-3 illustrate a two-dimensional battery-cell arrangement supported by the spacer matrix. Park therefore teaches or at minimum expressly suggests a battery cell grouping including at least two rows of battery cells.
It would have been obvious to employ this known multi-row arrangement in Smith's traction battery pack because increasing the number of rows provides a predictable means of packaging the required number of cells within the available battery-pack footprint.
Regarding claim 10, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Park teaches open inter-cell interfaces and specifically teaches ventilation openings positioned at interfaces between neighboring battery cells so that heat is discharged along those interfaces (Park, [0028]- [0031]; Figs. 2-3). Smith expressly contemplates prismatic battery cells (Smith, [0046]).
For prismatic cells having opposed long and short side surfaces, the inter-cell gap necessarily extends along whichever opposing side surfaces are presented by the selected cell orientation. Selection of whether adjacent cells face one another along their long sides, short sides, or both in a multi-row grouping is a predictable packaging choice based on the desired module dimensions. Each orientation performs the same known spacing and cooling function.
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches a traction battery pack including a battery cell grouping having first and second battery cells (Smith, Abstract; [0041]- [0046]; Fig. 2). Smith further teaches heat exchanger plate 72 positioned beneath battery array 25 for thermally managing the battery cells (Smith, [0048], [0050]; Fig. 2).
Park teaches an electrical connection assembly including metal connection plate 300 mounted to a supporting case and electrically connecting the electrode terminals of the plurality of battery cells (Park, [0020]- [0024], [0034]- [0037]; Figs. 1, 4-7). Park's supporting case further includes integral upper spacer features. Park therefore teaches or suggests a bus-bar-module-type upper structure including a first spacer feature.
Park additionally teaches lower spacer features projecting toward the upper spacer features and aligned with the upper spacer pattern (Park, claims 4-5). As explained above, it would have been obvious to integrate the lower spacer functionality into Smith's heat exchanger plate so that the same lower component provides both cell positioning and thermal management.
Park teaches that the opposed spacer features maintain the battery-cell arrangement while open interfaces between neighboring cells remain available for heat removal (Park, [0015], [0024]- [0031]). Thus, the combination teaches or suggests first and second spacer features cooperating to maintain an air gap between first and second battery cells.
Smith and Park are analogous art for the reasons discussed above, and the combination would have been obvious to improve structural support, cell positioning, electrical interconnection, and thermal management while reducing unnecessary separate supporting components.
Regarding claim 12, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 4, Park's spacer located at the intersection of multiple neighboring cells renders obvious a cross-shaped rib when the known spacer arrangement is adapted to rectangular/prismatic cells.
Regarding claim 13, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 5, configuring the second spacer feature as an elongated rib extending along the cell grouping would have been an obvious alternative to a series of aligned discrete spacer projections for providing continuous spacing and support.
Regarding claim 14, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 6, once the lower spacer is provided as an elongated rib on the heat exchanger plate, extending that rib across a majority of the heat exchanger plate is a matter of routine optimization based on the longitudinal extent over which cell spacing and support are desired. Extending the known spacer to over a majority of the plate would predictably provide support over a corresponding majority of the cell grouping.
Regarding claim 15, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 10, Park teaches open interfaces between neighboring cells used for heat removal, and Smith expressly contemplates prismatic cells. Orienting the prismatic cells such that the maintained inter-cell gap extends along the short sides, long sides, or both is a predictable packaging selection producing the expected result of maintaining separation between adjacent cell surfaces.
Regarding claim 16, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Park teaches that upper case 101 and lower case 102 are separate components coupled together with the battery cells positioned there between (Park, [0015]- [0018], [0024]- [0025]; Figs. 1 and 3). Park further teaches separate upper and lower spacer groups projecting from the respective upper and lower cases toward one another (Park, claims 4-5). Accordingly, Park teaches upper and lower assembly structures that are separate and physically distinct structures of the battery assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Smith teaches that although battery cells 56 may be lithium-ion pouch cells in an illustrated embodiment, battery cells having other geometries, including prismatic cells, may alternatively be utilized, and other chemistries may also be used (Smith, [0046]). Lithium-ion battery chemistry is expressly taught by Smith. Accordingly, selection of Smith's expressly contemplated prismatic geometry for its expressly taught lithium-ion cells would have been an obvious selection from the alternatives expressly disclosed by Smith, yielding prismatic lithium-ion cells as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Park expressly explains that conventional separate spacer members complicate assembly and increase manufacturing cost, volume, and weight, and Park solves these problems by providing spacer features integrally with the upper and lower cases (Park, Background; [0015]- [0018], [0024]- [0027]). Park therefore teaches a battery-cell grouping that does not require a dedicated spacer plate positioned between adjacent battery cells. Instead, cell-spacing functionality is incorporated into surrounding assembly structures.
It would have been obvious to use this spacerless-between-cells arrangement in Smith for the reasons expressly identified by Park, including reducing separate components, simplifying assembly, reducing volume and weight, and maintaining stable cell positioning.
Regarding claim 19, Smith and Park teach the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Park teaches the first spacer features integrally arranged on the inner surface of the upper case and projecting toward the battery cells, with individual spacers configured to support multiple neighboring cells and to occupy the interstitial region between those neighboring cells (Park, [0019], [0024]- [0027]; Figs. 2-3).
Smith teaches the use of prismatic cells as an alternative battery-cell geometry (Smith, [0046]). It would have been obvious to adapt Park's upper spacer geometry to Smith's prismatic cells by locating the upper spacer at the interstitial space between the corners of adjacent prismatic cells. Park teaches tailoring the spacer outer edges to complement the cross-section of the battery cells (Park, claim 8). Therefore, when rectangular/prismatic cells are used, arranging the spacer on the upper frame such that it aligns with and fills the corner-defined interstitial space when the upper assembly is received over the cells is the predictable implementation of Park's geometry-complementary spacer teaching.
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches a traction battery pack including a cell block/battery array having a plurality of battery cells (Smith, Abstract; [0041]- [0046]; Fig. 2). Smith further teaches heat exchanger plate 72 arranged below battery array 25 and configured as a liquid-cooled cold plate for removing heat from the battery cells (Smith, [0048], [0050]; Fig. 2).
Park teaches an upper cell-terminal assembly including upper case 101, integral spacer features 110, connection through-holes exposing the battery-cell terminals, mounting protrusions 160, and conductive metal connection plate 300 mounted to the case for electrically connecting the battery-cell terminals (Park, [0020]- [0024], [0034]- [0037]; Figs. 1-4). Park therefore teaches a bus-bar-module-type structure that both supports the electrical interconnection member and includes integral spacer features. Park further expressly teaches that upper spacers project inwardly from the upper case and lower spacers project inwardly from the lower case toward one another (Park, claim 4). When the upper assembly is positioned above the cell grouping, the upper spacer therefore protrudes downwardly toward the battery cells.
Smith does not expressly teach an upwardly protruding spacer formed directly on the top surface of heat exchanger plate 72. Park teaches lower spacer features projecting upwardly toward the battery cells, while Smith teaches that heat exchanger plate 72 is the lower component positioned directly beneath the battery array.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Park's known lower spacer feature directly on the upper surface of Smith's heat exchanger plate rather than retain a redundant separate lower supporting case between the cells and the heat exchanger. The modification would integrate Park's cell-positioning function into Smith's existing lower structural/thermal component, thereby reducing part count, simplifying assembly, maintaining the cells in known positions relative to the cold plate, and facilitating consistent thermal coupling of the cells to the heat exchanger.
Park further teaches that its opposed spacer features maintain the relative positions of neighboring cells while ventilation/open regions remain at the interfaces between neighboring cells for heat removal (Park, [0024]- [0031]). Thus, when Park's upper and lower spacer teachings are incorporated into Smith's upper electrical interconnection assembly and lower heat exchanger plate, respectively, the resulting first and second spacer features cooperate to maintain the inter-cell separation/air gap required by claim 20.
The proposed modification does not require a change in the principle of operation of either reference. Park's spacer features continue to perform their known function of positioning and supporting neighboring cells, Park's conductive plate continues to electrically interconnect the cells, and Smith's heat exchanger plate continues to thermally manage the cells. The combination merely integrates these known functions into the upper and lower components already positioned adjacent to the cell grouping and would have produced the predictable result of a structurally supported and thermally managed battery-cell assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights