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 12-26 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.
Claims 12-26 are dependent on cancelled claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “runaway” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “runaway” 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. For the purpose
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.
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.
Claims 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Short et al. (WO 2020252235 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Short teaches a heat transfer system and heat transfer method employing a dielectric oleaginous heat transfer fluid for battery systems (paragraphs 0001 and 0007). Short also teaches the system includes a battery pack situated in a bath, which bath is in fluid communication with a heat transfer fluid reservoir containing the dielectric oleaginous heat transfer fluid (paragraph 0014; meets claimed heat exchange between cooling composition and battery). Short further teaches a base fluid oil types with thermal conductivities between 0.10 and 0.11 W/mK (Table 1 and 2 examples 3, 6, and 9; meets claimed base oil with thermal conductivity less than or equal to 125 mW.m-1.K-1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use any of the examples as a base oil for heat exchange purposes with a battery system as mentioned by Short (paragraph 0019). Short suggests that thermal conductivity of the base oil should be low compared to water to provide acceptable removal of heat (paragraph 0061). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a fluid with the lowest thermal conductivity possible as the base oil, rendering thermal conductivity of 0.10 and 0.11 W/mK acceptable (Table 2). Furthermore, both the instant application and Short outline polyalphaolefins, carboxylic acids, alcohols and ethylene glycols as suitable fluids for cooling (paragraphs 0033, 0046, 0047 of Short).
Regarding claim 12, Short teaches test fluids for the coolant with thermal conductivities between 0.10 and 0.11 W/mK (Table 2, examples 3, 6, and 9; meets claimed cooling composition thermal conductivity less than or equal to 120 mW.m-1.K-1).
Regarding claim 13, Short teaches one or more additional additives may be present in the heat transfer fluid at 0.01 weight percent up to 3 weight percent, or 0.05 weight percent up to 1.5 weight percent (paragraph 0051; meets claimed at least 70% of total weight comprising base oil).
Regarding claim 14, Short teaches one or more additional additives may be present in the heat transfer fluid at 0.01 weight percent up to 3 weight percent, or 0.05 weight percent up to 1.5 weight percent, thus optional in the heat transfer fluid (paragraph 0051; meets claimed 100% weight of base oil).
Regarding claim 15, Short teaches the heat transfer system may be operated, for example, by circulating the heat transfer fluid through the heat transfer system (paragraph 0022; meets claimed at least one circulation loop for cooling composition).
Regarding claim 16, Short teaches the heat transfer system may include means to pump cooled heat transfer fluid from the heat transfer fluid reservoir into the bath, and to pump heated heat transfer fluid out of the bath through the heat exchanger and back into the heat transfer fluid reservoir (paragraph 0024; meets claimed cooling composition circulates through a pump).
Regarding claim 17, Short teaches the system includes a battery pack situated in a bath, which bath is in fluid communication with a heat transfer fluid reservoir containing the dielectric oleaginous heat transfer fluid (paragraph 0014; meets claimed storage tank for cooling composition).
Regarding claim 18, Short teaches the method and/or system will be particularly useful in the transfer of heat from battery systems, such as those in an electric vehicle such as an electric car, truck or even electrified mass transit vehicle, like a train or tram (paragraph 0019). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a lithium-ion battery for the battery system of an electric vehicle since lithium batteries are conventionally used.
Regarding claim 19, Short teaches the battery module will therefore include a heat transfer system for thermally managing the battery modules over a full range of ambient and/or operating condition (paragraph 0010; meets claimed cooling via heat exchange step).
Regarding claim 20, Short teaches the method and/or system will be particularly useful in the transfer of heat from battery systems, such as those in an electric vehicle (paragraph 0007; meets claimed battery use in electric vehicle). Short also teaches such electrified transportation may also include traditional internal combustion engines as, for example, in a hybrid vehicle (paragraph 0020; meets claimed hybrid vehicle).
Regarding claim 21, Short teaches test fluids for the coolant with thermal conductivities between 0.10 and 0.11 W/mK (Table 2, examples 3, 6, and 9; meets claimed cooling composition thermal conductivity less than or equal to 115 mW.m-1.K-1)
Regarding claim 22, Short teaches one or more additional additives may be present in the heat transfer fluid at 0.01 weight percent up to 3 weight percent, or 0.05 weight percent up to 1.5 weight percent (paragraph 0051; meets claimed 70-99.9% of total weight comprising base oil).
Regarding claim 23, Short teaches one or more additional additives may be present in the heat transfer fluid at 0.01 weight percent up to 3 weight percent, or 0.05 weight percent up to 1.5 weight percent (paragraph 0051; meets claimed 80-99% of total weight comprising base oil).
Regarding claim 24, Short teaches one or more additional additives may be present in the heat transfer fluid at 0.01 weight percent up to 3 weight percent, or 0.05 weight percent up to 1.5 weight percent (paragraph 0051; meets claimed 85 to 98% weight of base oil).
Regarding claim 25, Short teaches the method and/or system will be particularly useful in the transfer of heat from battery systems, such as those in an electric vehicle (paragraph 0007; meets claimed battery use in electric or hybrid vehicle).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Short et al. (WO 2020252235 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lei et al. (CN 112421159 A).
Regarding claim 26, Short fails to teach a step for temperature control of a runaway cell.
Lei teaches when the temperature is higher than 55°C of a commercial lithium battery, it may cause heat accumulation and cause thermal runaway, and the temperature is too high (page 1). Lei and Short are considered to be analogous in the art since they are both in the field of lithium batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the heat transfer fluid of Short with a lithium battery comprising a plurality of cells, and if one of the cells of battery potentially accumulates heat leading thermal runaway, the heat transfer fluid would prevent the thermal runaway of the cell and thus prevent other cells of the battery from exceeding temperature of 55 degrees Celsius at which heat might accumulate to start thermal runaway, as taught by Lei for controlling the working environment of the lithium battery for the efficiency and service life of lithium batteries (page 1 of translation) (meets claimed battery comprising a plurality of cells and a method step of runaway of a cell and temperature of neighboring cell below 120 degrees Celsius).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT whose telephone number is (571)270-0240. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights