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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240055733-A1 (P) in view of US-20210399355-A1 (D), and in further view of US-20180212222-A1, (B).
P teaches a battery module cooling system [0049], comprising: a first cooling plate (1704) thermally coupled to a top surface of an array of battery cells (see Fig. 16, [0083], the first cooling plate comprising a first fluid inlet channel ([0089] “first manifold”) and a first fluid outlet channel ([0089] “second manifold”), the first fluid inlet channel feeding each of a first plurality of sets of fluid channels (see Fig. 17, square referring to 1728) that each feed the first fluid outlet channel, the first plurality of sets of fluid channels arranged such that a hottest portion of a first fluid channel (1768) is adjacent to a coolest portion of a second fluid channel (1764) (the hottest and coolest parts must be adjacent because the fluid flowing through 1768 has been heated by the batteries and the fluid flowing through 1764 is freshly supplied.
P does not teach a second cooling plate thermally coupled to a bottom surface of the array of battery cells.
D teaches a battery module cooling system [0060], comprising: a first cooling plate (100) thermally coupled to a top surface of an array of battery cells and a second cooling plate (110) thermally coupled to a bottom surface of the array of battery cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a second cooling plate (1704) on the bottom side of the array of battery cells of P because doing so was a known practice in the art as evidenced by D.
P does not teach an insulating layer separating the individual battery cells.
B teaches an energy storage system [0022] with an array of battery cells (see Fig. 2) which are separated by an interstitial layer (300) that thermally insulates the battery cells from heat generated by other battery cells [0029]. B teaches another benefit of this is it prevents discharge gas from affecting other battery cells [0029] which is beneficial because such discharge gas can damage cells [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to put the interstitial layer of B in the battery module of P in order to prevent discharge gas from the cells of P from affecting adjacent cells. It would have been obvious to do so because B teaches a clear benefit of protecting adjacent cells from the discharge gas of other cells, as well as because B and P are in the same field of battery modules and battery module cooling systems.
In the implementation of the second cooling plate in the battery module cooling system of P, the fluid inlet and outlet will be referred to as the second fluid inlet and second fluid outlet, the plurality of sets of fluid channels will be referred to as the second plurality of sets of fluid channels, and the sets of fluid channels with hottest and coldest sections will be referred to as the third and fourth fluid channels.
In the implementation of the second cooling plate, the hottest part of the third channel is adjacent to the coolest part of the fourth fluid channel because that is how the first and second fluid channels are positioned. In the implementation of the second cooling plate, the first hottest part of the first cooling channel is adjacent to the same subset of battery cells as the fourth cooling channel, where the subset of cells is taken to be the column of cells closest to the inlets and outlets of the cooling plate. Since the hottest and coldest parts of each channel are along this row, the hottest part of the first fluid channel and the coldest part of the fourth fluid channel must be thermally coupled to the same subset of cells.
In the implementation of the interstitial layer of B in the battery module of P, the thermally insulating properties of the interstitial would cause heat to more readily flow into the cooling plates because the cooling plates would have a higher thermal conductivity than the thermally insulating interstitial layer.
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of P, D, and B.
Regarding claim 3, P teaches each of the first cooling plate or the second cooling plate comprises two metal sheets (1708, 1728, [0082]) with one or more fluid channels of the first plurality of sets of fluid channels or the second plurality of sets of fluid channels carved therein (see Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 4, P teaches the metal sheets comprise aluminum [0082].
Regarding claim 6, P does not explicitly teach the outlets and inlets of the cooling plates are located on opposite sides. However, the channels that are connected directly to the inlets (1764) and the channels that are connected directly to the outlets (1768) are located on opposite sides of the plates (see annotated Fig. 17 below, using the language of “First side” and “Second side” for clarity of claim mapping).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, B teaches the interstitial material is epoxy [0031].
Regarding claim 14, the first and second cooling plates structurally support the array of battery cells because their placements at the top and bottom of the array prevent the batteries from moving up and down.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240055733-A1 (P) in view of US-20210399355-A1 (D), and in further view of US-20180212222-A1, (B), and in further view of US-20260045582-A1 (Z).
Regarding claim 2, P teaches the battery cells are arranged in rows [0068]. P teaches the arrangement of the fluid channels may be selected based on the arrangement and electrical connection of the battery cells to provide proper heating and cooling at given locations [0085].
P does not explicitly teach each of the cooling channels corresponds to a row of cells.
Z teaches a benefit of having cooling channels corresponding to a row of battery cells is that temperature uniformity is improved [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to arrange the fluid channels of P to correspond to a row of the battery cells in order to improve temperature uniformity. It would have been obvious to do so because P teaches the arrangement of the fluid channels may be changed to provide proper cooling and because Z teaches a benefit to this arrangement. Doing so would then be no more than electing a known arrangement for fluid channels in cooling plates to achieve a known benefit.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240055733-A1 (P) in view of US-20210399355-A1 (D), and in further view of US-20180212222-A1, (B), and in further view of CN-115528363-A (C).
Regarding claim 5, P is silent to the thickness of the metal sheets.
C teaches teaches a traditional thickness of a cooling plate is 1.5 mm (pg. 6, line 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to make the metal plates 1.5 mm thick because doing so was standard practice at the time of filing according to C and because P does not teach anything preventing this election of thickness.
1.5 mm overlaps with the endpoint of the claimed range, which is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240055733-A1 (P) in view of US-20210399355-A1 (D), and in further view of US-20180212222-A1, (B), and in further view of US-20230063609-A1 (PHAM).
Regarding claim 10, P, D, and B do not teach first and second thermally conductive layers that are configured to conduct heat from the top surface of the batteries to the first cooling plate and from the bottom surface of the batteries to the second cooling plate, respectively.
PHAM teaches a thermal interface layer (125) between a cooling plate (121) and a battery cell (103). PHAM teaches the thermal interface layer thermally and structurally couples the battery cell to the cooling plate [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to put the thermal interface layer of PHAM between the cooling plates and the array of battery cells in the battery module of the combination of P, D, and B in order to thermally and structurally couple the battery cell to the cooling plate. This would have been obvious because this is a known structure in the field of battery cooling systems as shown by PHAM, and P, D, and B provide no evidence that it would not be applicable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240055733-A1 (P) in view of US-20210399355-A1 (D), and in further view of US-20180212222-A1, (B), and in further view of US-20230063609-A1 (PHAM), and in further view of US-20210328249-A1 (S).
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of P, D, and B are explained in the rejections of claim 1 and 10.
PHAM does not teach the thermally conductive layers comprise sets of thermally conductive beads which are compressed by the cooling plates into the top and bottom surfaces of the battery cells.
S teaches a battery module (1) and module support (2) where a bead of thermally-conductive compound (18) is compressed to fill in the gap between the battery module and module support [0023]. SCHIELER teaches this is a known practice for creating a thermal interface in the art of battery coolant systems [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to apply the thermal interface layer of PHAM in the same manner as that described by S. It would have been obvious to do because that method was known in the art as demonstrated and explained by S, and teaches nothing to suggest that this wouldn’t be a valid method of application. This method would be carried out on either side of the array of batteries in order to thermally couple the array to both cooling plates, leading to a first and second set of thermally compressive beads being used.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240055733-A1 (P) in view of US-20210399355-A1 (D), and in further view of US-20180212222-A1, (B), and in further view of US-20230063609-A1 (PHAM), and in further view of US-20210328249-A1 (S), and in further view of US-20050197436-A1 (CZ).
Regarding claim 12, the teachings P, D, B, PHAM, and S are explained in the rejection of claim 11.
S does not disclose the material of the thermally conductive beads.
However, CZ teaches a flame-resistant material (Abstract) including a layer of polymer composite comprising silicone polymer [0007]. CZ teaches there is a benefit to improving flame resistance of thermal interface materials [0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the thermal interface layer of S with the material of CZ to achieve the benefit of improved flame resistance. This would have been obvious to do because S does not teach a material for the thermally conductive beads, and therefore using the material of CZ would amount to no more than selecting a known material in the art in a procedure where no material is specified in order to achieve a predictable result and known benefits.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of the combination of P, D, B, PHAM, S, and CZ are explained in the rejections of claims 1, 10, 11, and 12. This combination further teaches the thermal interface layer comprises a fire-resistant layer [0006].
Claims 7, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240055733-A1 (P) in view of US-20210399355-A1 (D), and in further view of US-20180212222-A1, (B), and in further view of US-20080292948-A1 (K).
Regarding claim 7, D is silent to the source and sink of the two fluid inlets, and P only teaches one fluid inlet so its teachings are not wholly applicable to the matter of claim 7.
K teaches a battery module cooling system (30) where a same fluid source (80) is coupled to multiple fluid inlets in multiple cooling plates ([0033], 46 is the inlet, see Fig. 6 which is a cross section of one cooling plate, multiple cooling plates 16 are shown in Fig 3), and wherein a same fluid sink (82) is coupled to multiple fluid outlets in multiple cooling plates ([0033], 48 is the inlet, see Fig. 6 which is a cross section of one cooling plate, multiple cooling plates 16 are shown in Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the first and second inlets and outlets in the same manner of that of K because D is silent to the manner of connection, and K offers a known method of connecting multiple battery cooling plates to fluid sources and sinks.
Regarding claim 15, P teaches multiple battery modules may be connected together (see Fig. 12).
P is silent to the connection of the cooling fluid inlets and outlets in this case.
K teaches a battery module cooling system (30) which is configured to be connected to one or more additional battery module cooling systems (30) (see annotated Fig. 7 below), causing at least one of the first fluid inlet channel (X) or second fluid inlet channel to be connected to at least one inlet (Y) of the one or more additional battery modules.
PNG
media_image2.png
637
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to connect the cooling plates of the combination of P, D, and B in the same manner as that of K because doing so was a known method of connecting multiple cooling plates for battery modules as evidenced by K.
Regarding claim 16, P teaches the battery modules are capable of being stacked (see Fig. 12). P further shows all of the battery modules have the same orientation (see Fig. 12), so in the implementation of the interconnection configuration of K, this orientation would be maintained because this is how it is taught in P. In this combination the battery modules would form a pack of vertically stacked battery modules with all inlets on a first side and all of the outlets on a second side opposite from the first side.
Regarding claim 17, P teaches the battery modules may be stacked vertically. P further shows all of the battery modules have the same orientation (see Fig. 12), so in the implementation of the interconnection configuration of K, this orientation would be maintained because this is how it is taught in P. In this combination the battery modules would form a pack of horizontally arranged battery modules with all inlets on a first side and all of the outlets on a second side opposite from the first side.
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 LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights