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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: figures 2 and 3 both include reference character “20” that is not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length of the abstract exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 7 and 14-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear how the limitation “optionally” in line 3 is applied to the claim language. It is unclear if the claim language requires the first limitation of “wherein the one or more protruding edge portions extends along an entire upper edge of the first and/or second supporting side wall on the outer side thereof” in lines 1-3 with the second limitation of “the one or more protruding edge portions forms a frame extending along the edgers of the entire first and/or second supporting side wall” in lines 3-4 being optionally included (such that the claim requires “first limitation” and optionally “second limitation”), or if “optionally” applies such that the claim can optionally have the first limitation of “wherein the one or more protruding edge portions extends along an entire upper edge of the first and/or second supporting side wall on the outer side thereof” or the second limitation of “the one or more protruding edge portions forms a frame extending along the edgers of the entire first and/or second supporting side wall” (such that the claim optionally requires “first limitation” or “second limitation”). For the sake of examination, the second, broader interpretation will be used.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 includes the limitation “a stationary energy storing system comprising a battery stack according to claim 1.” Claim 1 includes the intended use of “a battery stack for an electrified vehicle” in claim 1, line 1. It is unclear how a battery pack intended for an electrified vehicle can be utilized in a stationary energy storing system.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 includes the limitation “a marine vessel comprising a battery stack according to claim 1.” Claim 1 includes the intended use of “a battery stack for an electrified vehicle” in claim 1, line 1. It is unclear how a battery pack intended for an electrified vehicle can be utilized in a marine vessel
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stenvall et al. (US-20200185796-A1), hereinafter Stenvall.
Regarding claim 1, Stenvall teaches a battery stack for an electrified vehicle ([0001]), the battery stack comprising a cooling system, the battery stack comprising a first and a second battery module (fig. 1), the battery stack extending in a height direction, a width direction and a depth direction, each of the first and the second battery modules comprising battery cells being stacked in the depth direction (figs. 1-2 or optionally figs. 7-8), the first and the second battery modules comprising a first and a second supporting side wall for supporting the battery cells in the respective battery module ([0018] cooling plates 24; fig. 1; optionally cooling plates 202 in figs. 7-8 [0028]), the first and the second supporting side wall of the battery modules being opposing vertical side walls provided on a respective side of the battery cells in the battery modules (figs. 1-2 or optionally figs. 7-8), the first and the second supporting side wall having a respective inner side facing the battery cells and a respective outer side facing away from the battery cells (figs. 1-2 or optionally figs. 7-8), the first and/or the second supporting side wall comprising first supporting element(s) adapted to support and bear the load of the battery cells in the first and second battery modules, as seen in the height direction, or alternatively a respective bottom support plate is connected to the first and the second supporting side walls (figs. 1-3; [0015]; [0023] chassis or frame 16; optionally steel plate 204 in figs. 7-8; [0028]), the first and/or the second supporting side wall comprises liquid cooling channels ([0018] cooling plates 24 define conduits 26 for cooling fluid; optionally cooling plate 202 define cooling channels 26 [0028]), the liquid cooling channels being in the form of a groove provided in the first and/or second supporting side wall on an outer side thereof (fig. 1; fig. 4; [0025] conduits consist of hollow stamped or pressed channels), the groove being covered by a cover plate, arranged on the outer side of the first and/or the second supporting side wall ([0025] when the conduits are stamped or pressed channels they are formed between adjacent planar layers of the cooling plate, therefore, the outer layer of the cooling plate would be the cover plate), thereby forming integrated liquid cooling system for the first and the second battery module in the first and/or second supporting side wall (fig. 1; fig. 5; figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall also teaches wherein the liquid cooling system and the cover plate is a common liquid cooling system and a common cover plate for the first and the second battery module (fig. 1 [0018]-[0019]; [0025] the liquid cooling system is a common liquid cooling system connected by cooling pipes 28; the cooling plate being connected by the conduit means the cover plate layer of the cooling plate would be common; when in a side-by-side configuration, only a single cooling plate is required between adjacent battery modules [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall also teaches wherein the first and the second supporting side wall each comprises a battery stack top supporting element adapted to support the battery cells in the first and second battery modules, as seen from an upper end of the battery cells ([0028] the top portion of the housing structure is formed from a rigid plate or planar support structures that provide the module with structural integrity; alternatively housing 20 in fig. 1 includes a top portion).
Regarding claim 4, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall also teaches wherein the battery stack comprises the respective bottom support plate (figs. 1-3; [0015]; [0023] chassis or frame 16; [0028] steel plate 204) and wherein the respective bottom support plate are mechanically, adhesively or connected by welding to the first and the second supporting side wall respectively (attachment points 34 along the housing to secure it to the chassis/frame are mechanical attachments ([0016]); the chassis/frame is secured to the battery modules; [0015]; [0029] steel plates 204 include appropriate holes, connectors, mechanisms for coupling the modules).
Regarding claim 5, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall also teaches wherein the first and/or the second supporting side wall comprise(s) one cooling liquid inlet and one cooling liquid outlet ([0018]-[0019] cooling pipes 28 deliver the fooling fluid to the conduits 26; alternatively fig. 4; [0025]; inlet port 30 and outlet port 32 couples to cooling pipe 28).
Regarding claim 8, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall also teaches wherein 60% or more of the surface of the outer side of the first and/or second side wall which is covered by the cover plate constitutes of the groove provided in the first and/or second supporting side wall (fig. 1 the grooves are visually shown to constitute 60% or more of the surface of the outer side of the first and/or second side wall).
Regarding claim 11, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall also teaches wherein the first and second side walls extend in the height direction between a respective upper edge surface and a respective lower edge surface of the respective vertical side walls (fig. 1 or figs. 7-8), the respective upper edge surface and/or the respective lower edge surface to enable stacking of a second battery stack provided with mating stacking members (fig. 8 allows for a stacked configuration; [0015] the batteries can be side-by-side or stacked; [0015] the battery modules are coupled with appropriate connectors, interpreted as the “mating stacking members”; [0029] appropriate holes, connectors, and mechanisms for coupling the battery modules)
Regarding claim 12, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall also teaches an electrical propulsion system comprising an electric motor and a battery stack according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor is configured to receive power from the battery stack ([0015]; [0027] coupled to electric motor; fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall also teaches a vehicle comprising a battery stack according to claim 1 ([0001]-[0004]; fig. 6).
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 shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenvall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US-20180269545-A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 6, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall fails to specify wherein the first and/or the second supporting side wall on the outer side thereof, comprises one or more protruding edge portions, protruding out from the first and/or the second supporting side wall and past the cover plate.
Liu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling systems for battery packs ([0006]). Liu teaches wherein the first and/or the second supporting side wall on the outer side thereof, comprises one or more protruding edge portions, protruding out from the first and/or the second supporting side wall and past the cover plate (figs. 6-7 show 3 protruding portions including 114 on top and one on either side; fig. 3 shows how the cooling plate 11 protrudes past the cover plate 12; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stenvall such that wherein the first and/or the second supporting side wall on the outer side thereof, comprises one or more protruding edge portions, protruding out from the first and/or the second supporting side wall and past the cover plate. Doing so provides a means of connection that allows the cooling plate to be stably fixed (Liu [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Modified Stenvall also teaches wherein the one or more protruding edge portions extends along an entire upper edge of the first and/or the second supporting side wall on the outer side thereof, optionally, the one or more protruding edge portions forms a frame extending along the edges of the entire first and/or the second supporting side wall (Liu figs. 6-7 show 3 protruding portions including 114 on top and one on either side that form a kind of frame around the cooling plate; fig. 3 shows how the cooling plate 11 protrudes past the cover plate 12; fig. 1).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenvall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US-20110206968-A1), hereinafter Nishimura.
Regarding claim 9, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall fails to explicitly teach wherein at least 80% of the surface of the outer side of the first and/or second side wall which is covered by the cover plate constitutes of the groove provided in the first and/or second supporting side wall.
Nishimura is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling systems for batteries ([0003]; [0011]). Nishimura teaches that the width of the grooves, and by extension the amount of surface area of the outer side of the first and/or second side wall constituting the grooves, are optimizable. Nishimura teaches that the width of the grooves in combination with the depth of the grooves can enhance the cooling capacity and help avoids too much pressure drop when the cooling medium flows through the conduit ([0071]) when the cross sectional area of the conduit is in the range of 9 to 200 mm2([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the width in combination with the depth, and by extension the amount of the surface area constituted by the grooves, in order to enhance the cooling capacity and help avoids too much pressure drop when the cooling medium flows through the conduit (Nishimura [0071]).
Regarding claim 10, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall fails to specify wherein a depth of the groove is within the range of from 1.5 mm to 5 mm.
Nishimura is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling systems for batteries ([0003]; [0011]). Nishimura teaches wherein a depth of the groove is within the range of from 1.5 mm to 5 mm ([0071] depth of 3 to 10 mm or more particularly 4 to 8 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stenvall such that the depth of the groove is within the range of from 1.5 mm to 5 mm. Doing so helps enhance the cooling capacity, avoids too much pressure drop when the cooling medium flows through the conduit, and helps prevent stagnation of air bubbles in the flow conduit (Nishimura [0071]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenvall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US-20160248126-A1).
Regarding claim 14, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall fails to specify a stationary energy storing system comprising a battery stack according to claim 1.
Wang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries ([0002]). Yuca teaches that battery systems can be used for a vehicle and can have application to other systems such as a stationary energy storage system ([0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stenvall such that the battery stack of Stenvall is utilized in a stationary energy storing system such as in Wang. Doing so is simple substitution yielding a predictable result.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenvall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Butt et al. (US-20100248029-A1), hereinafter Butt.
Regarding claim 15, Stenvall teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Stenvall teaches the battery stack being utilized in an associated vehicle, but does not explicitly teach a marine vessel comprising a battery stack according to claim 1.
Butt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries ([0009]). Butt teaches that battery modules are installed inside a battery pack that is used in an assembly such as a terrain, marine, or aeronautic vehicle ([0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stenvall such that the vehicle of Stenvall is a marine vehicle. Doing so is simple substitution yielding a predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights