DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US 2018/0233791) in view of Van Wassen et al. (US 2024/0301315).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, Tong teaches a battery pack and battery pack system comprising:
battery module 2 (electrical componentry);
coolant 11 (heat transfer fluid);
battery box 1 (reservoir);
circulating pipeline 3 and circulating pump 31 (circulating system) (Figs. 1 and 3).
The heat transfer fluid is at least one selected from trimethyl phosphate and tripropyl phosphate (para 0019). Figure 3 to Tong provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tong does not teach the heat transfer fluid is one or more of a phosphate ester of formula (I).
Van Wassen, directed to a thermal management fluid, teaches chemical formula 12, where A, B, and C are each independently H, C1-24 alkyl, or a phenyl ring with specific example including tricresyl phosphate or tributyl phosphate (para 0075). Based on the broad teaching of Van Wassen in combination with the specific examples, a phosphate ester with at least on alkyl group and at least one phenyl group can be envisaged. Formula 12 to Van Wassen is provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
158
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute one phosphate ester for another used for the same. Based on the structure of the phosphate ester, the phosphate ester will have inherent flash point, thermal conductivity, and/or kinematic viscosity one skilled in the art may determine based on the specific need, application, and/or operating environment.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Tong teaches lithium-ion batteries have been widely used in electric vehicles (para 0002).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Tong teaches circulating pump: 31 and heat exchanger 32 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Tong teaches buffer tank 33 (fluid tank) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Van Wassen teaches a phosphate ester with three alkyl groups and a three substituted phenyl groups (para 0075), respectively. It can be envisaged wherein the phosphate ester may include one alkyl group and two phenyl groups; and two alkyl groups.
Regarding claim 8, Tong teaches the coolant is at least one (para 0019), suggesting a mixture is possible. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a mixture of formula 12 compounds (para 0075).
Regarding claim 9, Van Wassen teaches C1-24 alkyl, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of C1-12 alkyl.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited alkyl range because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights