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 .
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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a height of the leg portion" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, “the leg portion” is not referenced in any Claims 1, 8, or 9, to which Claim 12 is dependent upon.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marquez Duran et al. (US 2020/0180417).
Regarding Claim 1, Marquez meets the claimed,
A battery case for a vehicle ([0045] and Figs. 1, 2, and 3 teach a battery box for a vehicle), the battery case comprising: a first side member positioned at a first side of the battery case ([0045] and Fig. 4 teach side beam 104), and a second side member positioned on an opposite second side of the battery case ([0045] and Fig. 5 teach side beam 104 but on the other side of the case), extending in a length direction of a vehicle ([0031] teaches that said beams can be arranged in the longitudinal moving direction of the vehicle), and having length-direction flow paths provided in the length direction of the vehicle ([0067] and Fig. 7 teach cooling channel 106 that are aligned along and within side beam 104); a plurality of cooling blocks positioned between the first and second side members ([0048] and Fig. 3 teach multiple sections designed for cooling between side beams 104), extending in a width direction of the vehicle ([0030] teaches that the cooling channels 4 can be perpendicular to side beams 104), and having a plurality of channels having width-direction flow paths ([0048] and Fig. 3 teach multiple cooling channels 4 contained with each cooling section), the plurality of channels being continuously disposed in the length direction of the vehicle and separated by partition walls ([0030] teaches that the cooling channels 4 can be perpendicular to side beams 104, therefore they are continuously disposed in the length direction), and the width-direction flow paths connecting with the length-direction flow paths of the first and second side members ([0067] and Fig. 7 teach cooling channel 106 that are connected with cooling channels 4); and a plurality of sealers provided at ends of the partition walls, the plurality of sealers configured to separate non-cooling channels, which do not exchange heat with a battery among the plurality of channels, from cooling channels that exchanges heat with the adjacent battery, the plurality of sealers being configured to prevent a cooling medium in the adjacent cooling channels from being introduced into the non-cooling channels ([0068] teaches sealing element 116 to ensure that the cooling liquid only enters the cooling channels 4 and not spaces like inner cavity 8).
Regarding Claim 2, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second side members is an extrude component ([0018] and [0019] teach that the entire box flooring, including side beams and channels, are extruded).
Furthermore, the examiner notes that this claim is directed towards a product. Product claims are not limited by the manipulation of the recited steps only the structure implied by the steps (that of the members being extruded). Since the product of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 3, Marquez does not explicitly teach a plurality of holes on the side members.
However, it is understood that Marquez implicitly teaches a plurality of holes on the side members. Thus, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 1, wherein a plurality of connection holes are formed in a lateral surface of each of the first and second side members that faces the plurality of cooling blocks, and the plurality of connection holes are formed continuously in the length direction.
In particular, Marquez teaches cooling channels 106 are connected to lower cooling channels 4 in a perpendicular direction (see [0068] and Fig. 8). Fig. 4 and [0048] teach that there are multiple cooling channels 4. Therefore, it is necessary for there to be a plurality of connection holes connecting cooling channels 106 to cooling channels 4, and as cooling channels 106 are directed lengthwise (See [0029]), the connection holes must be formed continuously in the length direction.
Regarding Claim 4, Marquez does not explicitly teach a plurality of holes on the side members.
However, it is understood that Marquez implicitly teaches a plurality of holes on the side members. Thus, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of connection holes is formed in the lateral surface of each of the first and second side members ([0068] and Fig. 8 teach cooling channels 106 are connected to lower cooling channels 4 in a perpendicular direction. [0048] and Fig. 4 teach that there are multiple cooling channels 4. Therefore, there must be a plurality of connection holes connecting cooling channels 106 to cooling channels 4) and positioned at a point facing the cooling channel among the plurality of channels, such that the width-direction flow path of the cooling channel connects with the length-direction flow path through the connection hole ([0068] and Fig. 8 teach that the cooling channels 106 are connected to lower cooling channels 4 in a perpendicular direction), and the cooling medium does not flow through the width-direction flow path of the non-cooling channel ([0016] teaches that the cavity 8 isolates the cooling fluid in the cooling channel from the external environment, and thus means that the cooling medium does not flow through these “non-cooling channels”).
Regarding Claim 5, Marquez does not explicitly teach that the plurality of walls adjoins the lateral surfaces of the side members,
However, it is understood that Marquez implicitly teaches that the plurality of walls adjoins the lateral surfaces of the side members.
The battery case of claim 1, wherein ends of the plurality of partition walls of the cooling blocks adjoin lateral surfaces of the side members that face each other ([0069] and Fig. 8 teach that side beam cooling channel 106 is centered and connected with lower cooling channel 4. Fig. 4 teaches there is a partition wall between separate lower cooling channels 4 as well as partition walls between lower cooling channels 4 and inner cavities 8. [0016] teaches that inner cavity 8 does not possess cooling fluid. Therefore, it is implied that these walls must be adjoining the side members 104 otherwise the cooling fluid would be present in inner cavity 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cooling blocks are extruded components ([0018] and [0019] teach that the entire box flooring, including side beams and channels, are extruded).
Furthermore, the examiner notes that this claim is directed towards a product. Product claims are not limited by the manipulation of the recited steps only the structure implied by the steps (that of the cooling blocks being extruded). Since the product of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 7, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 1, wherein a cross member, which traverses the battery case in the width direction of the vehicle ([0045] teaches a dividing inner beam 114), is coupled to the non-cooling channel among the plurality of cooling channels (Fig. 4 teaches that dividing inner beam 114 is attached to the inner cavity 8, which is a non-cooling channel), and the non-cooling channel does not exchange heat with the battery ([0068] teaches sealing element 116 to ensure that the cooling liquid only enters the cooling channels 4 and not spaces like inner cavity 8).
Regarding Claim 15, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 1, further comprising: cross members coupled to the non-cooling channels among the plurality of cooling channels and configured to traverse the battery case in the width direction of the vehicle ([0045] and Fig. 4 teach cross beams 114 that are arranged next to non-cooling channels); a longitudinal member configured to intersect the cross member while traversing the battery case in the length direction of the vehicle ([0032] teaches inner beams that extend lengthwise through the pack, which necessarily must intersect any inner crossbeams); and a penetration mount coupled to a vehicle body while penetrating an intersection point between the cross member and the longitudinal member in a vertical direction ([0045] and Fig. 4 teach that the cross members are attached to the longitudinal side beams, cover, and other inner beams through riveting).
Regarding Claim 16, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 15, wherein the cross members comprise: a front member configured to connect front ends of the first and second side members; a rear member configured to connect rear ends of the first and second side members ([0007] teaches a battery box, which would necessarily have a front cross beam to act as a front wall, a rear cross beam to act as a rear wall); and a middle member disposed between the front member and the rear member and configured to connect the first and second side members ([0045] and Fig. 4 teach that the cross members are attached to the longitudinal side beams, cover, and other inner beams through riveting).
Regarding Claim 17, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 16, wherein the non-cooling channel of each of the plurality of cooling blocks is disposed at a point positioned below the front member, the rear member, and the middle member (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 teach the cooling blocks being disposed below all beams).
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) 8, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez Duran et al. (US 2020/0180417) in view of Kurimoto et al. (US 2017/0274326).
Regarding Claim 8, Marquez meets the claimed,
[…] and one of the plurality of sealers is inserted and coupled into each of the installation grooves ([0068] teaches that the sealing element 116 connects the lower cooling channels with the side beams, so it can be expected that the sealers would be placed in such an installation groove barring limitations on a specific sealing element, which could simply be a weld with a different material or resin).
Marquez does not teach an installation groove in the form of a recession.
Kurimoto teaches a honeycomb structure for the purposes of fluid transport. There exists a beneficial reason to use a honeycomb structure for fluid transport as the increased surface area would increase the amount of heat transferred between the fluid, the tube, and ultimately, the battery.
Kurimoto meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of cooling blocks has an installation groove recessed inward at a point at which the partition wall, which separates the non-cooling channel and the cooling channel, is formed ([0022] and Fig. 4 teach partition wall 20 with a recessed part 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the recession of the walls to the cooling channel walls to create a space such that one could actually fit the seal into the walls of the channel.
Regarding Claim 9, Marquez meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of cooling blocks comprises an upper plate, a lower plate, and the plurality of partition walls (Fig. 5 teaches an upper plate, a lower plate, and partition walls).
Marquez does not teach the installation groove recessing the upper plate and lower plate along with the partition walls.
Kurimoto teaches a honeycomb structure for the purposes of fluid transport.
Kurimoto meets the claimed,
[…] and the installation groove is recessed together with the upper plate, the lower plate, and the partition walls (Fig. 2 teaches that the recessions can occur in all walls).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the recession of the walls to all the cooling channel walls to create a space such that you can better seal off the non-cooling channel; a resin or rubber seal would seal better and would likely cause less disruptions to fluid flow than a weld.
Regarding Claim 11, Marquez/Kurimoto does not explicitly teach the base of the sealers in contact with the upper plate and lower plate.
However, as a function of a seal, under the current constraints of Marquez/Kurimoto which include a recessed partition wall, upper plate, and lower plate, it is necessary for the seal base to be in contact with the upper and lower plate, otherwise it will not properly function as a seal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the seal as taught by Marquez/Kurimoto to have its dimensions such that it contacts the upper and lower plates of the cooling channel in order to properly function as a seal.
Regarding Claim 13, Marquez/Kurimoto does not explicitly teach the sealer being in contact with the side member.
However, as a function of a seal, under the current constraints of Marquez/Kurimoto which is connected to the side member (as this is where the main coolant fluid is flowing from into the cooling channels) it is necessary for the seal base to be in contact with the side member, otherwise it will not properly function as a seal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the seal as taught by Marquez/Kurimoto to have its dimensions such that it contacts the side member in order to properly function as a seal.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez Duran et al. (US 2020/0180417) in view of Kurimoto et al. (US 2017/0274326), and further in view of Ford (US 2017/0175486).
Regarding Claim 10, Marquez/Kurimoto does not teach the sealer comprising a base and a pair of legs.
Ford teaches a valve assembly for the purposes of stopping and directing fluid flow.
Ford meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of sealers comprises: a base (Abstract and Fig. 3 teach a sealing-capable element with a seat); and a pair of leg portions extending from two sides of the base, and configured to surround the partition wall with the partition wall interposed therebetween (Abstract and Fig. 3 teach a sealing-capable element with two prongs).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the generic sealer of Marquez/Kurimoto with the base and two-legged sealer of Ford to better sit/wrap around the partition wall and stay in place while blocking fluids.
Regarding Claim 12, Marquez/Kurimoto do not teach a leg height equal to the height of the partition wall.
Ford teaches a valve assembly for the purposes of stopping and directing fluid flow.
Ford meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 9, wherein a height of the leg portion of each of the plurality of sealers is equal to a height of the partition wall of each of the plurality of cooling blocks ([0079] teaches that the slots are dimensioned to receive the prongs; the slots in this case being the two sides of the partition wall. Examiner notes that combination renders obvious that the leg heights and partition wall would be dimensioned to be equivalent so that the leg heights could fit).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have equivalent leg heights and partition wall heights in order to create a better sealing fit, the dimensions of the leg portions must equal the height of the partition walls forming the opening.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez Duran et al. (US 2020/0180417) in view of Kurimoto et al. (US 2017/0274326), and further in view of Goldman et al. (US Patent 6,180,885).
Marquez/Kurimoto does not specifically teach the sealers being compressed by the side member when the cooling block and side member are coupled.
However, as a function of a seal, under the current constraints of Marquez/Kurimoto which comprises the cooling blocks connected to the side member (as this is where the main coolant fluid is flowing from into the cooling channels) it is necessary for the seal base to be in contact with the side member, otherwise it will not properly function as a seal. Thus, the examiner notes that the combination renders obvious that there is some amount of compression levied on the sealer by the side member.
Marquez/Kurimoto does not teach the sealer being made of a polymer resin.
Goldman teaches a method of sealing joints, gaps, and surfaces of a busway against weather.
Goldman meets the claimed,
The battery case of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of sealers is made of polymer resin (Col. 4 Lines 50-53, teaches a sealant made of polyurethane, which is a polymer resin).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a polymer resin as the material for the seal as it is resistant to weathering and waterproof while also being an affordable material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW Y. HO whose telephone number is (571)842-1342. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 6:00, Mon - Thurs.
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, Xiao S. Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/A.Y.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights