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 § 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.
(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) 1-2, 6-10, 12-13, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mathivanan (US20240297393A1; priority extends to 03/01/2023).
Regarding claim 1, 9, and 16, Mathivanan discloses a battery cell cooling system (30) [fig. 2, Mathivanan], comprising: a housing (31) including an inlet (36) configured to receive a coolant and an outlet (37) configured to discharge the coolant [0033, fig. 2 , Mathivanan], the housing defining a plurality of slots (34) between the inlet and the outlet, each of the plurality of slots being spaced apart from adjacent slots [0034-0036, fig. 2, Mathivanan]; and a plurality of battery cells disposed in the plurality of slots [0034-0036, Mathivanan]; wherein the coolant is configured to flow from the inlet [0035-0037, Mathivanan], through the spaces between plurality of slots, and to the outlet [0035-0037, Mathivanan].
Regarding claim 9, Mathivanan discloses a top coolant plate (32) and a bottom coolant plate (33) spaced from the top coolant plate [0034, fig. 2-3, Mathivanan], each of the coolant plates being configured to receive the plurality of battery cells [0034, Mathivanan];
Regarding claim 16 Mathivanan discloses the height of each of the plurality of battery cells is greater than the height of each slot defined by the housing [0040-0042, Mathivanan].
Regarding claim 2, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system, wherein the coolant directly contacts the battery cells [0035, Mathivanan].
Regarding claim 6, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system, further comprising a seal configured to contain the coolant in the housing [0043, Mathivanan].
Regarding claim 7, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system, wherein the seal is disposed around one of the battery cells to allow the coolant to directly contact the battery cell [0035, 0043, Mathivanan].
Regarding claim 8, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system, wherein the seal extends around the periphery of the plurality of battery cells [0043, Mathivanan].
Regarding claim 10, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system, wherein the coolant is configured to be disposed between the top coolant plate and the bottom coolant plate [fig. 2-3, Mathivanan].
Regarding claim 12, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system, wherein each of the plurality of battery cells include a top lip (55 and 56) configured to engage the top coolant plate and a bottom lip (59 and 60) configured to engage the bottom coolant plate [0036, 0043, Mathivanan].
Regarding claim 13, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system of claim 9, wherein the coolant is configured to contact the full circumference of each of the plurality of battery cells [0049, Mathivanan].
Mathivanan notes that “The turbulent flow causes the coolant 66 to be diverted into the areas in the flow chamber 38 between adjacent compartments 34 . This ensures that coolant flow 66 can contact the battery cell 52 all around its circumference, increasing the surface area of the battery cell 52 which comes into contact with the coolant 66 .” This reads on the claimed limitation
Regarding claim 19, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of sleeves are cylindrical, and the battery cells are cylindrical [00364, Mathivanan].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathivanan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monismith (US20200168964A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mathivanan is silent to a sleeve disposed in each of the plurality of slots, each sleeve being configured to receive one of the plurality of battery cells.
However Monismith discloses using a sleeve (125) coupled to the outer surface of a battery housing[0021, fig. 1, Monismith]. Where the sleeve is electrically insulative and thermally conductive [0028, Monismith]. Each sleeve is disposed in one of the plurality of slots and is configured to receive one of the plurality of battery cells [fig. 1-2, Monismith].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Mathivanan such that the electrically insulating and thermally conducive sleeve was coupled to the housing of the battery cell and disposed in each of the plurality of slots. Doing so would allow for one to still conduct heat away from the battery cell to a cooling device while keeping the cell electrically insulated from the slot [0028, Monismith]
Regarding claim 4, modified Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system of claim 3, wherein the coolant directly contacts the sleeve [0035, Mathivanan], and wherein heat is transferred from the battery cell to the coolant through the sleeve [0028, Monismith].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mathivanan as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Romelsberger (WO2021037800A1).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Mathivanan is silent to the use of a thermal paste.
However, Romelsberger teaches of utilizing a layer of pasty thermally conductive material (9) arranged between an object emitting heat, such as a battery module or battery cell (2) and a second object such as a base (10) with a cooling channel (12) to dissipate heat [0028-0029, 0033, 0050, 0064, fig. 1, Romelsberger].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Mathivanan such that a thermal paste was disposed between the battery cell and sleeve. Doing so would allow for one to fill gaps between the two objects and transfer heat from a heat source (e.g. battery) to a cooling device (e.g. sleeve) [0028, 0033, 0050, Romelsberger].
The examiner notes that because the battery cell is in contact with a thermal paste, which is in contact with the sleeve, then any thermal energy generated at the battery cell will flow from the cell to the paste and then to the sleeve.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
Claim(s) 11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathivanan as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kruszelnicki (US20180294536A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mathivanan is silent to a top securing plate spaced apart from the top coolant plate and a bottom securing plate spaced apart from a bottom coolant plate.
However, Kruszelnicki teaches of a battery pack module with cooling coils for cooling a plurality of batteries [abstract, Kruszelnicki], a housing (22) comprising a plurality of slots (36) for housing a plurality of battery cells contains a front side (30, “top coolant plate”) and rear side (32, “bottom coolant plate”) [0043, Kruszelnicki]. The “top coolant plate” and “bottom coolant plate” are engages with a front cover (26, “top securing plate”) and a rear cover (28, “bottom securing plate”) [0043, 0050, fig. 2, Kruszelnicki]. A busbar is disposed between the “top securing plate” and “top coolant plate” as well as between the “bottom securing plate” “bottom coolant plate”. This reads on “a top securing plate spaced from the top coolant plate and a bottom securing plate spaced from the bottom coolant plate”
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Mathivanan such that a top securing plate was spaced apart from the top coolant plate and a bottom securing plate was spaced apart from a bottom coolant plate as this allows for one to cover/shelter exposed electrochemical objects (e.g. battery cells, busbars) [0050, fig. 2, Kruszelnicki].
Regarding claim 14-15, Mathivanan is silent to the battery cell cooling system being configured to be incorporated into an electric or hybrid-electric vehicle.
However, Kruszelnicki teaches of a battery cell cooling system being used in an electric or hybrid-electric vehicle [0078-0079, Kruszelnicki].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Mathivanan such that the battery cell cooling system was configured to be incorporated into an electric or hybrid-electric vehicle as this would allow for one to provide electrical power to a method of transportation and allowing for one to transition away from fossil fuels [0003, 0078-0079, Kruszelnicki].
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathivanan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Xia (CN107834129A).
Regarding claim 17, Mathivanan is silent to the battery cell cooling system of claim 16, wherein each of the plurality of battery cells includes a positive and negative terminal, and each positive and negative terminal extends beyond the housing.
However, Xia teaches of a battery cell cooling system (1), wherein each of the plurality of battery cells (4) includes a positive and negative terminal [0010, Xia], and each positive and negative terminal extends beyond the housing [0010, fig. 1, Xia].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Mathivanan such that the batteries positive and negative terminals extended beyond the housing. As this is a known method for dissipating heat from the middle of the battery [0013, Xia].
Regarding claim 18, Mathivanan discloses the battery cell cooling system of claim 16, wherein the coolant is a dielectric coolant [0033, Mathivanan].
The examiner notes that water and oils are common dielectric liquids as such this reads on the claimed limitation.
Should the applicant disagree with this and in an effort to expedite prosecution, the examiner notes that Xia teaches of using ethylene glycol, water, and oil as coolants [0026, Xia].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Mathivanan such that the coolant was one of ethylene glycol, water, and oil. These are known liquids that may be used as a coolant [0026, Xia].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathivanan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Graban (US20100285346A1).
Regarding claim 20, Mathivanan is silent to the use of prismatic cells.
However, Graban discloses a cooling system with a plurality of slots (60) that are between an inlet (62) and outlet (64) to allow coolant to flow through [0029, fig.3, Graban]. Where the height of each cell is larger than the slot [fig. 3, Graban].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Mathivanan such that they utilized prismatic cells. As they are a common type of battery cell and as such may be used in electric vehicles [0003, 0017-0019, 0033, Graban].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights