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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to a battery system, classified in H01M 50/242.
II. Claim 14, drawn to a cooler, classified in H01M 10/613.
III. Claim 15, drawn to a method of monitoring, classified in H01M 2200/20.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the cooler requires two metal sheets in the subcombination. The subcombination has separate utility such as a cooler for a fuel cell system.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions I or II and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, such as intermittently checking the pressure in the system to detect damage to the system, whereas the claimed method requires continuous monitoring.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The different statutory classes of invention require different interpretations and therefore separate searches. Prior art applicable to one group may not be applicable to another group and therefore a serious burden exists for the groups to be examined together.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Kyle Keller on August 11th 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Rawlinson (US Pub 2015/0171486 cited in IDS).
In regard to independent claim 1, Rawlinson teach a battery system comprising: a battery pack 101 comprising a housing (pack enclosure panels 201, 1203, 1507 etc.) and a plurality of battery cells (cylindrical cells 205) accommodated within the housing; an underbody protection structure (shield 1401, bottom enclosure 203); a cooler (system 300, including conduits 207, radiator 301 etc.) thermally connected to the battery cell and connected to the underbody protection structure, the cooler (including conduits 1301, 1501, 1601) being arranged between the battery cells 205 and the underbody protection structure 1401, the cooler comprising a cooling channel (conduits 1301) and a pressure detection channel (deformation zone – paragraph [0038]) separated from the cooling channel, both the cooling channel and the pressure detection channel being arranged inside the cooler; and a pressure detection device (sensors 1509, 1511, 1513, 1603, 1809) comprising a pressure sensor connected to the pressure detection channel and configured to detect an underbody contact or impact event by monitoring a pressure in the pressure detection channel (paragraphs [0031-0051], figures 1-18, figure 14 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pressure detection channel is filled with a fluid (paragraph [0032]).
In regard to claim 3, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the fluid is a gaseous medium (paragraph [0032] – various coolants within passages, no vacuum is described therefore air is presumed present).
In regard to claim 4, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cooler comprises two metal sheets (enclosure components 201, 203, shield 1401) connected to each other, and wherein the cooling channel and the pressure detection channel are arranged between the two metal sheets (paragraph [0041-42] – housing components formed of metal, also noted, the chassis 103 of the vehicle may be formed from metal, which the cooler is inserted within, figure 1).
In regard to claim 5, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the cooling channel and/or the pressure detection channel are formed in at least one of the two metal sheets 1401 (figure 1, figure 14 above).
In regard to claim 6, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cooling channel 1601 is as a meandering cooling channel having at least one loop, and wherein the pressure detection channel (manifold including sensors 1603) extends between the loop of the meandering cooling channel (figure 16, paragraph [0045]).
In regard to claim 7, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the underbody protection structure comprises a support element (shield 1401 and stand offs 703) configured to distribute a force of an underbody contact or impact event into the support element via the cooler (figure 16, paragraph [0042]).
In regard to claim 8, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the support element comprises a cross beam (standoff 703, figure 16, paragraph [0035]).
In regard to claim 9, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the support element is configured to distribute the force into an area of the cooler where the pressure detection channel is arranged (figure 16, paragraph [0035-0042]). In any event, limitations related to an intended function of the support elements or shield do not distinguish the claims from the prior art (see MPEP 2114 – Functional Language).
In regard to claim 10, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the underbody protection structure comprises protrusions (stand offs 703) on a side of the underbody protective structure facing away from the battery pack (figure 16, paragraph [0035]).
In regard to claims 11 and 12, Rawlinson teach the battery system as claimed in claim 1 and the Examiner notes that the added limitation of claim 11 and 12 (a roll-bonding process or a high-pressure forming process) are drawn to products by process. Per MPEP 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, the product set forth in product-by-process claims is/are the same as that set forth by the prior art above.
In regard to claim 13, Rawlinson teach an electric vehicle comprising the battery system as claimed in claim 1 (figure 1, paragraph [0002-0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Damon et al. (US Pub 2014/0134469 newly cited) teaches a similar battery cooler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights