DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “The prismatic cell housing of claim 13” includes a drafting error. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “The prismatic cell of claim 13” . Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “The prismatic cell housing of claim 14” includes a drafting error. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “The prismatic cell of claim 14” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
4(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.
5. Claims 1 and 2-15 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.
6. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cooling channels" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the one or more cooling channels" as there is antecedent basis.
7. Claim 2-15 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
8. Claim 5 recites the limitations "the walls at a first end" in line 2 and “the walls at a second end” in lines 2-3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitations have been interpreted as "walls at a first end" and “walls at a second end”.
9. Claims 19 and 20 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.
10. Claim 19 recites the limitation "The vehicle" in line 1, and “the vehicle” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "The electric vehicle" in line 1, and “the electric vehicle” as there is antecedent basis.
11. Claim 20 recites the limitation "The vehicle" in line 1, and “the vehicle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "The electric vehicle" in line 1, and “the electric vehicle” as there is antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
(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.
13. Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franke (US2024/0063471).
Regarding claim 1, Franke discloses a prismatic cell (energy storage cells 3, Fig. 1, [0006]) having a cell housing, comprising: an inner shell (cell housing 4, Fig. 1, [0018]), comprising: a first side wall and a second side wall spaced from the first side wall (see cell housing sidewalls 6 in Fig. A as annotated Fig. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
536
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A.
Continuing with claim 1, Franke discloses an upper wall coupled to the first side wall and the second side wall(see cell housing cover 7 in Fig. A), a lower wall coupled to the first side wall and the second side wall(see cell housing base 5 in Fig. A), and an inner side and an outer side opposite the inner side(Fig. A); an outer shell coupled to the outer side of the inner shell( see storage enclosure 12 in Fig. A); one or more cavities between the inner shell and the outer shell(see cooling device 15, openings 19, and intermediate space 17 in Fig. A); and
one or more cooling channels arranged in the one or more cavities and coupled to the outer side of the inner shell(see cooling device 15 with intermediate space 17 in Fig. A, [0019]); and
wherein the one or more cavities comprises at least one first fluid conduit on a first side of the one or more cooling channels (intermediate space 17 for the passage of a flowing coolant [0019]) and at least one second fluid conduit on a second side of the one or more cooling channels (openings 19 which form a venting channel [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Franke discloses the electrical energy store can be, for example, a rechargeable traction battery which can be designed as a high-voltage energy store ([0006]) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more electrodes and an electrolyte arranged within the inner shell. However, all rechargeable batteries have electrodes and an electrolyte because these components are essential for their electrochemical operation. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 7, Franke discloses at least a portion of the outer side of the inner shell comprises a mechanically abraded, rough, textured, or chemically modified surface(electrical insulation layer 22, Fig. 1, [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Franke discloses the first fluid conduit is configured for a first fluid ([0019]) and the second fluid conduit is configured for a second fluid different than the first fluid([0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Franke discloses the outer shell is a composite material([0018]).
Regarding claim 18, Franke discloses an electric vehicle([0013]), comprising: a vehicle body extending in a cross-car direction and a fore-aft direction([0013]); an electric motor ([0013]); a battery pack connected to the electric motor(electrical energy store 1, Fig. 1, [0013], [0018]); and one or more prismatic cells disposed inside of the battery pack(energy storage cells 3, Fig. 1, [0006], [0018]), the one or more prismatic cells comprising: an inner shell(cell housing 4, Fig. 1, [0018]), comprising: a first side wall and a second side wall spaced from the first side wall(see cell housing sidewalls 6 in Fig. A as annotated Fig. 1), an upper wall coupled to the first side wall and the second side wall(see cell housing cover 7 in Fig. A), a lower wall coupled to the first side wall and the second side wall(see cell housing base 5 in Fig. A), and an inner side and an outer side opposite the inner side(Fig. A); an outer shell coupled to the outer side of the inner shell ( see storage enclosure 12 in Fig. A); one or more cavities between the inner shell and the outer shell(see cooling device 15, openings 19, and intermediate space 17 in Fig. A); and
one or more cooling channels arranged in the one or more cavities and coupled to the outer side of the inner shell(see cooling device 15 with intermediate space 17 in Fig. A, [0019]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US2024/0063471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aronov et al. (US 2025/0260069).
Regarding claim 3, Franke does not explicitly disclose the inner shell further comprises a lining coupled to the inner side.
Aronov teaches lithium-ion cell having rigid structure with pressure (title). Aronov teaches the effectiveness of polymers in mitigating thermal propagation depends on several factors, including: location, one direction separation-placing the polymer layer directly between the bag and electrodes ([0070], [0073]). Aronov teaches cell-to-cell separation—the polymer can be incorporated as a lining along the inner walls of the cell housing ([0073]). Aronov teaches the polymer should have minimal ability to conduct heat, effectively acting as a barrier between a runaway cell and its neighbors and common examples include polyolefins (PE, PP), polystyrenes (PS), and fluoropolymers (PTFE)([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inner shell of Franke with the inner shell further comprises a lining coupled to the inner side as taught by Aronov in order to mitigate thermal propagation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Franke discloses the lining is made of a fluoropolymer material(Aronov [0075]).
17. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US2024/0063471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mummigatti et al. (US 2020/0036067).
Regarding claim 5, Franke does not explicitly disclose the inner shell further comprises a first closure coupled to walls at a first end of the cell housing and a second closure coupled to walls at a second end of the cell housing.
Mummigatti teaches a battery assembly having one or more battery modules with housings configured to improve battery cell cooling([0001]). Mummigatti teaches one or more closures 50 may be applied around at least one of the first end 48A and the second end 48B of the battery housing module 22 to at least partially enclose and create a seal for a fluid interchange system 52, in the housing 22 created between the one or more channels 42, the at least one inlet portion 44 and the at least one outlet portion 46([0052], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inner shell of Franke with a first closure coupled to walls at a first end of the cell housing and a second closure coupled to walls at a second end of the cell housing as taught by Mummigatti in order to create a seal.
18. Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US2024/0063471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerlinger et al. (US 2025/0233225).
Regarding claim 6, Franke does not explicitly disclose the inner shell is made of a material consisting of an aluminum alloy material or a steel material.
Gerlinger teaches battery cell housing for forming a battery cell for an energy storage device of a motor vehicle, battery cell for an energy storage device of a motor vehicle, energy storage device for a motor vehicle and motor vehicle (title). Gerlinger teaches the battery cell housing can be made of a metal, such as aluminum([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the inner shell of Franke with the inner shell is made of a material consisting of an aluminum alloy material as taught by Gerlinger 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 8, Franke does not explicitly disclose the one or more cooling channels are configured to flex in a direction perpendicular to the first and second side walls.
Gerlinger teaches battery cell housing for forming a battery cell for an energy storage device of a motor vehicle, battery cell for an energy storage device of a motor vehicle, energy storage device for a motor vehicle and motor vehicle (title). Gerlinger teaches the one or more cooling channels (7, Fig. 5, [0040]) are configured to flex in a direction perpendicular to the first and second side walls(housing walls 19, Figs. 2 & 5, [0048]). Gerlinger teaches the deformation of the housing walls 19, 20 takes place plastically or elastically, so that the receiving chamber 18 and the affected cooling chambers 7 only experience a change in their shape, but their structural integrity is maintained([0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the prismatic cell of Franke with the one or more cooling channels are configured to flex in a direction perpendicular to the first and second side walls as taught by Gerlinger in order to maintain their structural integrity.
19. Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US2024/0063471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2025/0316802).
Regarding claim 11, Franke does not explicitly disclose the outer shell further comprises one or more terminals.
Lee teaches an all-solid-state battery, and more particularly, to an all-solid-state battery that accommodates a cell stack in an outer case by applying an inner case([0001]). Lee teaches the outer shell (40, Fig. 3) further comprises one or more terminals(52, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify outer shell of Franke with the outer shell further comprises one or more terminals as taught by Lee as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12, modified Franke discloses the outer shell further comprises one or more vents(Franke, 18, Fig. 1, [0020]).
20. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US2024/0063471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2025/0149693).
Regarding claim 13, Franke does not explicitly disclose further comprising a first end cap coupled to the upper wall and a second end cap coupled to the lower wall.
Choi teaches a secondary battery and a battery pack including the same([0002]). Choi teaches further comprising a first end cap (30, left side of Fig. 3) coupled to the upper wall (43, left side of Fig. 3) and a second end cap (30, right side of Fig. 3) coupled to the lower wall(43, right side of Fig. 3). Choi teaches the structural stability of the secondary battery may be improved by the coupling relationship and the arrangement form of the connection part and the cover part, and the problem in which of venting to the cap portion in the event of the explosive increase in internal pressure or flame eruption([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prismatic cell of Franke with further comprising a first end cap coupled to the upper wall and a second end cap coupled to the lower wall as taught by Choi in order to improve the structural stability of the secondary battery.
21. Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US2024/0063471) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2025/0149693) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Mummigatti et al. (US 2020/0036067).
Regarding claim 14, modified Franke does not explicitly disclose further comprising a third end cap coupled to a front end and a fourth end cap coupled to a rear end.
Mummigatti teaches a battery assembly having one or more battery modules with housings configured to improve battery cell cooling([0001]). Mummigatti teaches the battery module housing includes at least one wall defining an outer periphery and an opposing inner periphery(abstract). Mummigatti teaches a fluid interchange system includes one or more channels formed in and extending at least partially through the at least one wall, at least one inlet portion defined in and extending at least partially through the at least one wall, and at least one outlet portion defined in and extending at least partially through the at least one wall(abstract). Mummigatti teaches a coolant is introduced to the fluid interchange system through the at least one inlet portion, circulated through the one or more channels and exits the fluid interchange system through the at least one outlet portion to cool the plurality of battery cells in the battery module housing(abstract). Mummigatti teaches further comprising a third end cap (24C, Figs. 4 & 8) coupled to a front end and a fourth end cap (24D, Fig. 8) coupled to a rear end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prismatic cell of modified Franke with further comprising a third end cap coupled to a front end and a fourth end cap coupled to a rear end as taught by Mummigatti in order to improve battery cell cooling.
Regarding claim 15, modified Franke discloses the third end cap comprises a fluid inlet (Mummigatti, 44A, Fig. 8) and one or more fluid outlets (Mummigatti, 46A, Fig. 8) and the fourth end cap comprises a fluid outlet (Mummigatti, 46B, Fig. 8) and one or more fluid inlets(Mummigatti, 44B, Fig. 8).
22. Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US2024/0063471) in view of Gerlinger et al. (US 2025/0233225).
Regarding claim 16, Franke discloses a prismatic cell, (energy storage cells 3, Fig. 1, [0006]) comprising: an inner shell (cell housing 4, Fig. 1, [0018]); an outer shell encapsulating the inner shell ( storage enclosure 12, Fig. 1); one or more cavities arranged between the inner shell and the outer shell shell(cooling device 15, openings 19, and intermediate space 17, in Fig. 1); and one or more cooling channels arranged in the one or more cavities and coupled the inner shell (see cooling device 15 with intermediate space 17 in Fig. 1, [0019]); but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more cooling channels are configured to flex between the inner shell and the outer shell.
Gerlinger teaches battery cell housing for forming a battery cell for an energy storage device of a motor vehicle, battery cell for an energy storage device of a motor vehicle, energy storage device for a motor vehicle and motor vehicle (title). Gerlinger teaches the one or more cooling channels (7, Fig. 5, [0040]) are configured to flex in a direction perpendicular to the first and second side walls(housing walls 19, Figs. 2 & 5, [0048]). Gerlinger teaches the deformation of the housing walls 19, 20 takes place plastically or elastically, so that the receiving chamber 18 and the affected cooling chambers 7 only experience a change in their shape, but their structural integrity is maintained([0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the prismatic cell of Franke with the one or more cooling channels are configured to flex between the inner shell and the outer shell as taught by Gerlinger in order to maintain their structural integrity.
Regarding claim 17, modified Franke discloses the one or more cooling channels define a first fluid conduit (Franke, intermediate space 17 for the passage of a flowing coolant [0019]) and a second fluid conduit within the one or more cavities (Franke, openings 19 which form a venting channel [0020]).
23. Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US2024/0063471) as applied to claim 18.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Franke does not explicitly disclose the one or more prismatic cells extend about half of a width of the electric vehicle with respect to the cross-car direction or about half of a length of the electric vehicle with respect to the fore-aft direction (claim 19) and the one or more prismatic cells extend about a width of the electric vehicle with respect to the cross-car direction or about a length of the electric vehicle with respect to the fore-aft direction(claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electric vehicle of Franke with the one or more prismatic cells extend about half of a width of the electric vehicle with respect to the cross-car direction or about half of a length of the electric vehicle with respect to the fore-aft direction and the one or more prismatic cells extend about a width of the electric vehicle with respect to the cross-car direction or about a length of the electric vehicle with respect to the fore-aft direction in order to balance energy density with safety, cooling, manufacturability, and structural integration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights