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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee et al. (12,283,673) in view of Stephens et al. (10,483,510). In regard to claim 1, Rhee discloses a traction battery pack comprising a battery cell stack (Figs. 2 and 4, item 1200), a structural thermal barrier assembly arranged to partition the battery cell stack into at least a first compartment and a second compartment (Figs. 2 and 4, item 1300), and a thermal barrier fin of the structural thermal barrier assembly arranged to structurally couple an upper enclosure structure and a lower enclosure structure of the traction battery pack (1310).
In regard to claim 2, Rhee discloses wherein the upper enclosure structure is part of an enclosure cover of the traction battery pack, and the lower enclosure structure is part of a heat exchanger plate of the traction battery pack (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 3, Rhee discloses wherein the thermal barrier fin includes a T-shaped cross-section (Fig. 7, items 1310 and 1420a).
In regard to claim 7, Rhee discloses wherein the thermal barrier fin includes an upper interfacing structure configured to interface with the upper enclosure structure (Figs. 4 and 7, upper portion of item 1310).
In regard to claim 9, Rhee discloses wherein the thermal barrier fin includes a lower interfacing structure configured to interface with the lower enclosure structure, and comprising a thermal interface material disposed between the lower interfacing structure and the lower enclosure structure (Figs. 4 and 7, lower portion of item 1310 and item 1410).
Rhee does not disclose the use of pultrusion for forming the barrier. In regard to claim 1, Stephens discloses a traction battery pack comprising a barrier fin formed by pultrusion (column 7, lines 42 – 45).
The addition of these features would result in a predictable variation that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, which has been held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BAPI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Rhee in view of Stephens does not disclose the use of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene with an intumescent additive. In regard to claims 4 – 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make use of a glass fiber reinforced polypropylene with an intumescent additive, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 6, 8, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Rhee et al. (12,283,673) discloses a traction battery pack similar to the instant invention; however Rhee, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor suggests a traction battery pack wherein (in regard to claim 6) the thermal barrier fin is flanked by aerogel layers and foam layers to establish a multi-layer sandwich structure of the structural thermal barrier assembly, (in regard to claims 8 and 11) wherein the upper interfacing structure includes a basin configured to receive an adhesive, and (in regard to claim 10) wherein the lower interfacing structure includes a notched section configured for accommodating a contour of the lower enclosure structure. These limitations, in combination with each and every other independent claim limitation, are not shown in the currently cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Piggott (11,670,813) discloses an electrically insulative and thermally conductive parallel battery cooling system;
Pinon (2018/02212289) discloses a graphene enhanced cooling fin;
Nicholls (2018/0323413) discloses an apparatus for proving a barrier between battery modules;
Oh et al. (2023/0318082) disclose a battery pack and vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at 303.297.4337. 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
