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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 and 17-20 be found allowable, the claims will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The examiner notes there are most likely typos in claims 17-20 that mistakenly all depend from claim 1. Other claims in the set recite the same claim language but change the claim they depend from.
Claim 7 line 4 refers to coolant supply and discharge that are “arranged in particular in end regions”. The language could be interpreted to mean that this structure “in particular” is a preferable structure (a broad limitation with a preferable narrow limitation). Removal of --in particular-- would resolve the issue.
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASIAS (US 2015/0270588) in view of MAAG et al. (WO 2020/221856; citations to machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10,
MASIAS teaches a thermal management system that includes a bimetallic strip (adjusting device with passive temperature-dependent adjusting element) that is movable to selectively restrict flow through a duct abstract. The system includes a housing 60 for accommodating multiple cells 64 with cooling ducts 74 (channels) between them (inter-cell) [0041] and shown in fig. 2. The duct is positioned between two different cells (first and second side of a first and second cell).
MASIAS only shows a single duct between each cell and does not expressly teach a plurality of cooling channels between the first and second cooling sides of a first and second cell. However, MAAG teaches a structure for cooling vents in a pressure module that provides several channels between adjacent cells, see Fig. 4. The additional structure helps compensate for swelling abstract. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use the thermal management system of MASIAS but include additional coolant channels between cells to compensate for battery swelling.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 11,
MASIAS teaches using a bimetallic strip which uses temperature dependent change in length to bend, see Fig. 5.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 13,
MASIAS teaches the bimetallic member 76 can close off a duct [0045] and is therefore considered a “flap”. The coolant channels themselves (including the bimetallic member) are a flow guide for coolant.
Regarding claims 5 and 14-16,
MASIAS teaches the position of the bimetallic member changes the dimensions of the duct [0045] and can close off ducts or partly restrict flow, see Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 6,
MASIAS teaches restricting and blocking coolant ducts to allow for coolant to arrive at hotter areas of the cell without being over-heated first. The coolant is therefore passively directed to hot areas of the cell faster and arrives cooler.
Regarding claim 7,
MASIAS teaches the coolant inlet and outlet are on opposite end regions of the overall housing in Fig. 2. The coolant supply connection for the channels between cells as shown in MAAG also includes an inlet and outlet for coolant on opposite sides of the pressure structure, Fig. 4.
Regarding claims 8 and 17-20,
The combination of MASIAS teaches a housing with a plurality of cells. MAAG is incorporated to teach the pressure structure with a plurality of coolant vents between the cells. Accordingly, the pressure structure and plurality of coolant vents is combined to be included between each of the cells in MASIAS. The overall coolant is still provided by the coolant inlet and outlet of the overall housing in MASIAS (coolant supply and discharge lines).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights