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 .
Claims 10-18 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “a battery cooling block according to claim 1” should be “a battery cooling block according to claim 10” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “a battery assembly as claimed in claim 10” should be “a battery cooling block according to claim 14” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “ a first port and a second port configured to allow a flow of coolant” and “each compartment configured to receive a receptive cylindrical battery cell” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 10-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noriyuki (JP-2005285454, for prior art discussion see cited machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Noriyuki discloses a battery module (ref. 100, ref.1000, figure 7, para 0036), comprising: a housing (cassette holder, ref. 10) defining a flow chamber (figure 17) and comprising a first port (ref. 52, figure 17, 23) and a second port (ref. 54, figure 17, 23) configured to allow a flow of coolant through the flow chamber extending from the first port to second port (figure 17, 23). Noriyuki discloses cooling air is conveyed from the first port (ref. 52) enters the flow chamber (ref. 10F) through the side opening window (ref. 68) in one side of the wall, passes laterally across the battery cell and exits through the opposed window (ref. 68, , para. 0051) there by meeting the limitation configured to allow the coolant through the flow chamber along a first axis.
Noriyuki further discloses the housing further comprising a plurality of compartments (positioning mounting section, ref. 14, figure 5, 15, para. 0028) disposed in the flow chamber, each compartment extending along a respective compartment axis perpendicular to the first axis and each compartment configured to receive a respective cylindrical battery cell (para. 0028, figure 5, 6, 15); wherein each compartment is defined by a partially open compartment wall within the flow chamber, the compartment wall comprising a plurality of wall segments (support protrusion, ref. 18) extending parallel to the compartment axis and which are circumferentially spaced apart around the compartment axis such that the respective battery cell is partially exposed (cooling gap, ref. 60) to the flow of coolant (para. 0030, 0043, 0045, figure 15, 17, 18), the plurality of wall segments are symmetrically spaced apart around the compartment axis (para. 0045), and wherein the plurality of wall segments comprises four wall segments (figure 15, para. 0030, 0045). Four wall segments (ref. 18) as disclosed by Noriyuki at regular intervals circumferentially spaced apart from an adjacent wall segment would be 90 degrees around the compartment axis (figure 15) thereby meeting the limitation each wall segment circumferentially spaced apart from an adjacent wall segment by 90 degrees around the compartment axis.
Regarding claim 11, Noriyuki discloses the housing (cassette holder ref. 10) has upper (ref. 12A ) and lower cover pieces (ref. 12B) forming a compartment (ref. 14) in the inner surface of the cassette holder. The compartment (ref. 14) holds the battery cell (ref. 2) extends through the housing (para. 0028, figure 5, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 12, Noriyuki discloses a sealing element, a plurality of O-ring (ref. 3) attached on the surface of the battery cells and clamped between the battery cell and the compartment (ref. 14) surface (para. 0034, figure 5) and the battery cell with an O-ring is molded into a simple groove-shaped positioning mounting portion (ref. 14) thereby meeting the limitation the sealing element disposed in a groove constituting the surface of the compartment configured to receive the battery cell.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation the cooling block is formed by an additive manufacturing process is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). The implied structure a battery cooling block as claimed in claim 10 which Noriyuki discloses as set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, Noriyuki discloses a battery assembly, comprising: a plurality of cylindrical battery cells (para. 0028, figure 5, 6) ; and a battery cooling block as discussed above with respect to claim 10. wherein each of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells (ref. 2) is received in a respective one of the plurality of compartments of the battery cooling block (para. 0028, figure 5, 6).
Regarding claim 18, Noriyuki discloses a battery assembly wherein each of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells is retained in its respective compartment by a sealing element (O-ring, ref. 3, figure 5). As discussed above with respect to claim 12, the sealing element is disposed between a cylindrical surface of the battery cell and a groove formed in a surface of the compartment facing the cylindrical surface of the battery cell (para. 0034).
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.
Claims 15, 16, and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noriyuki (JP-2005285454, for prior art discussion refer to cited machine translation) in view of Ghosh (US PG Pub. 2011/0111278 A1)
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Noriyuki discloses a cylindrical battery cell (ref. 2) has a cylindrical surface defined by a cell circumference; and wherein each of the plurality of wall segments (support protrusions, ref. 18) of each compartment wall extends circumferentially around the cylindrical surface of the respective battery cell (para. 0030, 0045) by a respective width (figure 2, 15, 17, 18). Noriyuki discloses the wall segment (ref. 18) held by partially pressing against the side of the battery cell creates the cooling gap (ref. 60) formed by the noncontact area (para. 0030) and cooling air passes through it for cooling the battery cell (para. 0043) and wall segment (ref. 18) are preferably provided at approximately regular intervals along the circumference of the cylindrical battery cell (para. 0045). By this it is possible to simultaneously achieve holding the battery cell and forming a cooling gap thereby simplifying the configuration of the cassette holder (para. 0045). On a battery cell of fixed circumference held at four points, choosing the width of the wall segment is equivalent to choosing how much cooling gap would be formed. Thereby, Noriyuki establishes the width of the wall segment as result -effective variable for holding the battery cell and forming a cooling gap and in doing so improves the structure and cooling of the battery assembly.
Noriyuki fails to disclose sum of the respective widths of the total number of wall segments of the compartment wall is between 30-50% as claimed in claim 15 and sum of the respective widths of the total number of wall segments of the compartment wall is 40 % of the cell circumference as claimed in claim 16.
Ghosh discloses a battery pack assembly having a casing enclosing stacks of battery cells pertaining to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and addresses similar structure (abstract, para 0008-0009). Ghosh discloses a plurality of wall segments (flow interrupters, ref. 60, figure 6) disposed circumferentially along the cylindrical cell wall (para. 0034, figure 6) disrupting the flow of air to increase the heat transfer coefficient of that air (abstract).
Ghosh discloses the wall segments (ref. 60) are spaced at predetermined distance from each other with the distance being greater adjacent the air inlet chamber (ref. 54, figure 2) and serially decreasing circumferentially to the upper (ref. 44) and lower slots (ref. 46, para. 0025). The space between the flow interrupters of Ghosh forms the cooling gap similar to Noriyuki.
Ghosh discloses the flow interrupters (ref. 60) are close together adjacent to the upper and lower slots because the air is the warmest at those locations (para.0025). Ghosh further discloses a decreased distance between flow interrupters (ref. 60) increases the rate of heat transfer to the warmer air, thereby providing a more even cooling rate across the cell walls (ref. 34 ). In other words, the variable spacing between the flow interrupters (ref. 60) along the circumference of the stacks (ref. 22, ref. 24) allows the flow of air to cool the cells (ref. 26) at a more even rate across the circumference of the cell walls (ref. 34, para.0025). Ghosh further discloses flow interrupters also function to support the weight of the cells (para. 0029) and the weight bearing flow interrupters are made thicker in cross section than the rest for strength (para. 0032). Ghosh further discloses such flow interrupters provide a boost to the heat transfer coefficient of the air thereby increasing the amount of heat transferred from the cells to the air adjacent the flow interrupters at low overall pressure drop penalty and they can also serve as weight bearing posts to support the weight of the cells and can act as spacers to maintain the gap between the cell wall and the plastic case to permit airflow (para. 0009). Ghosh establishes circumferential distribution of wall segments (flow interrupters) and width of them as result -effective variables to increase the amount of heat transferred from the cells to the air adjacent to those wall segments which act as spacers to permit airflow and to serve as weight bearing posts to support the weight of the cells.
As the cooling gap, cooling evenness, and support of the weight of the battery module are all variables that can be modified, by adjusting the sum of the widths of the wall segments of each compartment wall to the cell circumference, the precise sum of the widths of the wall segments of each compartment wall to the cell circumference would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed sum of the widths of the wall segments of each compartment wall to the cell circumference cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the sum of the widths of the wall segments of each compartment wall to the cell circumference in Noriyuki to obtain the desired balance between the efficient cooling and providing support for the battery cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have arrived at the claimed sum of the widths of the wall segments of each compartment wall to the cell circumference by routine optimization. (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 17, Ghosh discloses the wall segments (flow interrupters, ref. 60) are radial extensions that can run as single rib along the full length of a cell (para. 0034, figure 5) there by meeting the claim limitation the wall segments extend parallel to the compartment axis by an axial length which is at least 50% of an axial length of the battery cell. Ghosh further discloses such staggered arrangement of the flow interrupters enhances heat dissipation by the cell at low overall pressure drop penalty (para. 0009, 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cooling block of Noriyuki to include wall segments that extend full length of the cell as taught by Ghosh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the cooling block of Noriyuki to increase the amount of heat transferred from the cells to the air adjacent those wall segments, acting as spacers to permit airflow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788 07/30/2026
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights