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.
The term “near” in Claims 1, 11, and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claimed location of the circuit board in relation to the battery cell assembly is therefore rendered indefinite by the use of the aforementioned term.
The term “at least partially” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least partially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claimed fixation of the temperature sensor by the thermally conductive element to the battery cell surface is therefore rendered indefinite by the use of the aforementioned term.
The term “close to” in Claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claimed positioning of the one or more through holes in relation to the circumferential side surface is therefore rendered indefinite by the use of the aforementioned term.
The term “close to” in Claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claimed positioning of the one or more through holes in relation to the end surface is therefore rendered indefinite by the use of the aforementioned term.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (KR 20230036606 A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Yoon teaches a battery pack with a housing and one or more battery cells, a printed circuit board provided on one side of the battery cell, a heat transfer unit that transfers heat from the battery cell through the printed circuit board, and a temperature sensor provided on the printed circuit board that measures the temperature of the battery cell through the heat transfer unit (Paragraph [0012] and [0041]; Fig. 4, Items 200, 310, and 400), wherein the “heat transfer unit” of Yoon is analogous to the “thermally conductive element” of the instant application. Yoon also teaches a cell holder which includes a seating portion that is seated on the housing, a square frame that has the seating portion provided, and a pair of connecting members that are provided on the frame and formed to insert and support both sides of the battery cell (Paragraph [0044]) and the supporting member has a through hole adapted for the temperature detection device of a temperature sensor and/or one or more thermally conductive elements (Fig. 4, Items 118, 119, 300, and 400).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoon teaches the heat transfer material having a flat upper surface before assembly, and as assembly is performed, it is pressed against the lower surface of the battery cell to form a curved groove on the upper surface to correspond to the curvature of the lower surface of the battery cell (Paragraph [0047]; Fig. 6, Item 310).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoon teaches a heat transfer unit including a heat transfer material that contacts the lower side of the battery cell and transfers the heat out of the battery cell to the lower side, and a heat passing unit that transfers the heat out of the heat transfer material through a printed circuit board to a temperature sensor (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoon does not explicitly teach a sheet-shaped thermally conductive element. However, a sheet-shaped configuration is merely a change in shape and dimension from a malleable block-shaped material (Figs. 5 and 6), and is a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and MPEP §2144.04.
Regarding Claim 6, Yoon does not teach welding of a temperature sensor to a circuit board, but does teach welding a temperature sensor to a lower copper foil layer of a heat transfer unit (Paragraph [0052]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably welded the temperature sensor to its other attached entities in addition to a lower copper foil layer, such as a circuit board, since welding is a well-known practice of joinery in the art.
Claim 6 also includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of welding. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP §2113.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoon does not teach a patch-type sensor as the temperature sensor. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a patch-type sensor as a temperature sensor in the temperature detection system of Yoon in order to arrive at the claimed embodiment and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as mechanical flexibility and self-adhesion to applied surfaces for direct thermal contact readings, which are well-known qualities of patch-type sensors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (F).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoon does not teach attachment of the circuit board to the battery cell supporting member by means of the fastening member, but does teach slot holes in the printed circuit board that are penetrated to isolate the temperature sensor and an atmospheric temperature sensor (Paragraph [0059]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined the teachings of Yoon in regards to forming slot holes in the printed circuit board for use of mated functional parts or interlocks with the well-known utility of fasteners in the art to arrive at the claimed invention of a circuit board secured to a battery cell supporting member via a mechanical insert such as a fastener, further with the temperature detection system of Yoon.
Regarding Claim 9, Yoon teaches a through hole of a battery cell support member which is aligned with a top surface of a battery cell (Fig. 4, Item 119) to accommodate the heat transfer unit components of the temperature detection system, wherein the “receiving hole” of Yoon is analogous to the “through hole” of the instant application. The orientation of the cylindrical battery in regards to the through hole on a circumferential surface is a matter of objectivity and rearranging or rotating the cylindrical object to place the temperature detection system of Yoon on a predetermined “top” and “bottom” side would not have ultimately modified the operation of the device and would be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) in MPEP §2144.04.
Regarding Claim 10, Yoon does not explicitly teach the battery cell on which the through hole and patch-type sensor welded to the circuit board as being present in the middle of a battery pack. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attain a temperature reading in a central region in a length, width, and/or height axis to mitigate edge case readings on far edges of the battery pack, and thus the temperature detection system of Yoon could reasonably be placed along any axis deemed central to gain the well-known benefits such as data accuracy in choosing a central location choice in surface temperature measurements.
Regarding Claims 11-13, Yoon teaches that the printed circuit board is not limited to being located on the lower surface of the battery cell, and may be provided on the upper side, left side, right side, etc. (Paragraph [0034]) which are analogous to the configurations in Figs. 4A, 4C, and 4D of the instant application.
As in Claim 9 above, Yoon teaches a through hole of a battery cell support member which is aligned with a top surface of a battery cell (Fig. 4, Item 119) to accommodate the heat transfer unit components of the temperature detection system, wherein the “receiving hole” of Yoon is analogous to the “through hole” of the instant application.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (KR 20230036606 A), further in view of Rhee et al. (US 20220384874 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoon does not teach the thermal conductivity of a thermally conductive element to be between 3 W/mK and 8 W/mK. Rhee teaches a battery module with an intermediate layer having a thermal conductivity between 0.5 W/mK and 10 W/mK (Paragraph [0090]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any material satisfying the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Yoon and Rhee to use a thermally conductive material within the thermal conductivity range as taught by Rhee because Rhee teaches that a battery module utilizing an intermediate layer with the thermal conductivity properties following the embodiments in the reference satisfies required cooling and Y-cap design characteristics (Paragraph [0086]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights