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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "19c" and "199" have both been used to designate bottom surface. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 20c and 199. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, line 16, “In for example battery applications, it is known” should read “In battery applications, it is known” or “For example, in battery applications, it is known”.
On page 1, line 23, the abbreviation “e.g.” should not be used together with “such as” because it is redundant; typically, only one or the other is used to denote an example or examples.
On page 1, line 26, the first sentence lists a noun object (ever-increasing performance requirements) and a verb object (strive for more space efficient systems) together, which is imprecise. A suggested solution is to change “strive” to “endeavor”.
On page 10, line 31, a comma should be placed between the words casing and or.
On page 10, lines 32-33, the language “a metal for example Aluminum an alloy (such as an Aluminum-alloy), and the like” should read “a metal, for example aluminum, an alloy (such as an Aluminum-alloy), and the like”.
O.
On page 16, line 12, “channels 18c are decreasing further away” should read “channels 18c decrease further away”.
On page 16, line 14, “Sharp bents of the channels” should read “Sharp bends of the channels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, second bullet point.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The “axial direction” in claim 2 is not defined with respect to another position or reference, so the broadest reasonable interpretation is used for examination of claims with the “axial direction,” which is the direction along or parallel to the walls of the tube or pipe containing the moving fluid, or through or along the pipe.
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 8 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.
The term “tightly” in claim 8, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how tightly the distributor plate is attached to the manifold structure, which leaves the meaning up for subjective interpretation. For purposes of examination, the claim will be examined as if the distributor plate is attached to the manifold structure.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Grass (DE 102016109277 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Grass teaches a liquid cooled module comprising:
a plurality of heat generating components (battery cells 8, Figure 1, [0016]) arranged so that spaces (intermediate spaces 14) for housing a moving fluid (coolant, flowing, [0018]) are formed around the heat generating components ([0016], last sentence),
a liquid sealed casing (housing 2, Figure 1, [0016]) enclosing the heat generating components (Figure 1, [0016]), wherein at least one restricting member located in said spaces for housing a moving fluid (See annotated Figure 1A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A of Grass depicting a restricting member in space for housing flowing coolant
Regarding Claim 2, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1, wherein the fluid is moved in an axial direction in fluid channels formed in the spaces and where no inflicting structures are located in the way for the axial flow of the fluid (See annotated Figure 1B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
412
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1B of Grass depicting axial direction of fluid flow in fluid channels
Regarding Claim 7, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1, further comprising a distributor plate (perforated plate 20, Figure 2, [0018]) disposed between the casing and the heat generating components the distributor plate being provided with a plurality of openings (openings of the perforated plate, [0018]) for distributing the fluid to the spaces between the heat generating components and a manifold structure (channel plate 34, Figure 2, [0018]) comprising a plurality of fluid channels (interspaces 14, Figure 2, [0017]) arranged between the at least one fluid entrance (coolant inlet 16, Figure 2, [0017]) and a distributor plate to guide the fluid from the at least one fluid entrance to the openings in the distributor plate (perforated plate 20, Figure 2, [0018]).
Regarding Claim 8, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 7, wherein the distributor plate is attached to the manifold structure so that the channels are partly sealed by the distributor plate (the perforated plates and channel plates are pressed together such that they are integrated [0019] and [0020 thus are attached. The fluid channels would need to have an open side facing the distributor plate otherwise the fluid would be unable to pass through the distributor plate and through the restricting members.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Galloway (US 4,415,847 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Grass discloses the fluid is flowing therefore it is expected a pump is present. As a pump is necessary for facilitating the flow of the coolant in the housing taught by Grass. Without one, the coolant would not flow. Therefore, there must be a pump to have the coolant flow.
As to the pump being located inside the liquid sealed casing, Grass does not teach the pump being located inside the liquid sealed casing. However, Galloway teaches a liquid cooling module for supplying liquid to a storage battery, wherein a pump for pumping the fluid is located inside the liquid sealed casing (internal pump, col. 2, line 46-47), which allows the liquid to be maintained in a constant flow condition between the heat generating components and the refrigeration system or cooling device (col. 2, lines 49-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the liquid cooling module of Grass to have the pump located inside the liquid sealed casing.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Chen et al. (The microfabricated electrokinetic pump: a potential promising drug delivery technique, 2007).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 3, but they do not teach that the pump is an electrohydrodynamic pump (EHD), nor that the pump is cylindrical in shape.
However, Chen et al. teach that the electrohydrodynamic (electrokinetic) pump can be used to deliver pure water, pure polar organic solvents, inorganic buffer and biomacromolecules, with wide applications for the delivery of liquids (Abstract), including apparatus cooling (page 126, paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used an electrohydrodynamic pump to deliver coolant to the heat generating components (batteries) of Grass.
As to the pump being cylindrical in shape, Chen et al. teach an effective pore diameter of the pump, implying that the pump is cylindrical in shape (page 122, first paragraph).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Bender et al. (US 2009/0263708 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1, but Grass does not teach that the at least one restricting member is pin shaped.
However, Bender et al. teaches a pin shaped restricting member (heat pipe 130, figure 2, [0024]) where coolant flows through to manage the temperature of surrounding battery cells ([0024]) as part of their battery management system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the liquid cooled module of Grass with the pin shaped restricting member to facilitate higher power bursts from an energy cell in an efficient, reliable, and safe manner, as taught by Bender et al. ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 12, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1 but does not specifically teach that the restricting members are formed by an electric conductive material.
However, Bender et al. teach the restricting member (heat pipe 130) is made out of copper or aluminum ([0024], third sentence), which are electrically conductive materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the restricting member of Grass to be made of copper or aluminum to have high thermal conductivity for cooling the cells, as taught by Bender et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Perlo et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0010077 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module of claim 1.
Grass does not teach that the at least one restricting member comprises a hollow section allowing compression of the restricting members.
Perlo et al. teach a battery pack wherein tubes of a circuit for a coolant act as restricting members between the battery cells (Abstract and [0036]), and the restricting member can comprise hollow panels and elastic tabs or leaves (pad sheets, such as those produced by Saint Gobain, [0060] and [0036]) traversed by coolant ([0060]) as restricting members.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the restricting members of Grass to have a hollow section allowing compression and also traversing coolant connected to a heat pump system to control the temperature of the battery cells as taught by Perlo et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Masson et al. (US 2021/0013480 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 7 but does not teach that the distributor plate is made of an electrically conducting material and is configured to act as an electrical conductor.
However, Masson et al. teach a busbar for a battery pack intended to connect at least one battery of the pack and allow circulation of a heat transfer fluid within it for optimal cooling of the at least one battery and the pack (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the liquid cooled module of Grass with the distributor plate acting as a busbar to connect the current of the plurality of battery cells, as taught by Masson et al.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2023/0081610 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1 but does not teach of an at least one at least partly cylindrical shaped thermal expansion compensating structure.
However, Miyazaki et al. teach an intercell spacer including an elastic portion for use in a battery module to compensate for situations when cells have expanded at an abnormally high temperature, preventing adjacent cells from contacting each other (Abstract and [0096]).
As for the thermal expansion compensation structure being at least partly cylindrically shaped, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the restricting member of the liquid cooled module of Grass to be at least partly cylindrical, and to act as a thermal expansion compensating structure, maintaining intercell distance, as taught by Miyazaki et al.
Regarding Claim 11, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1 but does not teach that the restricting members are formed by an elastic material.
However, Miyazaki et al. teach an intercell spacer including an elastic portion for use in a battery module to compensate for situations when cells have expanded at an abnormally high temperature, preventing adjacent cells from contacting each other (Abstract and [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the restricting member of the liquid cooled module of grass to be made of an elastic material to maintain intercell distance, as taught by Miyazaki et al.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Akiyama (US 20220393265 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1 but does not teach that the liquid sealed casing comprises flanges and or at least one corrugated section.
However, Akiyama teaches an electrical storage device that utilizes a liquid cooling module, wherein the case has a flange around the opening portion, and the lid portion is airtightly fixed to the flange with a seal member, ensuring that the internal space is airtight, or liquid sealed ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the liquid sealed casing of Grass to comprise a flange to mechanically seal the case, as taught by Akiyama.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180114957 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module of claim 1.
Grass does not teach that the liquid cooled module further comprises at least one partly cylindrical heat sink member located on a wall of the case or at the bottom of the casing, wherein the at least one partly cylindrical heat sink member is provided with at least one flange.
However, Kim et al. teach a battery module with heat sinks with lower flanges attached to the bottom surface of the cooling plate and a top surface of the heat sink for more effectively dissipating heat ([0014] and [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the liquid cooled module of Grass to contain at least one heat sink member located on the bottom holding plate connected by a flange to enhance the dissipation of heat, as taught by Kim et al., from the coolant liquid.
As for the heat sink member being partly cylindrical, applicant is reminded that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) in view of Gallagher et al. (US 2023/0019895 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module of claim 1.
Grass does not teach that the at least one restricting member is formed by an electrically isolating material.
However, Gallagher et al. teach a battery cell assembly wherein the restricting member (frame 12, Figure 1, [0031]) is made of or coated with an electrically insulating or non-conductive material, enabling flexible interconnection of battery cells ([0022]) using simple electrical contacting such as a small busbar and using electrically insulating or non-conductive material for the inner walls of the recesses ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the restricting member of Grass to be formed by an electrically isolating material to enable flexible interconnection of battery cells, as taught by Gallagher et al.
Regarding Claim 17, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module of claim 1.
Grass does not teach that the plurality of heat generating components are cylindrical in shape.
However, Gallagher et al. specifically teach that cylindrical battery cells for their cell assembly are advantageous due to their shape, allowing the recesses to be shaped in a simple manner and also because cylindrical type cells were commodities ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the heat generating components of Grass to be cylindrical in shape.
Additionally, applicant is reminded that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grass (DE 102016109277 A1) .
Regarding Claim 18, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1.
The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 19, Grass teaches the liquid cooled module according to claim 1, wherein the fluid is moved in an axial direction in fluid channels formed in the spaces and where the length of the fluid channels correspond to the axial length of the heat generating components (see Figure 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sivanesaselvam et al. (US 20230170551 A1) is relevant due to the liquid cooling module as well as the casing having similar structure to the invention. The effective filing date of Sivanesaselvam et al. (US 20230170551 A1) is 24 April, 2020, claiming foreign priority.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ANDREW KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights