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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 5-9, 13, 14, and 16-20 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.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, and 16-19, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "in particular"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first end region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the third end region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first and second coupling lines" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second coupling line” in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the third fluid line branch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 6, line 5, it is unclear as to what “the supply connection” refers as there are two separate supply connections. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the first supply connection”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first plate part" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second plate part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 6, line 10, it is unclear as to what “the cooling channel” refers as there are two separate cooling channels. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the second cooling channel”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the third plate part" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fourth plate part" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first plate part" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second plate part" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the fourth plate part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the third plate part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second plate part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first plate part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first end region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the third end region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first end region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the third end region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 16, line 5, it is unclear as to what “the supply connection” refers as there are two separate supply connections. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the first supply connection”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first plate part" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second plate part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 16, line 10, it is unclear as to what “the cooling channel” refers as there are two separate cooling channels. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the second cooling channel”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the third plate part" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the fourth plate part" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the third fluid line branch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 17, line 5, it is unclear as to what “the supply connection” refers as there are two separate supply connections. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the first supply connection”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first plate part" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second plate part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 17, line 10, it is unclear as to what “the cooling channel” refers as there are two separate cooling channels. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the second cooling channel”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the third plate part" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the fourth plate part" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the third fluid line branch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 18, line 5, it is unclear as to what “the supply connection” refers as there are two separate supply connections. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the first supply connection”.
In claim 18, line 10, it is unclear as to what “the cooling channel” refers as there are two separate cooling channels. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the second cooling channel”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the third fluid line branch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 19, line 5, it is unclear as to what “the supply connection” refers as there are two separate supply connections. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the first supply connection”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first plate part" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second plate part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 19, line 10, it is unclear as to what “the cooling channel” refers as there are two separate cooling channels. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as referring to “the second cooling channel”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the third plate part" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the fourth plate part" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first plate part" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second plate part" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the fourth plate part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the third plate part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Essinger et al. (US 2011/0212355, hereinafter “Essinger”).
Regarding claim 1, Essinger teaches a cooling arrangement (cooling system 4, see Figs. 1-12; [0024]) for bilateral cooling of a battery unit (plurality of battery cells 6, see Figs. 1-12; [0024]), comprising:
a first cooling plate (first side wall 8, see Figs. 1-5; [0025]) for arrangement on a first side (side with coolant inlet conduit 30, see Figs. 1-2) of the battery unit (plurality of battery cells 6, see Figs. 1-12; [0024]), wherein the first cooling plate (first side wall 8, see Figs. 1-5; [0025]) includes a first cooling channel (see annotated Fig. 10 below) through which a coolant can flow, and two first connections, including a first supply connection (coolant inlet conduit 30, see Figs. 1-2) for supplying the coolant into the first cooling channel and a first discharge connection (see annotated Fig. 10 below) for discharging the coolant from the first cooling channel, a second cooling plate (second sidewall 10, see Figs. 1-5; [0028]) for arrangement on a second side of the battery unit (plurality of battery cells 6, see Figs. 1-12; [0024]), which is opposite relative to a first direction (see annotated Fig. 10 below), wherein the second cooling plate includes a second cooling channel (see annotated Fig. 10 below) through which a coolant can flow, and two second connections, including a second supply connection (see annotated Fig. 10 below) for supplying the coolant into the second cooling channel and a second discharge connection (coolant outlet conduit 32, see Figs. 1-2; [0031]) for discharging the coolant from the second cooling channel, wherein the first cooling plate (first side wall 8, see Figs. 1-5; [0025]) includes a first coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 below), an integrated first fluid line branch (see annotated Fig. 10 below – portion above the dotted line in the semicircle), and an integrated second fluid line branch (see annotated Fig. 10 below – portion below the dotted line in the semicircle), wherein one of the first connections (coolant inlet conduit 30, see Figs. 1-2) is connected to the first cooling channel (see annotated Fig. 10 below) via the first fluid line branch (see annotated Fig. 10 below) and is connected to the first coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 below) via the second fluid line branch (see annotated Fig. 10 below – portion below the dotted line in the semicircle), and wherein the cooling arrangement includes a first coupling line (see annotated Fig. 10 below) which fluidly connects the first coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 below) to one of the second connections (coolant outlet conduit 32, see Figs. 1-2; [0031]) of the second cooling plate.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., through which a coolant can flow, for supplying the coolant into the first cooling channel, for discharging the coolant from the first cooling channel, through which a coolant can flow, for supplying the coolant into the second cooling channel, for discharging the coolant from the second cooling channel), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
PNG
media_image1.png
994
1587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Essinger teaches wherein the first cooling plate (first side wall 8, see Figs. 1-5; [0025]) has a first length in a second direction (see annotated Fig. 10 below) and a first width in a third direction (see annotated Fig. 10 below), wherein the first cooling plate (first side wall 8, see Figs. 1-5; [0025]), with respect to the second direction, has a first end region (see annotated Fig. 10 below) and an opposite second end region (see annotated Fig. 10 below), and a first plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 below) and a second plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 below), which are arranged next to one another in the third direction (see annotated Fig. 10 below), wherein the second cooling plate has a second length in the second direction and a second width in the third direction (see annotated Fig. 10 below), a third end region (see annotated Fig. 10 below) with respect to the second direction and an opposite fourth end region (see annotated Fig. 10 below), and a third plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 below) and a fourth plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 below), which are arranged next to each other in the third direction (see annotated Fig. 10 below), wherein, in the first direction, the first plate part lies opposite the third plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 below), the second plate part lies opposite the fourth plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 below), the first end region lies opposite the third end region (see annotated Fig. 10 below), and the second end region lies opposite the fourth end region (see annotated Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
994
1574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Essinger teaches wherein the first connections (first supply connection (equated to Essinger’s coolant inlet conduit 30, see Figs. 1-2) and a first discharge connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above)) are arranged in the first end region (see annotated Figs. 10 above) and the second connections (see annotated Fig. 10 above) and a second discharge connection (equated to Essinger’s coolant outlet conduit 32, see Figs. 1-2)) are arranged in the third end region (see annotated Figs. 10 above), and the first and second coupling lines (see annotated Figs. 10 above) fluidly connect to each other the first and second cooling plates in the first and third end regions (see annotated Figs. 10 above).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Essinger teaches wherein the first supply connection (coolant inlet conduit 30, see Figs. 1-2) is arranged in the first plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 above – coolant inlet conduit 30 would span the first and second plates) and the first discharge connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above) is arranged in the second plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 above), the second supply connection is arranged in the fourth plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 above) and the second discharge connection (coolant outlet conduit 32, see Figs. 1-2; [0031]) is arranged in the third plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 above – coolant outlet conduit 32 would span both the third and fourth plates).
Regarding claim 8, Essinger teaches wherein the first coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above) is arranged in the second plate part (see annotated Figs. 10 above) and is directly opposite to the second supply connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above), in particular with respect to the first direction (see annotated Fig. 10 above), and the second coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above) is arranged in the first plate part (see annotated Fig. 10 above – the second coupling connection spans the first plate part and the second plate part) and is directly opposite to the second discharge connection (coolant outlet conduit 32, see Figs. 1-2; [0031]), in particular with respect to the first direction (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Essinger teaches a battery module (battery pack module 2, see Figs. 1-12; [0024]) for a motor vehicle (see [0041] and Fig. 12), which has a cooling arrangement according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above) and a battery unit (plurality of battery cells 6, 6’, 6’’, see Fig. 12; [0040]-[0042]).
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.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takaki et al. (US 6,482,542, hereinafter “Takaki”).
Regarding claim 9, Essinger is silent to wherein the first cooling plate provides a first overall flow cross section for the coolant and the second cooling plate provides a second overall flow cross section for the coolant, which differs from the first overall flow cross section, in particular which is smaller than the first overall flow cross section.
Takaki teaches the flow path cross-sectional area of the cooling medium passage 21a on one side is made larger (equated to the first cooling plate side) than the flow path cross-sectional area of the cooling medium passage 21b on the other side (equated to the second cooling plate side), by making the height h1 of the flow-alignment projecting strips 41a in the cooling medium passage 21a on one side higher than the height h2 of the flow-alignment projecting strips 41b in the cooling medium passage 21b on the other side (see 6:43-56). Since the flow path cross-sectional areas of the cooling medium passages 21a and 21b on both sides are made different from each other, pressure is created within the two cooling medium passages 21a, 21b, producing a pressure difference at the two ends of the cooling medium passages 18 between the cases. The cooling medium therefore flows reliably through the cooling medium passages 18 between the cases, which are branched from cooling medium passages 21a, 21b, without any possibility of stagnation (see 7:6-15).
In view of Takaki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cooling arrangement of Essinger to include wherein the first cooling plate provides a first overall flow cross section for the coolant and the second cooling plate provides a second overall flow cross section for the coolant, which differs from the first overall flow cross section, in particular which is smaller than the first overall flow cross section, because it creates a pressure differential between the two cooling plates which then allows for the cooling medium to flow reliably through the passages without stagnation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein the first cooling plate includes a second coupling connection, an integrated third fluid line branch, and an integrated fourth fluid line branch, wherein the first discharge connection is connected to the first cooling channel via the third fluid line branch and is connected to the second coupling connection via the fourth fluid line branch,
The closest prior art is Essinger (US 2011/0212355).
Essinger teaches a second coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above), wherein the first supply connection (coolant inlet conduit 30, see Figs. 1-2) is connected to the first cooling channel (see annotated Fig. 10 above) via the first fluid line branch (see annotated Fig. 10 above) and is connected to the first coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above) via the second fluid line branch (see annotated Fig. 10 above), wherein the first coupling line (see annotated Fig. 10 above) fluidly connects the first coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above) to the second supply connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above) and wherein the cooling arrangement includes a second coupling line (see annotated Fig. 10 above) which fluidly connects the second coupling connection (see annotated Fig. 10 above) to the second discharge connection (coolant outlet conduit 32, see Figs. 1-2; [0031]) of the second cooling plate (second sidewall 10, see Figs. 1-5; [0028]).
Essinger fails to teach:
an integrated third fluid line branch, and an integrated fourth fluid line branch, wherein the first discharge connection is connected to the first cooling channel via the third fluid line branch and is connected to the second coupling connection via the fourth fluid line branch,
Claim 11: Depends directly from claim 2.
Claim 3: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
an integrated third fluid line branch, and an integrated fourth fluid line branch, wherein the second discharge connection is connected to the second cooling channel via the third fluid line branch and is connected to the second coupling connection via the fourth fluid line branch, and wherein the cooling arrangement includes a second coupling line which fluidly connects the second coupling connection to the first discharge connection of the first cooling plate.
Claim 12: Depends directly from claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 24 June 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights