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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the foam generator is either segregated hydroflouroether or methoxy-nonafluorobutane” in line 1. In depending from claim 1, which does not require a “foam generator” either explicitly or implicitly (i.e., just that the coolant must be “configured to be at least partially converted … into an extinguishing foam”), there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the foam generator”, and it is unclear if “the foam generator” is intended to introduce and further limit an agent in claim 1’s “coolant” or to further limit claim 3’s “foam generator” even though claim 4 does not depend from claim 3.
The specification’s p. 2, lines 22–25, describes that the coolant can comprise a cooling liquid and a foam generator, where the foam generator may be segregated hydroflouroether or methoxy-nonafluorobutane. Thus, for this Office Action claim 4 will be treated as depending from claim 3 such that “the foam generator is either segregated hydroflouroether or methoxy-nonafluorobutane” further limits claim 3’s “foam generator”.
Claim 9 recites “the protrusions have a cylindrical shape” in lines 1 and 2. As parent claim 8 recites “a first plurality of protrusions” as well as “a second plurality of protrusions”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the protrusions” because it is unclear which “protrusions” claim 9 references.
The spec.’s p. 4, lines 15 and 16, notes that the protrusions can have a circular cylindrical shape, though it is also unclear from the spec. whether such references both pluralities of protrusions. Further, such is merely one embodiment and, thus, non-specific to either plurality of protrusions recited. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claim 9 will be interpreted to require that “at least one protrusion of the first or second plurality of the protrusions [[have]] has a cylindrical shape”, which appears consistent in light of p. 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ragot et al. (WO 2021213645 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ragot discloses a traction battery for a vehicle (battery for EV, Abstract), said traction battery comprising (per fig. 3) a plurality of battery cells (cells 11, fig. 3); and a cooling unit (cooling system 14) comprising a fluid coolant (p. 6, line 30) and a cooling channel (conduit 12), wherein the coolant is disposed in the cooling channel and is configured to flow around the battery cells in the cooling channel and to absorb heat (implied by, e.g., fig. 3 and, p. 5, lines 6–9; note also coolant’s heat-absorbing ability on p. 6, line 30), wherein the coolant is configured to be at least partially converted by a triggering event into an extinguishing foam (see releasing coolant and foaming substance— where foaming substance may be within coolant fluid (p. 3, lines 26–28)—upon surpassing temperature threshold indicating thermal runaway, e.g., p. 13, lines 7–13).
Regarding claim 3, Ragot discloses the traction battery according to claim 1, wherein the coolant comprises a cooling liquid (e.g., water and antifreeze mixture, p. 6, lines 30–32) and a foam generator (foaming substance, e.g., p. 3, lines 26–28), the foam generator being configured to trigger the at least partial conversion of the coolant into the extinguishing foam (necessarily given such is the foaming substance’s purpose, as seen in, e.g., p. 3, lines 1–3).
Regarding claim 11, Ragot discloses a motor vehicle comprising an electric drive system and the traction battery according to claim 1 (see connecting cooling system/battery to vehicle, p. 5, lines 6–11, where the vehicle is electrically powered and, thus, would have an electric drive system), wherein the traction battery is configured to supply electrical energy to the electric drive system (necessarily as power source, as in, e.g., p. 1, lines 20 and 21).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragot et al. (WO 2021213645 A1), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ragot discloses the traction battery according to claim 1.
Ragot, as noted above, discloses that the triggering event may be temperature-based, such as when the battery casing’s temperature exceeds a threshold (p. 13, lines 9–13). More broadly, Ragot discloses that the means for detecting thermal runaway may include several temperature sensors for monitoring the energy storage system’s temperature(s) (p. 7, lines 4–6), such as the sensor that can sense when the casing’s temperature threshold is exceeded (p. 13, lines 12 and 13). Further, Ragot recognizes that the coolant should exhibit a high heat-transfer coefficient to efficiently transport heat to and from the batteries (p. 6, lines 30–32). The skilled artisan, then, would readily envision monitoring the coolant’s temperature via one of the temperature sensors to ensure that heat is efficiently being transferred to and from the batteries.
Although Ragot may fail to explicitly disclose that the triggering event is an exceeding of a threshold temperature of the coolant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Ragot’s thermal-runaway-detecting means’s triggering event to be based on the coolant’s temperature’s exceeding a threshold with the reasonable expectation of successfully controlling the coolant’s temperature to ensure efficient thermal transfer while ensuring successful thermal-runaway detection and response via the foam former’s release.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragot et al. (WO 2021213645 A1), as applied to claim 3, in view of Harris et al. (US 6472444 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Ragot discloses the traction battery according to claim 3 (see 112(b) above).
Ragot discloses that the foam-forming substance may be a surfactant such as alkyl sulfates or quaternary ammonium salts (p. 6, lines 26–28), though Ragot fails to disclose that the foam generator is either segregated hydrofluoroether or methoxy-nonafluorobutane.
Harris teaches a foaming formulation (Abstract) suitable for fire resistance (col. 1, lines 8–10). Harris teaches that the formulation contains a hydrofluoroether of preferably 1-methoxy-nonafluorobutane because such is an effective surfactant in foam formation (col. 1, lines 35–37, 50, and 51, and col. 2, lines 35 and 36).
As Ragot exemplifies surfactant foam formers while Harris recognizes HFEs such as methoxy-nonafluorobutane as a suitable surfactant for foam formation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt Harris’s methoxy-nonafluorobutane as Ragot’s foam generator with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful foam formation.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragot et al. (WO 2021213645 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Gulobkov (EP 3333932 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ragot discloses the traction battery according to claim 1, wherein the cooling unit comprises a valve connecting the cooling system 14 to the conduit 12 and controlling input and output of the coolant—and, thus, the foam former (three-way valve 16/17 in fig. 3; see also, e.g., p. 12, lines 1–8).
Ragot discloses that the foam former may be pressurized (e.g., p. 4, line 20), further disclosing that, in a separate embodiment than above (fig. 4), the foam former may exist within pressure vessel 26 including pressure valve 27, where the valve may be opened to release the foam former into the casing (see also p. 14, lines 23–29). The skilled artisan would recognize that opening the pressure valve to release the pressurized foam former—and, thus, at least partially convert the coolant to foam—would necessarily lower pressure within the valve, though Ragot fails to explicitly disclose that the valve is configured to enable an emergence of the extinguishing foam from the cooling channel if a pressure threshold is exceeded within the cooling channel, by the at least partial conversion of the coolant into the extinguishing foam.
Gulobkov teaches an analogous battery extinguishing system (Abstract, ¶ 0011, figs.) including a pressurized reservoir holding an extinguishing agent, as well as a conduit to deliver the agent (¶ 0012, 0014). Gulobkov teaches that a pressure sensor may be used to fill the conduit with the extinguishing agent, where a sensor-actuated valve may be arranged between the pressurized gas container and the conduit (¶ 0014).
As Ragot recognizes the ability to control a valve to adjust the delivery of pressurized foam former, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install a pressure sensor to actuate Ragot’s valve to release the pressurized foam former as part of the coolant at a desired pressure threshold with the reasonable expectation of enabling successful pressure monitoring and controlled delivery of the foam former, as suggested by Gulobkov.
Thus, modified Ragot would render obvious that the valve is configured to enable an emergence of the extinguishing foam from the cooling channel if a pressure threshold is exceeded within the cooling channel, by the at least partial conversion of the coolant into the extinguishing foam (i.e., the valve would be able to be actuated by Gulobkov’s pressure sensor depending on the desired pressure threshold and, thus, configured to enable an emergence of the extinguishing foam from the cooling channel (i.e., through the valve and circulating around the cells in Ragot’s fig. 3) if a pressure threshold is exceeded within the cooling channel, by the at least partial conversion of the coolant into the extinguishing foam (i.e., as the foam is released alongside the coolant, as in Ragot’s p. 3, lines 1–3).
Regarding claim 10, Ragot discloses the traction battery according to claim 1.
As seen in figs. 1 and 3, Ragot appears to exemplify rectangular cells, yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to such, Ragot fails to disclose that the battery cells have a cylindrical shape.
Gulobkov teaches an analogous battery extinguishing system (Abstract, ¶ 0011, figs.) including a pressurized reservoir holding an extinguishing agent, as well as a conduit to deliver the agent (¶ 0012, 0014). Gulobkov teaches that the shape of the cell may be rectangular or cylindrical depending on the battery’s intended purpose (¶ 0003).
As Gulobkov recognizes prismatic and cylindrical shapes as equivalent cell shapes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Ragot’s rectangular cells for cylindrical cells with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful batteries, as suggested by Gulobkov.
Claim(s) 6–8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragot et al. (WO 2021213645 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Nikaido (WO 2023047741 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20240186612 A1).
Regarding claims 6–8, Ragot discloses the traction battery according to claim 1, wherein the wherein the battery cells are arranged in multiple groups, wherein the battery cells of each of the groups are arranged around a center of the respective group (see annot. fig. 3 below). Further, Ragot appears to exemplify prismatic cells (fig. 1, 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, in appearing unconcerned with the specific structure of the cells and cooling channel, Ragot fails to explicitly disclose that the cooling channel comprises a plurality of protrusions projecting into the centers of the respective groups (claim 6), wherein the protrusions abut the battery cells (claim 7), wherein the cooling unit comprises a first element and a second element, wherein the first element and the second element each comprise regions of the cooling channel, wherein the first element abuts a first side of the battery cells with a first abutment surface and comprises a first coolant inlet and a first coolant outlet, wherein the second element abuts a second abutment surface on a second side of the battery cells and comprises a second coolant inlet and a second coolant outlet, wherein the first element comprises a first plurality of protrusions, wherein the second element comprises a second plurality of protrusions, wherein each of the first plurality of protrusions extends into the center of one of the groups from the first abutment surface, and wherein each of the second plurality of protrusions extends into the center of one of the groups from the second abutment surface (claim 8).
Initially, Nikaido teaches an analogous battery cooling system for cylindrical cells (e.g., Abstract, figs.) Nikaido teaches that the shape of the cell may be many different shapes, including laminate type, square type, or cylindrical (¶ 0244).
As Nikaido recognizes square/prismatic and cylindrical shapes as equivalent cell shapes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Ragot’s prismatic cells for cylindrical cells with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful batteries, as suggested by Nikaido.
Turning to the cooling unit’s structure, then, Nikaido teaches an analogous battery cooling system for cylindrical cells (e.g., Abstract, figs.). Per fig. 2, the module includes upper and lower cell holders 240 abutting the cells and including respective upper and lower partition plates 222/221 protruding from the holders. Per annot. fig. 3 below, the cells may be thought of as groups of four, where the protruding partitions extend into the center of the groups. Moreover, as further seen below, a heat-absorption agent 230 such as water is housed within the partition (see also ¶ 0084 and 0166), and, as seen in figs. 3 and 5, heat-conducting sheet 2212 is within the partition. Nikaido teaches that this structure prevents thermal runaway, damage to the battery pack, and injury to the user by suppressing excessive exothermic reactions in the battery pack (¶ 0166).
PNG
media_image2.png
380
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure modified Ragot’s cooling system and channel to include Nikaido’s cell groups contained in holders and divided by protruding partitions abutting the cells, with Ragot’s cooling conduit running through the partitions, with the reasonable expectation of preventing thermal runaway, damage to the battery pack, and injury to the user by suppressing excessive exothermic reactions in the battery pack, as taught by Nikaido.
Thus, modified Ragot would disclose or render obvious that the cooling channel comprises a plurality of protrusions projecting into the centers of the respective groups (Nikaido’s protruding partitions), wherein the protrusions abut the battery cells (as in Nikaido’s fig. 2), wherein the cooling unit comprises a first element and a second element (Nikaido’s upper and lower cell holders), wherein the first element and the second element each comprise regions of the cooling channel (upper and lower regions given Ragot’s coolant would flow through the holders, akin to Nikaido’s heat-absorption agent within the partitions and, thus, holders), wherein the first element abuts a first side of the battery cells with a first abutment surface (i.e., abuts top side from above, implied at least by top side of wall of upper holder 240 in Nikaido’s fig. 2), wherein the second element abuts a second abutment surface on a second side of the battery cells (i.e., abuts bottom side from below, implied at least by bottom side of wall of lower holder 240 in Nikaido’s fig. 2), wherein the first element comprises a first plurality of protrusions (as noted in Nikaido’s annot. fig. 2 above given plurality of partitions protrude from each cell holder 240 and, thus, could arbitrarily be first and second plurality of protrusions), wherein the second element comprises a second plurality of protrusions (as noted in Nikaido’s annot. fig. 2 above for same reason), wherein each of the first plurality of protrusions extends into the center of one of the groups from the first abutment surface, and wherein each of the second plurality of protrusions extends into the center of one of the groups from the second abutment surface (again, by arbitrary selection of partitions/protrusions extending into respective centers of groups, per Nikaido’s annot. fig. 2).
Moreover, regarding the limitation the first element comprises a first coolant inlet and a first coolant outlet, and the second element comprises a second coolant inlet and a second coolant outlet, the skilled artisan would recognize that, upon adopting Nikaido’s structure as the cooling unit, the coolant must necessarily be routed in and out from some source, as seen in Ragot’s fig. 3, where the coolant line includes three-way valves 16 and 17. Although not explicitly recognized as inlet-outlet valves (i.e., one is recognized as inlet and the other as outlet in Ragot’s p. 12, lines 1 and 2), Ragot allows the valve arrangement to include two or more inlet and outlet valves to ensure that the coolant may circulate within the energy storage system after initial foam production and efficiently remove generated heat (p. 6, lines 5–8). Similarly, Nikaido teaches an open port in housing cup 2211—i.e., part of the first/second element (fig. 2, 5)—to release the heat absorbing agent, i.e., coolant, to the outside (¶ 0206, not shown).
Although modified Ragot fails to explicitly disclose that the first element comprises a first coolant inlet and a first coolant outlet, and the second element comprises a second coolant inlet and a second coolant outlet, it would have been obvious to incorporate at least one inlet and outlet valve or port into each of modified Ragot’s cooling unit’s “first” and “second elements” as first/second inlets and outlets with the reasonable expectation of successfully circulating the coolant within the energy storage system after initial foam production and efficiently remove generated heat, as suggested by Ragot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The present invention relates to, inter alia, a traction battery comprising battery cells as well as a cooling unit comprising a fluid coolant and a cooling channel, the coolant configured to partially convert to an extinguishing foam, wherein the cells are arranged in multiple groups, wherein the cells of each of the groups are arranged around a center of the respective group, wherein the cooling channel comprises a plurality of protrusions projecting into the centers of the respective groups, wherein
the cooling unit comprises a first element and a second element, wherein the first element and the second element each comprise regions of the cooling channel, wherein the first element abuts a first side of the battery cells with a first abutment surface and comprises a first coolant inlet and a first coolant outlet, wherein the second element abuts a second abutment surface on a second side of the battery cells and comprises a second coolant inlet and a second coolant outlet, wherein the first element comprises a first plurality of protrusions, wherein the second element comprises a second plurality of protrusions, wherein each of the first plurality of protrusions extends into the center of one of the groups from the first abutment surface, and wherein each of the second plurality of protrusions extends into the center of one of the groups from the second abutment surface, wherein
(claim 9) at least one protrusion of the first or second plurality of the protrusions [[have]] has a cylindrical shape.
Ragot et al. (WO 2021213645 A1) in view of Nikaido (WO 2023047741 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20240186612 A1), in disclosing most of the limitations as set forth above, is considered the closest relevant prior art to claim 9
However, modified Ragot fails to disclose or suggest that the protrusions have a cylindrical shape.
As detailed above, Nikaido was used to teach the structure of the cooling unit, including the recited first and second elements each with protrusions extending into the center of one of the groups of cells. However, as seen in Nikaido’s fig. 5 and ¶ 0056, Nikaido clearly only ever envisions the protrusions as wave shapes to define the cup body specifically designed to support the cylindrical cells. Thus, in context with the recited first and second elements with the first and second abutment surfaces, it would seemingly require one skilled in the art to substantially redesign Nikaido’s protrusions, unprompted by Nikaido, Ragot, or any other prior art of record and with no reasonable expectation of success such that this change of shape is considered nonobvious.
Cylindrical protrusions between cylindrical cells are known. For example, Sugeno et al. (US 20160149177 A1) disclose hollow, cylindrical portions 70/80 extending from top and bottom casings between groups of cylindrical cells (fig. 15). However, such are for support and assembly (e.g., ¶ 0124, 0127) rather than cooling or heat exchange, and, thus, there appears to be no reason for the skilled artisan to adopt such cylindrical protrusions within Ragot/Nikaido’s cooling unit.
Likewise, cylindrical protrusions are known in battery cooling. For instance, Stone et al. (US 20160301148 A1) disclose interconnects 200 each mechanically and electrically connecting two cylindrical cells (fig. 6, ¶ 0008). Further, each interconnect includes protrusions 211 that may cool the cells (¶ 0030), and the protrusions extend from top cover 601 and bottom cover 602 as surfaces abutting the cells (e.g., fig. 9). However, as seen in, e.g., fig. 9, the protrusions are only ever envisioned to face away from the cells (i.e., atop the base of the interconnect to be able to mechanically and electrically couple the battery terminals) such that there would be no means for the skilled artisan to configure either set of protrusions to extend into the center of one of the cell groups, as parent claim 8 requires.
In contrast, Applicant’s cooling unit, specifically including the cylindrical protrusions, achieves particularly good heat removal and allows the traction battery to be produced easily (spec., p. 4, lines 9–11). The prior art of record could not have predicted such effects from the recited configuration.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2023086325 A1, US 20220328893 A1, US 20220123383 A1, US 20190168038 A1, US 20170256831 A1, and US 20120171529 A1 all disclose battery cooling units including foaming or extinguishing agents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights