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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 29-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected battery pack, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2026.
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 21-23 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 21 recites the limitation "… the constituent section is positioned … of the positions of the one or more connection points in longitudinal extension of the first and second frame profiles”. However, claim 19 recites only a single connection point of the first frame profile.
Claims 22-23 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 21.
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 18-20 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frohnmayer et al. (US 2016/0211559).
Regarding claim 18, Frohnmayer teaches a battery pack (P50) comprising:
a battery module comprising a plurality of secondary battery cells 312 (P28);
a pair of module side plates, or return plates 350/354, at least one of the module side plates comprises an integral coolant structure, or fluid channels 360/362, which is part of the liquid cooling circuit (P24.40-42; Fig. 3.5.8.11), and
a framework comprising a first frame profile, or wall 120 and a second frame profile, or wall 122 opposite to the first frame profile 120 (P24; Fig. 3); and
wherein each of the first frame profile 120 and the second frame profile 122 comprises an integral coolant structure 320/322, which is part of the liquid cooling circuit (P24-29).
Regarding claim 19, Frohnmayer teaches the integral coolant structure comprises: a first channel 320 for passage of coolant, the first channel extending in longitudinal direction of the first frame profile 120 where the first frame is comprised of a plurality of wall portions 124.1-124.5 and a channel extends in the longitudinal direction of each wall portion (P24-29.59.64; Fig. 3-15.34), and a connection point, or end of fluid pathways 320 being in fluid communication with the first channel 320.
Regarding claim 20, Frohnmayer teaches the integral coolant structure of the first frame profile 120 further comprises a second channel 320 for passage of coolant, the second channel extending in a longitudinal direction of the first and second frame profiles, or longitudinal direction of frame profiles formed of wall portions 124 and being in fluid communication with the first channel 320 via a constituent section, formed via the flow paths along return plates, or channels (P24.40-42.54.59.64.68; Fig. 3.5.8.11.34), as seen in examiner annotated Figure below (included in rejection of claim 22).
Regarding claim 24, Frohnmayer teaches one or more connection points, or fluid inputs/inlets and fluid outputs/outlets 430/432/434/436 for a vehicle cooling circuit, or a cooling circuit for use in a vehicle (the battery cooling system in a vehicle is a vehicle cooling circuit) (P3.18.51) at a narrow side of the first and second frame profile 120/122, where the inlets are formed at/fluidly connected to the channel entrance of the frame profiles (P32-42; Fig. 3.5-8).
Regarding claim 25, Frohnmayer teaches the first and second frame profiles are made by extruding a material, or material suitable for extrusion such as aluminum (P31.65).
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 21-23 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frohnmayer as applied to at least claims 18 and 20, above.
Regarding claim 21, Frohnmayer teaches the constituent section is positioned at the position that is the geometric mean of the positions of the connection points in the longitudinal extension of the first and second frame profiles, where each connection point is paired with constituent sections, with one aligned/formed respectively with the connection point at the geometric mean of the points in the longitudinal axis (P23-30.70-71; Fig. 3-9)
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 22, Frohnmayer teaches one or more connection points of the first and second channel are arranged at a lower side of the first frame profile (P32-46.54.68), as shown in examiner annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Frohnmayer teaches the battery pack is a modular assembly, and an arrester element, or tongue 1310 provided at the lower side of the first frame profile 120 to adjoin sections together (P43; Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 26, Frohnmayer teaches the integral coolant structure of the module side plate, or return plate 350/354 comprises: a first channel, or one of fluid channels 360 for passage of coolant (P33-34.51.61), and connection points, or openings being in fluid communication with respective connection points, or opening of channels of the integral cooling structure of the first and second frame profile 120/122/124 (P33-37; Fig. 3-13).
Frohnmayer is silent in teaching the first channel extending in a longitudinal direction of the module side plate; however, Frohnmayer teaches the enclosure may take any suitable form, for enclosing different volumes/battery systems (P20.23.69.72) and thus in an instance where thin plate shaped battery cells are used, and a plurality of thin plate shaped cells are used that have a cumulative thickness less than the height of the cells, the module side plate, or return plate, would have a height larger than the length to accommodate the assembly, and thus the first channel would extend in a longitudinal direction of the module side plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application the first channel extending in a longitudinal direction of the module side plate in order to accommodate an assembly with different relative proportions.
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 27, Frohnmayer teaches the first and second frame profiles are made by extruding a material, or material suitable for extrusion such as aluminum (P31.65) and the module side plate can be made of aluminum (P54). Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07
Regarding claim 28, Frohnmayer teaches the framework has a rectangular shape (Fig. 1.3-4.6.9.13-14) and the first and second frame profiles are made by extruding a material, or material suitable for extrusion such as aluminum (P31.65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use aluminum as the first and second frame profiles. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshioka et al. (US 2013/0095359) teaches a cooling system for a battery pack (Fig. 11).
Gunna et al. (US 2017/0047624) teaches a cooling system for a battery pack (Fig. 2).
Essinger et al. (US 2011/0212355) teaches a cooling system for a battery pack (Fig. 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-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, 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
