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 8-10, 19-20 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.
Claims 8-10 and 19-20 recite the limitation "the fluid channels". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claims 8-10 depend on claim 1 and claims 19-20 depend on claim 12, both claims 1 and 12 recite “one or more fluid channels”; therefore, it is unclear which fluid channels claims 8-10 and 19-20 are referring to. Further, the recitation of “the fluid channels” in the plural in claims 8-10 and 19-20 does not account for the possibility of one fluid channel and thus it is unclear whether claims 8-10 and 19-20 are claiming one or more fluid channels as recited in claims 1 and 12, or more than one fluid channels as recited in claims 8-10 and 19-20. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claims 8-10 and 19-20 to require one or more fluid channels with said one or more fluid channels being the same as recited in claims 1 and 12.
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 1-5, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Desbois-Renaudin et al. (US 2021/0098845 A1), hereinafter “DB”.
Regarding claim 1, DB teaches a battery module (corresponding to the claimed battery pack) (DB, [0002], grey in the examiner annotated figure below), also referred to as a module 10, containing electric accumulators 20 (corresponding to the claimed battery cells) (DB, [0047]-[0048], green in the examiner annotated figure below) which are depicted having an upper end (corresponding to the claimed first end) and a lower end (corresponding to the claimed second end) opposite the first end (DB, Fig. 2, green in the examiner annotated figure below), upper connection plates 24A (corresponding to the claimed bus bars) electrically coupling the accumulators (DB, [0050], blue in the examiner annotated figure below);
a package element 12 (also referred to as package, corresponding to the claimed main body) of the module which is depicted having an upper end and lower end opposite and spaced from the upper end, (DB, Fig. 2, grey in the examiner annotated figure below) an upper chamber 34A including openings 38A and through holes 39A (all of which correspond to the claimed first sump and will be referred to as the upper chamber hereinafter) through which a cooling liquid (corresponding to the claimed fluid) penetrates and a lower chamber 34B including openings 38B and through holes 39B (all of which correspond to the claimed second sump and will be referred to as the lower chamber hereinafter) from which the cooling liquid is discharged (DB, [0064], Fig. 2, red in the examiner annotated figure below);
an intermediate chamber 36 (corresponding to the claimed one fluid channel) through which the cooling liquid flows in contact with the accumulators (corresponding to the claimed fluid channel carrying the fluid so that the fluid directly contacts the battery cells) (DB, [0061], Fig. 2, purple in the examiner annotated figure below).
While the claimed cell openings and the intermediate chamber extending between the upper chamber and the lower chamber are not explicitly taught, DB depicts a void space wherein the battery cells are housed (corresponding to the claimed one or more cell openings) (DB, Fig. 2, blue in the examiner annotated figure below) and the examiner interprets the through openings 38A and through holes 39A to be a part of the upper chamber 34A and through openings 38B and through holes 39B to be a part of the lower chamber 34B as described above (red in the examiner annotated figure below) and thus, the intermediate chamber extends between the upper chamber and the lower chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, DB further teaches accumulators which may have a generally cylindrical shape (corresponding to claim 2’s claimed cylindrical battery cells) or a prismatic shape (corresponding to claim 3’s claimed prismatic battery cells) (DB, [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, DB further teaches, intermediate chamber 36 (corresponding to the claimed fluid channel) communicates (corresponding to the claimed fluid communication) with the upper chamber 34A via through openings 38A and holes 39A (all of which correspond to the claimed first sump) and the intermediate chamber 36 communicates (corresponding to the claimed fluid communication) with the lower chamber 34B via openings 38B and holes 39B (all of which correspond to the claimed second sump) (DB, [0061]).
Regarding claim 5 and 7, DB further teaches, port 40 (corresponding to claim 5’s claimed first fluid conduit and referred to as the upper port hereinafter) (blue in the examiner annotated figure below) through which the cooling liquid penetrates into the upper chamber (corresponding to claim 5’s claimed first fluid conduit being in fluid communication with the first sump and claim 7’s claimed first fluid conduit being an inlet) and port 42 (corresponding to claim 5’s claimed second fluid conduit and referred to as the lower port hereinafter) (blue in the examiner annotated figure below) through which the cooling liquid is discharged from the lower chamber (corresponding to claim 5’s claimed second fluid conduit being in fluid communication with the second sump and claim 7’s claimed second fluid conduit being an outlet) (DB, [0064], Fig. 2, depicted in the examiner annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
740
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, DB depicts the fluid channel extending vertically across the accumulators (corresponding to the claimed battery cells) (DB, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 10, DB depicts the accumulators (corresponding to the claimed battery cells) immersed in the intermediate chamber and thereby the intermediate chamber (corresponding to the claimed fluid channel) spans a perimeter of the accumulators (DB, Fig. 1, purple in the examiner annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
559
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DB as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (CN 118040161 A), hereinafter “Wei”, wherein an English language machine translation of Wei is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, as DB discusses all of the claimed features as explained above; however, DB does not explicitly teach one or more cell openings as claimed in claim 1.
However, Wei teaches a honeycomb structure power battery cooler (Wei, [0032]) comprising cavities (corresponding to the claimed cell openings) for placing batteries and spiral flow channels (corresponding to the claimed fluid channels) around the cavities allowing the coolant to be in direct contact with the battery and to flow around the circumference of the battery (corresponding to the claimed fluid directly contacting the battery cells) (Wei, [0033]). Thus, the cooling effect is better and the temperature distribution is more uniform, and because each battery is arranged independently, the safety of the battery is greatly improved preventing thermal runaway (Wei, [0033]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Wei’s honeycomb cooling units to DB’s module such that the spiral flow channels extended between DB’s upper and lower chambers (corresponding to the claimed fluid channels extending between the first and second sumps) in order to provide better and more uniform cooling and to enhance the safety of the battery (Wei, [0033]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, DB modified by Wei suggests the battery pack according to claim 1. DB further teaches accumulators which may have a generally cylindrical shape (corresponding to claim 2’s claimed cylindrical battery cells) or a prismatic shape (corresponding to claim 3’s claimed prismatic battery cells) (DB, [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, the battery module suggested by DB modified by Wei places Wei’s honeycomb cooling unit such that its spiral flow channels are fed from above by DB’s upper chamber (corresponding to the claimed first sump in fluid communication with the fluid channels), and drain from below into DB’s lower chamber (corresponding to the claimed second sump in fluid communication with the fluid channels).
Regarding claim 5 and 7, DB modified by Wei suggests the battery module according to claim 4. DB further teaches an upper port 40 (corresponding to claim 5’s claimed first fluid conduit) through which the cooling liquid penetrates into the upper chamber (corresponding to claim 5’s claimed first fluid conduit being in fluid communication with the first sump and claim 7’s claimed first fluid conduit being an inlet) and a lower port 42 (corresponding to claim 5’s claimed second fluid conduit) through which the cooling liquid is discharged from the lower chamber (corresponding to claim 5’s claimed second fluid conduit being in fluid communication with the second sump and claim 7’s claimed second fluid conduit being an outlet) (DB, [0064], Fig. 2, described above with regard to claims 5 and 7 in section 6).
Regarding claim 8, the battery module suggested by DB modified by Wei utilizes Wei’s honeycomb cooling unit having spiral flow channels that extend vertically from the top to the bottom (corresponding to the claimed fluid channels extending vertically between the first and second sumps) (Wei, Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, DB modified by Wei suggests the battery module according to claim 8 including Wei’s honeycomb cooling unit having spiral flow channels (corresponding to the claimed helical channels) around the cavities (corresponding to the claimed cell openings) allowing the coolant to be in direct contact with the battery and to flow around the circumference of the battery (corresponding to the claimed fluid channels arranged in each cell opening to span a perimeter of the battery cells) (Wei, [0033]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DB alone or in view of Wei as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of De Paoli et al. (FR 3127076 A1), hereinafter “De Paoli”, wherein an English language machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 6, DB modified by Wei suggests a flow path from DB’s upper port 40 (corresponding to the claimed first fluid conduit) flowing down Wei’s spiral cooling channels (corresponding to the claimed fluid channels) to DB’s lower port 42 (corresponding to the claimed second fluid conduit), which is opposite the flow path recited by claim 6.
However, De Paoli teaches a cup for an electrochemical accumulator (De Paoli, [0020]) including an inner side wall (corresponding to the claimed battery cells) and an outer side wall (corresponding to the claimed cell openings) (De Paoli, Fig. 6-7, depicted in the examiner annotated figure below) wherein a flow of heat transfer fluid (corresponding to the claimed fluid) (green in the examiner annotated figure below) can be established through the inter-wall space (where the inter-wall space corresponds to the claimed one or more fluid channels and the described flow corresponds to the claimed fluid directly contacting the battery cells) (De Paoli, [0020], depicted in the examiner annotated figure below). De Paoli further teaches supplying the heat transfer fluid from the bottom ensures that the space between the two walls is filled and prevents the formation of bubbles (De Paoli, [0068]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the top to bottom flow path of DB modified by Wei with the bottom to top flow path taught by De Paoli by using the lower port as an inlet and the upper port as an outlet in order to ensure complete filling of the spiral cooling channels of modified DB and to prevent the formation of bubbles (De Paoli, [0068]).
PNG
media_image4.png
676
547
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DB alone or in view of Wei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umaba (WO 2025134873 A1), wherein an English language machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 11, DB modified by Wei suggests the battery module according to claim 1. DB further teaches a package element (corresponding to the claimed main body) and depicts it encapsulating the accumulators (corresponding to the claimed battery cells), the connection plates (corresponding to the claimed bus bars), the upper chamber (corresponding to the claimed first sump), and the lower chamber (corresponding to the claimed second sump) (DB, Fig. 2, described above with regard to claim 1 in section 6), but does not disclose a material.
However, Umaba teaches a battery pack including a battery assembly (corresponding to the claimed battery cells) and a case (corresponding to the claimed main body) that houses the battery assembly (Umaba, [0008]) wherein the case is made of resin and has a waterproof structure (corresponding to the claimed fluid-tight potting material) (Umaba, [0012]) in order to reduce the manufacturing cost (Umaba, [0014]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the package element material of DB modified by Wei with the waterproof resin taught by Umaba in order to reduce manufacturing costs of modified DB’s battery module (Umaba, [0014]).
Claims 12-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DB alone or in view of Wei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiroshi (JP 2019048610 A), wherein an English language machine translation of Hiroshi is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 12, the examiner notes that claim 12 recites the same limitations as claim 1 while adding the further structure of an electric vehicle, a motor, and a vehicle body which extends in a cross-car and fore-aft direction. DB teaches and DB modified by Wei suggests the instant claim 12’s battery pack as described with regard to claim 1 above. DB further teaches the use of the battery module in an electric car or another electric vehicle (corresponding to the claimed electric vehicle) (DB, [0081]) but does not explicitly teach a vehicle body or motor.
However, Hiroshi teaches an electric vehicle including an electric motor for driving the wheels (Hiroshi, [0010]) and powered by a battery (Hiroshi, [0002]) and a vehicle body including an upper and lower body to reduce damage to the vehicle from collision and reduce air resistance of the vehicle thereby improving aerodynamic performance (Hiroshi, [0016]). Hiroshi depicts the vehicle body extending in the cross-car and fore-aft directions (Hiroshi, Fig. 1-3). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the vehicle body and motor to the electric vehicle suggested by DB modified by Wei, such that the battery module powered the motor (Hiroshi, [0002]) to drive the wheels (Hiroshi, [0010]) and the vehicle body would reduce damage to and improve the aerodynamics of the electric vehicle (Hiroshi, [0016]). One skilled in the art would recognize that the battery module would be coupled to the vehicle body.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, DB modified by Wei and Hiroshi suggests the electric vehicle according to claim 12. DB further teaches accumulators which may have a generally cylindrical shape (corresponding to claim 2’s claimed cylindrical battery cells) or a prismatic shape (corresponding to claim 3’s claimed prismatic battery cells) (DB, [0051]).
Regarding claims 15, DB modified by Wei and Hiroshi places Wei’s honeycomb cooling unit such that the upper chamber (corresponding to the claimed first sump) feeds into the spiral flow channels (corresponding to the claimed fluid channels) from the top (corresponding to the claimed first sump in fluid communication with the fluid channels) and the lower chamber (corresponding to the claimed second sump) drains the spiral flow channels from the bottom (corresponding to the claimed second sump in fluid communication with the fluid channels).
Regarding claim 16 and 18, DB modified by Wei and Hiroshi suggests the electric vehicle according to claim 15. DB further teaches an upper port (corresponding to claim 16’s claimed first fluid conduit) through which the cooling liquid (corresponding to the claimed fluid) penetrates into the upper chamber (corresponding to claim 16’s claimed first fluid conduit being in fluid communication with the first sump and claim 18’s claimed first fluid conduit being an inlet) and a lower port (corresponding to claim 16’s claimed second fluid conduit) through which the cooling liquid is discharged from the lower chamber (corresponding to claim 16’s claimed second fluid conduit being in fluid communication with the second sump and claim 18’s claimed second fluid conduit being an outlet) (DB, [0064], Fig. 2, the same ports are described above with regard to claims 5 and 7 in section 6).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, DB modified by Wei and Hiroshi suggests the electric vehicle according to claim 12 including Wei’s honeycomb cooling unit placed such that the spiral flow channels (corresponding to the claimed fluid channels and claim 20’s claimed fluid channels being helical channels) vertically extend between the upper chamber (corresponding to the claimed first sump) and lower chamber (corresponding to the claimed second sump) as recited by claim 19.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DB in view of Hiroshi or DB in view of Wei and Hiroshi as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of De Paoli.
Regarding claim 17, DB modified by Wei and Hiroshi suggests the electric vehicle according to claim 16 having a battery module wherein the cooling liquid (corresponding to the claimed fluid) flow path from DB’s upper port 40 (corresponding to the claimed first fluid conduit) flowing down Wei’s spiral cooling channels (corresponding to the claimed fluid channels) to DB’s lower port 42 (corresponding to the claimed second fluid conduit), opposite the flow path recited by claim 6.
However, as described above with regard to claim 6 in section 10, De Paoli teaches a cup for an electrochemical accumulator which houses an electrochemical cell and electrolyte (corresponding to the claimed battery cells) (De Paoli, [0020]), an inner side wall around the cup (corresponding to the claimed battery cells) and an outer side wall around the inner side wall (corresponding to the claimed cell openings) (De Paoli, Fig. 6-7) wherein a flow of heat transfer fluid (corresponding to the claimed fluid) can be established through the inter-wall space (where the inter-wall space corresponds to the claimed one or more fluid channels and the described flow corresponds to the claimed fluid directly contacting the battery cells) (De Paoli, [0020]). De Paoli further teaches the heat transfer fluid supplied from the bottom to ensure that the space between the two walls is filled and prevent the formation of bubbles (De Paoli, [0068]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the top to bottom flow path of the battery module in the electric vehicle suggested by DB modified by Wei and Hiroshi with the bottom to top flow path taught by De Paoli in order to ensure complete filling of the spiral cooling channels of modified DB and to prevent the formation of bubbles (De Paoli, [0068]). Doing so would have converted the upper port into an outlet and the lower port into an inlet as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maier et al. (US 2011/0033742 A1), Tucker et al. (US 2020/0335744 A1), Tajima et al. (US 9,997,810 B2), Krestel et al. (DE 102011000575 A1), and Reichenbacher (WO 2016128180 A1) teach a battery cooling unit with bottom to top flow. Xu et al. (CN 110061325 B), Schmidt et al. (US 2023/0291034 A1), and Rittereiser et al. (DE 102021109603 A1) teach a helical battery cooling unit. Gao et al. (WO 2016128180 A1) teaches a helical battery cooling unit with bottom to top flow. Gaben et al. (US 8,197,958 B2) teaches an insert battery cooling unit. Zhang et al. (US 2022/0181731 A1) teaches an immersion battery cooling unit. Lamm (US 2024/0170754 A1) and Zhang (US 2025/0096345 A1) teach claim 1 for prismatic cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMRAN S SAUND whose telephone number is (571)270-0845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/SIMRAN S. SAUND/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights