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 § 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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "said cylindrical battery cells". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said respective cooling plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which ‘respective’ cooling plate among the plurality of cooling plates said limitation refers to.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said cooling plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which cooling plate among the plurality of cooling plates said limitation refers to.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said cooling plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which cooling plate among the plurality of cooling plates said limitation refers to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said battery cell”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which battery cell(s) and/or cylindrical battery cell(s) said limitation refers to.
Claims 7-9 recites the limitation “said cooling plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which cooling plate among the plurality of cooling plates said limitation refers to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said battery cell”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which battery cell(s) and/or cylindrical battery cell(s) said limitation refers to.
Claim 19 recites “Use of the battery pack according to claim 1 in a vehicle.” The claim recites a use but fails to recite steps, and thus raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Further, dependent claims 2-20 are rendered indefinite due to their dependency on any of the indefinite claims as set forth above.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhuang, Yijie, et al. "Thermal uniformity performance of a hybrid battery thermal management system using phase change material and cooling plates arrayed in the manner of honeycomb." Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 26 (2021): 101094.
Regarding claim 1, Zhuang discloses a battery pack for an electrical vehicle (see Title, Abstract), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells extending along a vertical axis within said battery pack (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1), and a cooling system, wherein said cooling system comprises a plurality of cooling plates each having an opening arranged to individually enclose said battery cells (cooling plate, see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1), wherein a cooling plate chamber is formed around each battery cell (PCM, Fig. 1), and
multiple liquid coolant channels arranged to extend along said vertical axis of said cylindrical battery cells, and being separate from said cooling plate chamber (inlet, outlet in cooling plate, Fig. 1), and
a phase change material provided within said cooling plate chamber (PCM, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses said respective cooling plate extend along said vertical axis to form said cooling plate chamber (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses any one of said cooling plate, opening or cooling plate chamber is provided with a hexagonal cross-section (Fig. 1 shows a hexagonal cross-section).
Regarding claim 5, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses multiple adjoining cooling plates form a honeycomb pattern (Fig. 1 shows a honeycomb pattern).
Regarding claim 6, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses said battery cell is a cylindrical battery cell (Fig. 1 shows a cylindrical cell).
Regarding claim 8, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses said cooling plate comprises an aluminium material (aluminum, see p.4).
Regarding claim 10, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses said battery pack further comprises a liquid coolant inlet duct arranged at one end and a liquid coolant outlet duct arranged at an opposing end as seen in along the vertical axis (inlet, outlet in cooling plate, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses said liquid coolant channels are formed in spaces in-between multiple cooling plates (inlet, outlet formed in cooling plate, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses said phase change material is arranged to enclose and be in contact with said battery cell and to extend along a length of said battery cell (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses said phase change material is arranged to fill out said cooling plate chamber (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses a vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 1 (vehicle, see p.1; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses use of the battery pack according to claim 1 in a vehicle (vehicle, see p.1; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses a vehicle according to claim 18, wherein said vehicle is an electrical vehicle (electric vehicle, see p.1; see rejection of claim 18 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang, Yijie, et al. "Thermal uniformity performance of a hybrid battery thermal management system using phase change material and cooling plates arrayed in the manner of honeycomb." Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 26 (2021): 101094., as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-13, 18-20 above.
Regarding claim 4, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Zhuang further discloses a hexagonal cross-section (see Fig. 1), the reference does not disclose any one of said cooling plate, opening or cooling plate chamber is provided an octagonal cross-section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to change the shape of the cooling plate from a hexagonal cross-section to an octagonal cross-section, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang, Yijie, et al. "Thermal uniformity performance of a hybrid battery thermal management system using phase change material and cooling plates arrayed in the manner of honeycomb." Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 26 (2021): 101094., as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-13, 18-20 above, in view of Park (US 2016/0322678A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Zhuang further discloses said cooling plate comprises aluminum, the reference does not disclose a steel material.
Park discloses a cooling plate made of at least one material having a relatively high heat transfer efficiency, such as aluminum, an aluminum alloy, copper, a copper alloy, stainless steel and equivalents thereof ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to replace the aluminum of Zhuang with aluminum alloy or steel in Park as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent high heat transfer efficiency materials for cooling plates recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. In reRuff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smithv.Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. “This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.” 209 USPQ at 759.). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 9, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhuang further discloses said cooling plate comprises aluminum, the reference does not disclose an aluminium alloy material.
Park discloses a cooling plate made of at least one material having a relatively high heat transfer efficiency, such as aluminum, an aluminum alloy, copper, a copper alloy, stainless steel and equivalents thereof ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to replace the aluminum of Zhuang with aluminum alloy or steel in Park as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent high heat transfer efficiency materials for cooling plates recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. In reRuff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smithv.Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. “This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.” 209 USPQ at 759.). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang, Yijie, et al. "Thermal uniformity performance of a hybrid battery thermal management system using phase change material and cooling plates arrayed in the manner of honeycomb." Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 26 (2021): 101094., as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-13, 18-20 above, in view of Mott et al. (US 2017/0338532A1).
Regarding claim 14, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Zhuang does not further disclose said phase change material comprises a solution of salt in water.
Mott discloses a thermal management system for batteries (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-2) comprising a phase change material which include organic or inorganic, hydrates of salts, ionic liquids, synthesized polymers, or any other material that absorb and release latent heat energy during a physical change in phase (including solid-solid), pure salts (ionic compounds comprising at least in part of a metal or other cation), hydrated salts (Hydrates of Sodium Acetate, Hydrates of Calcium Chloride, or may be another type), hydrated salts in solution, organic phase change materials, etc. ([0024]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Zhuang does not further disclose said phase change material comprises salt hydrates.
Mott discloses a thermal management system for batteries (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-2) comprising a phase change material which include organic or inorganic, hydrates of salts, ionic liquids, synthesized polymers, or any other material that absorb and release latent heat energy during a physical change in phase (including solid-solid), pure salts (ionic compounds comprising at least in part of a metal or other cation), hydrated salts (Hydrates of Sodium Acetate, Hydrates of Calcium Chloride, or may be another type), hydrated salts in solution, organic phase change materials, etc. ([0024]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Zhuang does not further disclose said phase change material comprises organic polymers.
Mott discloses a thermal management system for batteries (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-2) comprising a phase change material which include organic or inorganic, hydrates of salts, ionic liquids, synthesized polymers, or any other material that absorb and release latent heat energy during a physical change in phase (including solid-solid), pure salts (ionic compounds comprising at least in part of a metal or other cation), hydrated salts (Hydrates of Sodium Acetate, Hydrates of Calcium Chloride, or may be another type), hydrated salts in solution, organic phase change materials, etc. ([0024]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 17, Zhuang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Zhuang does not further disclose said phase change material comprises solid-solid materials.
Mott discloses a thermal management system for batteries (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-2) comprising a phase change material which include organic or inorganic, hydrates of salts, ionic liquids, synthesized polymers, or any other material that absorb and release latent heat energy during a physical change in phase (including solid-solid), pure salts (ionic compounds comprising at least in part of a metal or other cation), hydrated salts (Hydrates of Sodium Acetate, Hydrates of Calcium Chloride, or may be another type), hydrated salts in solution, organic phase change materials, etc. ([0024]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights