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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/22/2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 3/22/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 21-29 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (US 20160141573 A1) in view of Kim (US 20060115720 A1) and Kim et al (US 20050287426 A1).
Regarding claims 21-25 and 31-32, Aoki discloses a battery system (10) comprising a housing (20, 12, 14, 24, 26, 34) configured to receive a plurality of battery cells (1). Aoki teaches that a wall (14) of the housing with a first side positioned proximate to the battery cell (1) and a plurality of fins (38) extending from a second side of the wall. Aoki teaches that the plurality of fins (38) is configured to absorb thermal energy from the battery cell and dissipate the thermal energy to air (gas/outside), and wherein a fin of the plurality of fins (38) comprises a channel (40) configured to facilitate a flow of the air (gas) between the fin of the plurality of fins and an adjacent fin of the plurality of fins (38) [Abstract; Fig. 1-5; paragraph 0018-0034, 0046-0066]. It is a known fact that battery cells produce thermal energy (heat) as a byproduct of electrical energy generation and/or consumption [paragraph 0002-0005].
Aoki teaches a projection/notch (39) between the plurality of fins (38) which has a height smaller than the fins. Aoki remains silent that the fins are arranged in grid-like structure. However, Kim’720 teaches a battery module comprising a barrier rib (20) having projections/protrusions (21) for cooling the batteries. Kim teaches that the projections/protrusions are arranged in a grid-like structure and have different shapes [Fig. 1-15; paragraph 0040-0048]. Kim’426 teaches projections/protrusions/fins having different shape including cylindrical, taper from the wall toward a distal end and rectangular cross-sectional shape [Fig. 1-20]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 26-27, Aoki teaches that the current collecting plate (18/181-187) and top plate (24) which are made from metal and can be considered as a heat sink, are disposed adjacent to the fins and capable of absorbing heat/thermal energy from the plurality of fins (38) [Fig. 1-2, 6; paragraph 0029, 0032-0036, 0050].
Regarding claim 28, Aoki teaches that the wall (14) and the plurality of fins (38) are integral to the housing [Fig. 1, 5].
Regarding claim 29, Aoki teaches that the housing, the wall, and the plurality of fins comprise resin material [paragraph 0023-0025, 0048-0049].
8. Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (US 20160141573 A1) as applied in claim 21 and further in view of Choi et al (US 20120103714 A1), Kawakami et al (US 20060040182 A1) and Han et al (US 20120107676 A1).
Regarding claims 29-30, Aoki teaches that the housing, the wall, and the plurality of fins comprise resin material but remain silent specifically about polypropylene or glass fiber material. However, it is known in the art that housing material of battery can be mad with polypropylene or glass fiber material as taught by Choi [claim 6], Kawakami [paragraph 0153] and Han [paragraph 0011]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
9. Claim(s) 33-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (US 20160141573 A1) in view of Kim (US 20060115720 A1) and Kim et al (US 20050287426 A1).
Regarding claims 33-37, Aoki discloses a battery system (10) comprising a housing (20, 12, 14, 24, 26, 34) configured to receive a plurality of battery cells (1). Aoki teaches that a wall (14) of the housing with a first side positioned proximate to the battery cell (1) and a plurality of fins (38) extending from a second side of the wall. Aoki teaches that the plurality of fins (38) is configured to absorb thermal energy from the battery cell and dissipate the thermal energy to air (gas/outside). Aoki teaches a projection/notch (39) between the plurality of fins (38) which has a height smaller than the fins [Abstract; Fig. 1-5; paragraph 0018-0034, 0046-0066]. It is a known fact that battery cells produce thermal energy (heat) as a byproduct of electrical energy generation and/or consumption [paragraph 0002-0005]. Aoki teaches that the housing, the wall, and the plurality of fins comprise resin material [paragraph 0023-0025, 0048-0049].
Aoki remains silent that the fins are arranged in grid-like structure and the projections comprise a cylindrical shape. However, Kim’720 teaches a battery module comprising a barrier rib (20) having projections/protrusions (21) for cooling the batteries. Kim teaches that the projections/protrusions are arranged in a grid-like structure and have different shapes [Fig. 1-15; paragraph 0040-0048]. Kim’426 teaches projections/protrusions/fins having different shape including cylindrical, taper from the wall toward a distal end and rectangular cross-sectional shape [Fig. 1-20]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
10. Claim(s) 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (US 20160141573 A1) in view of Kim (US 20060115720 A1) and Kim et al (US 20050287426 A1)
Regarding claims 38-40, Aoki discloses a battery system (10) comprising a housing (20, 12, 14, 24, 26, 34) configured to receive a plurality of battery cells (1). Aoki teaches that a wall (14) of the housing with a first side positioned proximate to the battery cell (1) and a plurality of fins (38) extending from a second side of the wall. Aoki teaches that the plurality of fins (38) is configured to absorb thermal energy from the battery cell and dissipate the thermal energy to air (gas/outside) and wherein a fin of the plurality of fins (38) comprises a channel (40) configured to facilitate a flow of the air (gas) between the fin of the plurality of fins and an adjacent fin of the plurality of fins (38). Aoki teaches a projection/notch (39) between the plurality of fins (38) which has a height smaller than the fins [Abstract; Fig. 1-5; paragraph 0018-0034, 0046-0066]. It is a known fact that battery cells produce thermal energy (heat) as a byproduct of electrical energy generation and/or consumption [paragraph 0002-0005]. Aoki teaches that the housing, the wall, and the plurality of fins comprise resin material [paragraph 0023-0025, 0048-0049]. Aoki remains silent that the fins are arranged in grid-like structure. However, Kim’720 teaches a battery module comprising a barrier rib (20) having projections/protrusions (21) for cooling the batteries. Kim’720 teaches that the projections/protrusions are arranged in a grid-like structure and have different shapes [Fig. 1-15; paragraph 0040-0048]. Kim’426 teaches projections/protrusions/fins having different shape including cylindrical, taper from the wall toward a distal end and rectangular cross-sectional shape [Fig. 1-20]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723