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 Interpretation
Claim 3 has been interpreted to mean that the inlet and the outlet are disposed together on either of the upper cooling plate or the lower cooling plate or one may be disposed on the upper cooling plate with the other on the lower cooling plate.
Claim 5 has been interpreted to require that both the inlet and the outlet are on one of the upper or lower cooling plates.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “to be spaced apart from each other the one direction” is grammatically incorrect. Does Applicant intend to claim that connection portions are spaced apart from each other in the one direction?” Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 10 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.
Claim 7 is indefinite in view of the limitation requiring “all parts of the one of the first cooling flow path or the second cooling flow path are coupled to each other.” It is not clear how all parts of the first flow path are “coupled” to each other or all parts of the second cooling path are “coupled” to each other. Presumably all parts of each individual flow path are connected in order to form a fluid path. For purposes of applying prior art, the continuous connection between parts along a length of a flow path is considered to read on the claimed coupling of parts on a cooling flow path.
Claim 10 is indefinite in view of the limitation “on both sides.” It is not clear which two of multiple sides of a battery cell are considered “both sides.” For purposes of applying prior art, any two sides of a battery will be considered to read on “both sides.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Desbois-Renaudin et al. (US 2021/0098836).
Desbois-Renaudin et al. discloses a battery module having cooling flow paths arranged around a plurality of battery cells for thermal management. The structure taught therein corresponds to the claimed invention as shown in the following annotated Figure 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
329
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 2-3, see annotated Figure 2 as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
329
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, see annotated Figure 2 as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
332
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is met as shown in Figure 2. As shown in the annotated figure above, both of the noted inlets are on the first cooling flow path and the outlets are on the second cooling flow path. All parts of the first cooling flow path are “coupled to each other” as they are connected in a continuous manner.
With regard to claim 10, see description of prismatic shaped battery in paragraph [0049].
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) 11-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desbois-Renaudin et al. (US 2021/0098836) in view of Choi et al. (EP 4697454).
Desbois-Renaudin et al. discloses all of the features of the invention, as detailed above, except for a pack housing to accommodate the battery module.
Choi et al. discloses a battery cell module assembly having a cooling system therein that is surrounded by upper, lower and side cases (110, 120, 130 in Figure 5 and para [0010]-[0012]). The reference also teaches that it is preferrable for the coolant tubes leading into the battery module assembly to be disposed outside the case structure (i.e. the housing structure as per present claim 11 ). See para [0051].
With regard to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a lower, upper and side case structure to form a housing surround for the battery module assembly taught by Desbois-Renaudin et al. in order to provide additional impact protection for the battery cells.
With regard to claim 12, it would have been obvious to dispose the fluid inlet and outlet taught by Desbois-Renaudin et al. outside a housing case structure in order to prevent leakage of coolant into the battery cells in the event of a vehicle accident. (see para [0050]-[0051]).
With regard to claims 16-17, see annotated Figure 2 as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
329
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 18, see annotated Figure 2 as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
332
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desbois-Renaudin et al. (US 2021/0098836) in view of Choi et al. (EP 4697454) and further in view of Ressler et al. (US 2023/0155206).
Desbois-Renaudin et al. in view of Choi et al. discloses all of the features of the invention, as detailed above, except for an air gap or insulating member between the pack housing and the battery module.
Ressler et al. teaches a battery module with an integral cooling structure similar to that taught by Desbois-Renaudin et al. in view of Choi et al. The reference teaches the presence of an air gap (46) between the battery modules (28) and the pack housing (38) to insulate the housing from the cooling heatsink structure (32) - see Fig 2 and para [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an air gap between the battery modules and housing taught by Desbois-Renaudin et al. in view of Choi et al. in order to insulate the housing from the cooling channels.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US2021/0005943) in view of Desbois-Renaudin et al. (US 2021/0098836).
With regard to claims 1-4, Park et al. discloses a battery pack including a plurality of battery cells (100) having an upper cooling plate, a lower cooling plate and endplates as shown in the following annotated figure:
PNG
media_image4.png
311
526
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The reference is silent with regard to arrangement of the battery cells in a row. However, Desbois-Renaudin et al. disclose a similar battery module for use in an electric vehicle with cooling channels wherein prismatic shaped batteries are stacked in a row that is parallel to the upper and lower cooling plates (see Figure 2; para [0049] and [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack prismatic cells in the battery module taught by Park et al. in a direction parallel to the upper and lower cooling plates in view of Desbois-Renaudin’s teaching that it was a conventionally used cell orientation in a cooling system for an electric vehicle.
With regard to claim 5, Park et al. teaches an embodiment wherein the second cooling flow path has a first portion attached to an inlet on the right side of Figure 10, above, and a second portion attached to an outlet on the left side of Figure 10, shown above. The first and second portions are spaced apart from each other on the lower cooling plate.
With regard to claim 6, the first and second portions have the same area.
With regard to claim 7, the first cooling flow path, shown in annotated Figure 10 above, does not include the inlet and outlet and all parts of the second cooling flow path are coupled to each other.
With regard to claim 8, the flow path connection portion on the right of annotated Figure 10 above, allows the coolant to flow from the lower cooling plate to the upper plate. The flow path connection on the left side of the same Figure allows the coolant to flow from the upper plate to the lower plate.
With regard to claim 9, the heat dissipation members are taught as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
311
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 10, Park et al. is silent with regard to the type of battery cells for use therein. Desbois-Renaudin teaches that it was known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use prismatic cells in battery modules with integrated coolant systems for use in electric vehicles (see para [0049]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use prismatic cells for the broadly disclosed battery cells taught by Park et al. for use in electric vehicles.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US2021/0005943) in view of Desbois-Renaudin et al. (US 2021/0098836) and further in view of Choi et al. (EP 4697454).
Park et al. in view of Desbois-Renaudin et al. discloses all of the features of the invention, as detailed above, except for a pack housing to accommodate the battery module.
Choi et al. discloses a battery cell module assembly having a cooling system therein that is surrounded by upper, lower and side cases (110, 120, 130 in Figure 5 and para [0010]-[0012]). The reference also teaches that it is preferrable for the coolant tubes leading into the battery module assembly to be disposed outside the case structure (i.e. the housing structure as per present claim 11 ). See para [0051].
With regard to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a lower, upper and side case structure to form a housing surround for the battery module assembly taught by Park et al. in order to provide additional impact protection for the battery cells.
With regard to claim 12, it would have been obvious to dispose the fluid inlet and outlet taught by Park et al. outside a housing case structure in order to prevent leakage of coolant into the battery cells in the event of a vehicle accident. (see para [0050]-[0051]).
With regard to claim 13, the inlet and outlet taught by Park et al. are both formed on the lower cooling plate of the cooling path, as shown in annotated Fig 10, above. The inlet and outlet are not at the far opposite end from one another and therefore are considered to read on the claim language requiring that they are “disposed close to each other.” Given the orientation of battery modules suggested by Choi et al., the inlet and outlet would be “between battery modules.”
With regard to claims 16-18, see annotated Figure 2 as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
311
526
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9am-3pm 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights