DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/24 and 05/30/25 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/12/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication JP 2009-193961 (heretofore JP’961).
As to claims 1-2:
JP’961 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery pack/assembly comprising a plurality of battery cells/units; a cooling unit/member placed along the plurality of battery cells/units; a structural component accommodating and/or contacting the cooling unit/member and the plurality of battery cells/units comprising a concave area for accommodating the same and the structural component, the plurality of cells and the cooling unit/member are spaced apart at a specific distance (Abstract; 0038-0045; 0049-0059; 0062-0073; see Figures 1-12). JP’961 discloses specific thickness of the structural component comprising accommodating portions or sections/areas/zones/parts/segments spaced apart from one another at a predetermined distance so that the plurality of battery cells/units contact the inside or inner surface of the accommodating portions/sections/areas/zones/parts/segments at the innermost point/section/part (Abstract; 0038-0045; 0049-0059; 0062-0073; see Figures 1-12). Figures 1-2, 9, 16 and 18, infra, depict structural parts of the battery pack/assembly:
PNG
media_image1.png
486
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
242
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
274
220
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
318
312
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 7-10:
JP’961 discloses specific thickness of the structural component comprising accommodating portions or sections/areas/zones/parts/segments spaced apart from one another at a predetermined distance so that the plurality of battery cells/units contact the inside or inner surface of the accommodating portions/sections/areas/zones/parts/segments at the innermost point/section/part (Abstract; 0038-0045; 0049-0059; 0062-0073; see Figures 1-12).
As to claims 12:
JP’961 discloses the vehicle including the disclosed battery pack/assembly which is placed perpendicular to the length thereof (Abstract; 0038-0045; 0049-0059; 0062-0073; see Figures 1-12).
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication JP 2009-193961 (heretofore JP’961) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the publication CN 105977578 (heretofore CN’578).
JP’961 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific cooling tube/channel and their respective placement distance.
As to claims 3-6:
CN’578 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery pack/assembly comprising a plurality of battery cells/units including a cooling tube and a cooling channel disposed between the plurality of battery cells for cooling the same so that their location, placement distance and/or spatial orientation is determined upon the distance between the battery cells and the cooling tube and/or the thickness of the cooling tube and are located at a contact angle to one another of approximately 60° (Abstract; 0035-0045; Figures 2, 4 & 7).
PNG
media_image5.png
432
342
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
314
340
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
344
412
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place or locate the specific cooling tube/channel and their respective placement distance of CN’578 in the battery pack of JP’961 as taught by CN’578 because CN’578 teaches that the specifically disclosed cooling components are placed at such particular location/spatial orientation so that the contact area between the battery module and the liquid cooling tube can be enlarged so that the heat dissipating capability of the battery module is effectively improved and the production cost is also effectively reduced.
Further, it should be noted that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is prima-facie obvious, absent any significant evidence that the claimed arrangement of parts is critical. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). In this particular case, it should be noted that it has been held that re-arrangement, reversal or duplication of parts is prima-facie obvious. Succinctly stated, fact that the claimed the cooling tube/channel and the plurality of battery cells is/are structurally re-arranged or reversed to form a similar component having the same functionality is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old feature unless there are new or unexpected results as it is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed cooling tube/channel and the plurality of battery cells was critical. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70. In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7. In re Gazda 104 USPQ 400. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378. (Refer to MPEP 2144.04 [R-I] Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: VI. Reversal, Duplication, OR Rearrangement of Parts).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references also disclose battery packs comprising cooling units/devices: Kim et al’986, Deng et al’065 and You et al’822.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights