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 .
The pending claims are claims 1-13.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wan, KR 20190109111.
Regarding claim 1, Wan teaches a battery comprising: a housing (abstract) having a bottom plate (0013; 0020; 0036) a battery cell disposed inside the housing (0079); a liquid cooling system configured to cool the battery cell by using a coolant (0010); and a detection apparatus (0013; 0016) configured to detect coolant leaked from the liquid cooling system (0016; 0079; 0082-0084), wherein the detection apparatus comprises a detection part with a detection position set between the battery cell and the bottom plate (0013; 0018; 0044).
Regarding claim 3, Wan teaches wherein the detection part is disposed on the bottom plate (0020; 0036; 0091).
Regarding claim 4, Wan teaches further comprising a spacer plate disposed between the battery cell and the bottom plate (0038), wherein the spacer plate (fixing part; 0019) has a recess (plurality of holes; 0019) with an opening facing the bottom plate (0014; 0019), the detection apparatus (0010; 0013) comprises a terminal disposed in the recess (0019-0020; and the terminal is connected to the detection part (0013; 0031; 0043).
Regarding claim 5, Wan teaches wherein the detection part comprises a probe (connector; detection unit connected to the detection resistor unit) (0013), the recess (holes) (0019-0020; 0072) is located on an edge of the spacer plate (fixing part; 0019-0020) and an open portion is formed at a side facing the edge (0071-0078), and the probe (fixed part) extends from the terminal in a direction away from the open portion (plurality of holes; 0019-0020; 0072).
Regarding claim 6, Wan teaches further comprising a first electrical connection wire (0013) , a second electrical connection wire (0043), and a battery management system (0086), wherein the detection part comprises a first probe (detection unit connector; 0013) and a second probe (detection unit connector; 0013), the first electrical connection wire connects the first probe (0042-0043) and the battery management system (0086), and the second electrical connection wire connects the second probe and the battery management system (0013; 0016; 0042).
Regarding claim 7, Wan teaches wherein the first probe, the first electrical connection wire (0013), and the battery management system (BMS; 0079) are connected to form a first branch (detection resistance part) (0019), the first branch (detection resistance part) (0019) is provided with a first voltage terminal (0018), and the first voltage terminal is configured to provide the first branch (detection resistance part) (0019) with a voltage of a first preset value (predetermined voltage; 0041); and the second probe (connection) (0042) the second electrical connection wire (electrical connection (0013), and the battery management system (BMS) (0006; 0079) are connected to form a second branch, the second branch (detection resistance part) (0019) is provided with a second voltage terminal (0018), the second voltage terminal (0057) is configured to provide the second branch (detection resistance part) (0019), with a voltage of a second preset value (predetermined value; 0041) , and the battery management system (BMS) (0006; 0079) is configured to determine whether the detection apparatus detects the coolant leaked from the liquid cooling system (0019; 0053), by detecting a voltage difference (0018) between the first branch (detection resistance part) (0019) and the second branch (detection resistance part) (0019).
Regarding claim 12, Wan teaches electric device comprising the battery according to claim 1, wherein the battery is configured to supply electric energy to the electric device (0010; 0013; 0020).
Regarding claim 13, Wan teaches battery manufacturing method comprising: providing a housing (case; 0079) having a bottom plate (0013-0014; 0036); providing a battery cell (0013), with the battery cell disposed inside the housing (0013; 0015); providing a liquid cooling system for cooling the battery cell by using a coolant (0010; 0013); providing a detection apparatus (0038-0039); for detecting coolant leaked from the liquid cooling system (0016-0020), wherein the detection apparatus comprises a detection part (0001; 0013); and setting a detection position of the detection part to between the battery cell and the bottom plate (0040; 0070; 0074).
The 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.
Claim(s) 2, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan, KR 20190109111.
Regarding claim 2, Wan does not teach wherein the detection position of the detection part (0038-0039; 0071) is 1 mm to 5 mm above the bottom plate.
However, (In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 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 8, Wan teaches further comprising a first resistor (first unit resistor (0013)), a second resistor (second unit resistor) (0014), and wherein the first resistor (first unit resistor) (0113) is connected to the first branch (detection resistance part) (0019), one end is connected to the first branch (detection resistance part) and another end is grounded, the second resistor is connected to the second branch (detection resistance part) (0019) , and is connected to the second branch (detection resistance part) (0019) and another end is grounded.
Wan does not teach a first and second capacitor.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would employ a capacitor into the system because the capacitor is related to the detection voltage values (0018) in the power supply unit (0041; 0043; 0065).
Regarding claim 9, Wan does not teach wherein the battery management system comprises a processing module, and the processing module is configured to: when it is detected that an absolute value of the voltage difference between the first branch and the second branch is greater than or equal to an absolute value of a difference between U1 and U2, determine that the detection apparatus detects no coolant leaked from the liquid cooling system, wherein U1 is an absolute value of a difference between the first preset value and the second preset value, and U2 is 0–1 V; and when it is detected that the absolute value of the voltage difference between the first branch and the second branch is smaller than or equal to U3, determine that the detection apparatus detects the coolant leaked from the liquid cooling system, wherein U3 is 0–1 V and U3 is smaller than the absolute value of the difference between U1 and U2.
However, claim 9 is a product-by-process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 10, Wan does not teach wherein a distance between the first probe and the second probe is 5 mm to 10 mm.
However, (In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 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 11, Wan does not teach wherein the first probe and the second probe are both cylindrical, and the first probe has a diameter of 0.5 mm to 3 mm and/or the second probe has a diameter of 0.5 mm to 3 mm.
However, (In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights