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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazyar et al. (US 2013/0200299, hereinafter “Mazyar”) in view of Roe et al. (Immersion cooling for lithium-ion batteries – A review, 2022, Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 525, pp. 9-12, hereinafter “Roe”).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Mazyar discloses a nanocomposite fluid comprising of:
Silicone oil in the amount of 40 wt % to 85 wt % (paragraphs [0028] and [0032]), which meets the recited silicone oil in the mass percentage range of 70 to 85%.
A solvent, dichloromethane, in the amount of 1 wt % to 25 wt % (paragraphs [0054] and [0057]), which meets the recited diluent with the mass percentage range of 10% to 20%; and
Thermally conductive nanoparticles comprising of boron nitride in an amount of 0.01 wt % to about 10 wt % (paragraphs [0013], [0014] and [0032]), which meets the thermally conductive inorganic filler (recited in claim 3) in the claimed mass percentage range from 5% to 10%;
However, Mazyar fails to disclose the viscosity of the silicone oil is in a range of 5 cSt to 50 cSt.
Roe discloses that lower viscosity silicone oils are better for immersion cooling. Additionally, Roe describes an experiment comparing immersion coolants, including 20 cSt and 50 cSt silicone oil, and determined that 20 cSt silicone oil provided superior performance (section 4.1.4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate low viscosity silicone oil at viscosities of 5 cSt to 50 cSt as the silicone oil component in the fluid disclosed by Mazyar because (1) Roe discloses that lower viscosity silicone oils are better for immersion cooling due to better natural convection; and (2) Roe discloses comparing 20 cSt and 50 cSt low viscosity silicon oils and concluded that 20 cSt silicon oils had the best performance (section 4.1.4). Thus, it is reasonable to assume a suitable range of low viscosities to range from 20 cSt to 50 cSt and to try viscosities as low as 5 cSt with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazyar in view of Roe, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gelest, Inc (Silicone Fluids: Stable, Inert Media, 2012, p. 16).
Regarding claim 2, Mazyar in view of Roe fails to disclose the claimed oligomeric siloxanes including oligomeric phenylmethylsiloxane.
Gelest, Inc discloses thermal and dielectric silicone coolants that includes phenylmethylsiloxane oligomers at a viscosity of 35-40 cSt (pg. 16, the fifth siloxane in the table on the right and in the second paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate oligomeric methylphenylsiloxane as the low viscosity silicone oil component in the nanocomposite fluid disclosed by Mazyar with reasonable expectation of success because Gelest discloses a silicone oil comprising of phenylmethylsiloxane oligomers that fall within the claimed low viscosity range, and was proven to be thermally conductive and electrically insulating (pg. 16, the fifth siloxane in the table on the right, and in the second paragraph).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazyar in view of Roe and further in view of Lee (KR-20230045280-A).
Regarding claim 4, Mazyar discloses a nanocomposite fluid that is thermally conductive and electrically insulating that can be used with electrical devices (paragraphs [0003] and [0004]).
However, Mazyar fails to disclose the claimed intended use with specifically a lithium-ion battery.
Roe discloses that low viscosity silicone oils are a great candidate to use for an immersion coolant for lithium-ion batteries (section 4.1). Lee discloses an immersive heat dissipating resin for use in lithium-ion batteries with a composition that includes dichloromethane (disclosed as methylene chloride) and boron nitride (paragraphs [0005], [0008], [0020], and [0022]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nanocomposite fluid disclosed by Mazyar for a lithium-ion battery immersion coolant with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) Roe and Lee both disclose that low viscosity silicone oil (Roe, section 4.1), dichloromethane, and boron nitride (Lee, paragraphs [0005], [0008], [0020], and [0022]) are all chemically compatible with lithium-ion batteries and are effective for use in a coolant; and (2) the nanocomposite fluid disclosed by Mazyar are consists of all three of these components.
Claims 5 and 6 are being viewed as a product-by-process claim. Mazyar discloses a fluid that appears to teach all the limitations of the recited coolant, as presented above, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the recited coolant and fluid disclosed by Mazyar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30am-5pm; Fri 7:30am-4pm; First Fri Off.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/NATHAN NGOC-NGOC HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights