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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 7/6/26. Claims 1-12 are amended. Claims 1-12 are pending and are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-12 is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2014/0193678).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kim teaches an extension element and system for thermal management of battery cells in a battery system, the system comprising:
a battery system, or rechargeable battery module, comprising a plurality of battery cell assemblies, or unit cells (101, 102), each comprising a plurality of battery cells, or electrode assemblies (10), and electrical circuitry, or bus bars (90), connecting the battery cell assemblies (101, 102) (Figures 1 and 5, [0028], [0041], [0062]);
each battery cell assembly, or unit cell (101, 102), is provided with a terminal, or rivet terminal (411, 421) connected to the electrical circuitry (90), and at least one extension element, or plate terminals (412, 422), configured to provide heat conduction from the battery cell assembly to the exterior of the module via cooling supply paths (Figure 5, [0070]);
wherein the at least one extension element (412, 422) is arranged between a terminal, or rivet terminal (411, 421), and the electrical circuitry (90) connected to the terminal of the battery cell assembly (Figures 3-5, [0041], see annotated Figures 4-5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
749
1053
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, it is seen in Figures 1 and 5 that an extension element (412, 422) is provided for each terminal (41, 42) of each cell (101, 102) in the assembly.
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 3-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 2010/0134940).
The teachings of Kim as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 9-10, Kim teaches an extension element (412, 422) comprising a core member, i.e. body element, but fails to teach cooling fins.
Nguyen teaches an extension element, or terminal heat sink (170, 610), having a core (630) and cooling fins (580) (Figure 11A, [0062]).
Nguyen further teaches the terminal heat sinks for use with battery packs and for providing efficient heat transfer from the terminals ([0005], [0058]).
It would have been obvious to provide fins on the extension elements of Kim such as suggested by Nguyen in order to provide efficient heat transfer from the terminals.
Further regarding claims 4 and 9-10, and with regard to claims 5, 7, and 9-12, Nguyen teaches that the shape and dimensions of the fins may vary in order to increase heat transfer or increase coolant flow ([0065]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the skilled artisan to change the shape and dimension of the cooling fins of Kim in view of Nguyen in order to increase heat transfer or increase coolant flow. It has been held that changes in size/proportion and shape are within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 IV
Regarding claim 6, Nguyen teaches that the extension element, or terminal heat sink, is made of aluminum ([0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6, Applicant argues that Kim fails to teach the extension member is provided between the terminal and the electrical circuitry. The examiner strongly disagrees. Applicant is directed to annotated Figures 4-5 above, where it is clearly shown that the extension member of Kim is provided between the terminal and the electrical circuitry. The explanations in the Remarks to additional elements of Kim are not convincing to overcome the anticipation of all of the elements of the claim.
As to the arguments that the plate terminals (412, 422) of Kim are not extension members because they are plate terminals (see the second full paragraph of p. 6 of the Remarks), this is not convincing. There is not structural difference between the claimed extension members and the plate terminals (412, 422) of Kim, and the nomenclature of Kim does not exclude the plate terminals from being interpreted as extension members. In fact, as is clearly seen in Figure 3 of Kim, the plate terminals extend laterally from the rivet terminals (411, 421), and are separate elements from the rivet terminals. Furthermore, the plate terminals (412, 422) of Kim perform the claimed function of the extension members, i.e. provide heat conduction from the battery cell assembly to an exterior of the battery cell assembly by providing cooling flow paths (see above, [0070] of Kim).
Regarding the arguments concerning Nguyen on pages 6-7, specifically that Nguyen does not disclose electrical circuitry, the examiner finds that Kim anticipates this limitation as discussed above and it is not necessary for Nguyen to also teach the limitation. Continuing on page 7, Applicant argues that Nguyen does not provide threaded nuts between the terminal of the battery assembly and the electrical circuitry. However, as is discussed above, Kim anticipates that arrangement. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In above rejection, Kim anticipates all of the elements that Applicant argues are not taught by Nguyen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights