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.
Claim 5 is 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 5,
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the bottom surface of the first battery cell includes the top portion of the first battery cell” and “the bottom surface of the second battery cell includes the top portion of the second battery cell” however bottom and top are generally opposite surface making this limitation unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Fujii (US 20190221904) and further in view of Fukuda (US 20230238639).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii teaches:
FIG 2 shows a battery pack 20, the battery stack 1, a heat transfer member 10 and a cooler 2.
Is silence about the heat dissipation structure. In the same field of endeavor, heat structure, Fukuda (20230238639) teaches on Figs. 1-7 different embodiments of two different thermal contact materials being disposed between the bottom and sides of a battery with the present of a coolant path. Fig 4 and Fig 5 shows how the first member 41 is disposed in a position where the first member is in contact with at least a top portion of the bottom surface deformed into the convex shape (Da), the second member is disposed in a position where the second member is adjacent to the first member and the second member is in contact with a recess of the bottom surface (Db). The elastic modulus of heat conduction member 41 is smaller than the elastic modulus of adhesive member 51 [0052]. A lower modulus is the same as larger elongation. The recess bottom surface (Db) has a less deformation amount to the side of the coolant path 31 than the top portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to improve the heat dissipation of a battery cell since with this structure the heat dissipation increase, enhance cooling performance and thereby improve battery performance and life.
Regarding claim 2, Fujii doesn’t teaches:
First and second members with different hardness or adhesion in the heat dissipation structure.
In the same field of endeavor, battery pack, Fukuda teaches a heat conduction member having an elastic modulus smaller than that of the adhesive member is more likely to be deformed than the adhesive member [0009]. The adhesive member same as first member and having a hardness higher than the heat conductive member (second member). Because the first member is specially configured as the adhesion member and the second member is configured as a conductive member, one ordinary skill in the art will understand that the first member is selected to provide a stronger adhesion than the second member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to select a first member with a strongest hardness and adhesion since this member is more expose to the heat generated by the cell since this first member is going to receive the most thermal contact and more stress. The higher hardness prevents the deformation pf the central portion, while the higher adhesion maintains the contact between the battery cell and the heat dissipation structure, improving the heat transfer efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Fujii teaches:
FIG 2 shows a battery pack 20, the battery stack 1, a heat transfer member 10 and a cooler 2.
Fujii is silence about the heat dissipation structure. In the same field of endeavor, battery pack, Fukuda teaches on FIG 4 and 5 a battery module with a plurality of battery cells arranged side by side with top portion in contact with a first member 41 and a recess (Db) of each cell in contact with the second member 51. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to create a heat dissipation structure for a battery cell arranged side by side to obtain a better performance, efficiency and life controlling the heat created by the cells.
Regarding claim 4,
Combination is silence about a ratio of an area of a contact surface between the first member and the cooler to an area of a contact surface between the second member and the cooler is 4/6 to 6/4.
Fujii teach the importance of having a ratio area between the heat transfer member and the cooler [0005]. Further teaches on table 1 a comparative of results with different non-contact area ratio %. It is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the amount of adhesive 51 and flexible material 41 in the device, in order to optimize the thermal transport between the battery and the cooling casing. It is the Examiner's position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the ratio recited in Claim 4, without undue experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to select a ratio area between the first/second member and the cooler about 4/6 to 6/4, since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICOLAS J ROSA BERRIOS at telephone number (571)270-1856.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ Nicolas Rosa / Examiner / Art Unit 1741
08/03/2026
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights