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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A battery pack containing a water jacket equipped with cooling fin.
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 4, 5, and 7 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the second sections " indicating a plurality of the second sections. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 only sets forth a singular “second section”. For the purposes of examination, a singular second section is considered to be required by the examiner
Claims 5 and 7 recite the limitation "the second sections", indicating a plurality of the second sections. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 only sets forth a singular “second section”. For the purposes of examination, a plurality second section is considered to be required by the examiner.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the fans”, indicating a plurality of the fans. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claims 1 and 4 only sets forth a singular “fan”. For the purposes of examination, a plurality of fans is considered to be required by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya (JP-2003297439-A) in view of Yeom (KR-102122288-B1), and in further view of Bao (CN-206388743-U).
Regarding claim 1, Shibuya recites a battery pack (Figure 1, paragraphs [0009]-[0010]) comprising a plurality of batteries (Figure 1, 4, paragraphs [0009]-[0010]), which are comprised of cells having a positive terminal and a negative terminal, a plurality of battery modules (Figure 1, 5, paragraphs [0010]-[0011]), in which the plurality of cells are laminated, as shown in Figure 4, where two cells are shown laminated next to one another to form the battery module, a battery case accommodating the plurality of battery modules (Figure 1, 3 paragraph [0009], and a water jacket provided inside the battery(Figure 1, 6, paragraph [0012]). The battery case also includes a first section in which the plurality of battery modules are arranged and heat exchange between the plurality of battery modules and the water jacket is performed (Annotated Figure 1), a second section provided above the water jacket and in which no battery module is disposed (Annotated Figure 1), and a gap provided between the plurality of cells and an inner wall of the battery case (Annotated Figure 1), and a fan circulating air across the first section and the second section (Figure 1, 7, paragraph [0015]) . It does not recite the water jacket cooling the battery from the bottom of the battery pack and fails to indicate the presence of a heat exchange system from which the water jacket is connected to.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1.
Yeom recites a cooling apparatus for an energy storage system, such as a secondary battery. The cooling apparatus includes a water jacket that cools from the bottom and the two sides of the battery (Figure 3, 130, paragraph [0027]) which is connected to another water jacket with a pipe that is installed around a heat sink (Figure 3, 111) that cools the refrigerator that circulates from the battery via a fan(paragraph [0027]), which acts as a heat exchange system in the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Shibuya with Yeom to include a water jacket that wrapped around the battery on the bottom and sides in order so “temperature can be reduced immediately” and optimal power storage and balance is achieved (Yeom, paragraph [0048]).
Shibuya modified with Yeom does not recite the use of a fin protruding from a side of the water jacket in second section, instead only mentioning fins in context to the heat sink, and does not have the fins protrude from the cooling block and allow for rapid heat transfer from the water jacket to the cooling block (Figure 3, 111, 112, 113, paragraph [0058]).
Bao teaches a heat dissipating battery case lid, which features the use of fins (Figure 3, 10, paragraph [0029]) protruding from a coolant-filled jacket (Figure 3, 1, paragraphs [0029]- [0030]) that face directly into a cooling fan (Figure 3, 5, paragraph [0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified the teachings of Shibuya to incorporate the fins directly into the cooling jacket and configure them such that they are directly in the path of the cooling fan in the second section in order to “increase the surface area of the cooling, greatly improving the cooling efficiency” (Bao, paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Shibuya teaches the battery pack of claim 1 and teaches a second section that is positioned outside the first section and on a side of the first section, and the fan is disposed in the second section (Figure 2, 14, paragraph [0016]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shibuya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (TW-M399049-U).
Regarding claim 2, modified Shibuya teaches the battery pack of claim 1 and teaches the use of control unit and a temperature sensor to activate the cooling apparatus with heat exchange system and fan (Yeom, Figure 2, element S and Figure 3, element 170, paragraphs [0072], [0092]- [0094]). It does not teach the operation of the water jacket and cooling fans separately at different temperatures.
Wu teaches a heat exchange system for a vehicle. It features a cooling circuit designed to cool a battery with coolant that has two thermostats, one dedicated to monitoring when the coolant is at a temperature higher than a predetermined threshold (Figure 3, element 52) to open a heat exchange system (Figure 3, element 53 and 54), which dissipates heat into the car as to heat the car. The circuit also has a second thermostat that monitors the temperature of the coolant (Figure 3. element 15), which opens to a second heath exchange system equipped with a fan that directly blows on to a reservoir of coolant (Figure 3, elements 12 and 13). As the coolant directly interacts with battery cells and terminals while cooling, the temperature of the cells and the cell terminals can be said to directly correlate to the temperature of the coolant
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of modified Shibuya with Wu to obtain a heat exchange circuit capable allowing for the independent operation of the heat exchange system and fan based on temperature thresholds as “its heat dissipation effect is naturally better than the traditional semi-water-cooled system, which is sufficient to extend the service life of the battery module.”
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shibuya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (US20150255838-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Shibuya modified with Yeom and further modified with Bao teaches the battery pack of claim 1 and teaches the presence of a terminal cable which connects the terminals of the cells (Shibuya, paragraphs [0010]-[0011]), but fails to teach the presence of a junction box for the terminal cable and is in the cooling stream of the fan.
Inoue teaches a battery pack cooling structure that features a plurality of fans that cools batteries from all sides and is designed to allow circulation around a junction box inside the battery pack and its conducting members (Figure 1, elements 5, 500 paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Inoue into modified Shibuya in order to add a junction box to house the terminal cables of Shibuya to control current flow in the battery assembly (paragraph [0030]) and to ensure that the junction box is placed inside the battery such that it was cooled by air streams to allow “the fluid circulation cools the junction box” as the junction box “generates heat energy and radiates the heat energy outside” (paragraphs [0059] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Shibuya teaches the battery pack of claim 1 and two second sections on opposing sides of the first section, as denoted by a branching plate placed on top of battery modules (Figure 1, elements 14, 5). It also teaches gaps between battery packs as water jackets and heat transfer plates are there (Figure 1, elements 6 and 15). It fails to explicitly teach the air flow between these gaps that create an air passageway that is perpendicular to the second sections and connects the second sections.
Inoue teaches a battery pack cooling structure that features a plurality of fans that are disposed next to each other in the case and split the case in two to create two second sections by extending the sides of battery case to create a gap between the outer walls of the battery case and battery modules. Inoue further adds space between neighboring battery modules that is designed to allow circulation of air between the battery modules perpendicular to the extending direction of the second sections. (Figure 4, paragraphs [0048], [0052])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of modified Shibuya with Inoue to extend the sides of the battery case away from the battery modules to expand the second sections and allow for a perpendicular air passage to form between the second sections that allow for air circulation as to make it possible to have all battery modules maintain a uniform temperature despite different locations in the case (paragraph [0064]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shibuya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US-20160072166-A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Shibuya teaches the battery pack of claim 4 and teaches a fan having a positive pressure region in which air is discharged and a negative pressure region in which air is introduced to the fan, but fails to teach a plurality of fans that are disposed in the second section and does not teach the negative and positive pressure regions opposing each other across the first section (Figure 1, elements 7, 8, 9, and A).
Park teaches a battery pack that includes a lamination of battery cells housed in a case, which acts as a first section (Figure 5, 400, paragraphs [0029]-[0030]). In the battery case there are two sets of fans that are disposed of on opposing sides of the case and across the battery pack that create the second sections (Figure 5, 330, paragraph [0028]). These fan sets are designed to both eject air and inject air into the battery pack, such that the fans blowing air into the case creates a positive pressure region in one second section, and the fans blowing air out of the case create a negative pressure region (Figures 7 and 8, paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of modified Shibuya to include the two opposing fan sets of Park such that two opposing negative and positive pressure regions are created so “heat generated in a battery may be efficiently removed by allowing air to flow between stacked battery cells, and thus it is possible to enhance an efficiency of the battery in addition to a safety and life of the battery” (paragraph [0076]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya modified with Yeom and further modified with Bao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN-111082183-A).
Regarding claim 6, Shibuya modified with Yeom and further modified with Bao recites the battery pack of claim 1 but fails to teach each of the plurality of battery modules includes a terminal insulating cover that covers at least one cell terminal of the positive terminal and the negative terminal of the cell, and a space extending in a lamination direction of the cells is provided between the terminal insulating cover and the cell terminal.
Liu teaches a battery pack that features a heat sink assembly that cools the cell terminal busbars of battery cells with a liquid cooling bar that has an insulating film and is covered with platen and a module cover (Figure 2, 402, 403, 404, paragraphs [0043], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of modified Shibuya with Liu in order to include a space next to the cell terminals to incorporate an air passage to cool rather than water “so that the whole system is high in heat dissipation efficiency” (paragraph [0029]) and an insulating terminal cover “to protect the busbar and platen” (paragraph [0061]). Since the busbar meets the negative and positive terminals (paragraph [0006]), the module is said to cover the terminals as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Michlitsch (US-20140141298-A1) recites a battery pack with cooling air channels that form a closed cooling air circuit for cooling the battery, with the cooling air circuit having at least one cooling air fan and at least one heat exchanger.
Tong (US-20190198951-A1) recites a battery pack with a plurality of fans that circulate air over various battery modules to cool the system.
Mizoguchi (US-20120055725-A1) recites a battery pack cooling system that includes a water jacket that cools from the bottom of the pack and is designed to enable an air stream to form while that car is driving to further cool the battery system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Jacob Williams whose telephone number is (571)270-7712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 4 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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)272-1307. 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.
/M.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 15 October 2026
