Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
I. Claims 1-16, drawn to a battery pack assembly, classified in H01M10/613.
II. Claims 17-19, drawn to a method of managing thermal energy in a battery pack, classified in B60L58/26.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the cell stack of the product as claimed need not be partially immersed within a liquid coolant.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
A search for methods used to manage thermal energy for a battery pack would not yield results for a battery pack assembly, as evidenced by their divergent classifications.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Benjamin Coon (Registration No. 57916) on 9/11/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-19 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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, 3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coupar, et al. (US-11626636-B2, provided in IDS), hereafter referred to as Coupar.
Regarding Claim 1, Coupar teaches a battery pack assembly (This disclosure relates generally to battery packs, and more particularly to battery packs with immersion cooled battery arrays,” paragraph 1; 24 in Fig. 2), comprising: a cell stack (“The battery pack 24 houses a plurality of battery cells 56,” paragraph 21; 56 in Fig. 2) within an interior of an enclosure (“an enclosure assembly 58,” paragraph 20; 58 in Fig. 2), the cell stack including a plurality of battery cells (56 in Fig. 2) and a plurality of dividers disposed along a cell stack axis (74 in Figs. 3-5), the plurality of dividers extending outward from the cell stack axis further than the plurality of battery cells (70/72 in Figs. 3-5) to provide a portion of at least one immersion coolant channel (“first compressible spacer plate 70, the second compressible spacer plate 72, and/or the columns 74 may include a lattice structure 76 (see FIG. 6). The lattice structure 76 may define a plurality of interconnected passageways 78 or flow channels,” paragraph 30; 78 in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of dividers establish the at least one immersion coolant channel above the plurality of battery cells [“first compressible spacer plate 70, the second compressible spacer plate 72, and/or the columns 74 may include a lattice structure 76 (see FIG. 6). The lattice structure 76 may define a plurality of interconnected passageways 78 or flow channels,” paragraph 30; 78 in Fig. 6; 70/72 in Figs. 3-5 are above/below the plurality of battery cells].
Regarding Claim 5, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 1, further comprising an enclosure assembly housing the cell stack (“an enclosure assembly 58,” paragraph 20; 58 in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 1, wherein each divider in the plurality of dividers each include a sandwiched portion (74 in Figs. 3-5) and a peripheral portion (70/72 in Figs. 3-5), the sandwiched portion sandwiched axially between axially adjacent battery cells within the plurality of battery cells (Figs. 3-5 show that sandwiched portions 74 are sandwiched between battery cells in this way), the peripheral portion disposed outside the plurality of battery cells (70/72 are above/below the plurality of battery cells), the peripheral portion providing a portion of the at least one immersion coolant channel [“first compressible spacer plate 70, the second compressible spacer plate 72, and/or the columns 74 may include a lattice structure 76 (see FIG. 6). The lattice structure 76 may define a plurality of interconnected passageways 78 or flow channels,” paragraph 30].
Regarding Claim 7, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 6, wherein the peripheral portion axially overlaps with at least some of the plurality of battery cells (70/72 in Fig. 3 are shown to be above/below the plurality of battery cells and overlap axially across the plurality of battery cells).
Regarding Claim 8, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 6, wherein the peripheral portion of a first divider within the plurality of dividers overlaps with a second divider within the plurality of dividers (70/72 in Fig. 3 are shown to overlap across the plurality of dividers).
Regarding Claim 9, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 6, wherein the sandwiched portion includes at least one other immersion coolant channel that communicates a liquid coolant between axially adjacent battery cells within the plurality of battery cells [“first compressible spacer plate 70, the second compressible spacer plate 72, and/or the columns 74 may include a lattice structure 76 (see FIG. 6). The lattice structure 76 may define a plurality of interconnected passageways 78 or flow channels,” paragraph 30; 74 in Figs. 3-5].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coupar. 3M (“3M™ Novec™ 7100 Engineered Fluid”) is provided as evidence.
Regarding Claim 4, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 1, further comprising a liquid coolant within the at least one immersion coolant channel (“interconnected passageways 78 or flow channels that allow a fluid, such as a non-conductive fluid, to pass through the lattice structure 76 for convectively cooling the battery cells 56,” paragraph 30; “One suitable non-conductive fluid is a Novek™ engineered fluid sold by 3M™,” paragraph 35). 3M further clarifies that the NovecTM engineered fluid is a liquid (“As with most fluorinated liquids, Novec 7100 fluid will absorb into fluorinated plastics and elastomers over longer exposures,” Materials Compatibility section, Non-Continuous Exposure subsection).
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 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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coupar in view of Kalmbach, et al. (US-11075415-B2, provided in IDS), hereafter referred to as Kalmbach.
Regarding Claim 2, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 1, but not wherein the plurality of dividers are aluminum. However, Kalmbach teaches a battery back assembly with a plurality of dividers and flowing coolant to cool the batteries. Therein, Kalmbach teaches that the plurality of dividers (10 in Fig. 4) is aluminum (“The heat-conducting structure 10 here is a metallic profile 14. The profile 14 is preferably produced from aluminum,” paragraph 15). Kalmbach teaches the benefit is improving heat dissipation (“The metallic profile 14 improves the dissipation of heat from the respective neighbouring battery cells 2,” paragraph 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery pack assembly taught by Coupar and modify the plurality of dividers to be made of aluminum to better facilitate heat dissipation, as taught by Kalmbach.
Regarding Claim 10, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 6, wherein the sandwiched portion comprises a non-metallic thermal barrier (“The compressible spacer assembly 64, including each of its constituent sections, may be made of any suitable polymer-based material,” paragraph 29). Coupar does not teach that it is covered by a metal or metal alloy.
However, Kalmbach teaches a plurality of dividers (7/10 in Fig. 4), where the sandwiched portion comprises a non-metallic thermal barrier (intermediate insert 7 in Fig. 4; “The compressible intermediate insert can advantageously be formed from a foam-type material or from a foam-type material composite. The foam-type material is preferably a polyurethane foam, and the foam-type material composite is preferably a polyurethane foam,” paragraph 10) covered by a metal or metal alloy (“The heat-conducting structure 10 here is a metallic profile 14. The profile 14 is preferably produced from aluminum,” paragraph 15; 10 in Fig. 4). Kalmbach teaches the benefit of covering the non-metallic portion with metal is improving heat dissipation (“The metallic profile 14 improves the dissipation of heat from the respective neighbouring battery cells 2,” paragraph 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery pack assembly taught by Coupar and modify the sandwich portions of the dividers to be covered in metal to better facilitate heat dissipation, as taught by Kalmbach.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coupar in view of Chorian, et al. (US-20180309175-A1), hereafter referred to as Chorian.
Regarding Claim 11, Coupar teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 6, wherein the peripheral portion is an integral structure where, if it were made separable corresponding to each respective sandwiched portion, each peripheral portion would have a first flange that extends in a first axial direction, and a second flange that extends in an opposite, second axial direction (70/72 in Fig. 3). Coupar does not actually teach making the peripheral portions separable.
However, Chorian teaches a battery assembly wherein dividers comprise a sandwiched portion (spacer 64 in Fig. 7; “spacer 64 is thus sandwiched between axially adjacent battery cells 30,” paragraph 48) and a peripheral portion comprising a first flange that extends in a first axial direction and a second flange that extends in an opposite, second axial direction (frame 60 in Figs. 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to take the battery pack assembly taught by Coupar and modify the peripheral portion to be separable for each respective sandwiched portion to result in flanges on either side of each peripheral portion, as taught by Chorian. Please also see MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding Claim 12, Coupar modified by Chorian teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 11, where Coupar teaches is further comprising at least one first compression pad disposed between the first flange and the plurality of battery cells, and at least one second compression pad disposed between the second flange and the plurality of battery cells (“The compressible spacer assembly 64 may include a first compressible spacer plate 70, a second compressible spacer plate 72,” paragraph 28, indicating the flanges themselves integrally include compression pads as they include material on the surface facing the plurality of battery cells intended to allow for compression).
Regarding Claim 13, Coupar modified by Chorian teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 11, wherein Coupar further teaches the peripheral portion is a first peripheral portion that extends upward past the plurality of battery cells, and further comprising a second peripheral portion that extends downward past the plurality of battery cells, the second peripheral portion including a first flange that extends in the first axial direction, and a second flange that extends in the second axial direction (70/72 in Figs. 3-5 indicates that peripheral portions exist both upward and downward past the plurality of battery cells). If made separable in the same way as the first peripheral portion, as discussed in Claim 11, they would resemble a first flange that extends in a first axial direction, and a second flange that extends in an opposite, second axial direction). Please also see MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding Claim 14, Coupar modified by Chorian teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 13, wherein Coupar teaches the first peripheral portion, the second peripheral portion, and the sandwiched portion are portions of a singular divider structure (70/72/74 in Figs. 3-5).
Regarding Claim 15, Coupar modified by Chorian teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 11, wherein Chorian further teaches the first flange axially overlaps with a peripheral portion of another divider within the plurality of dividers (“The frame 60 can include shiplap or tongue-and-groove-features that help the frame engage an axially adjacent frame within the battery pack,” paragraph 46). As stated in that excerpt, Chorian teaches that the axial overlap interface helps the peripheral portion engage an axially adjacent peripheral portion within the battery pack.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery pack assembly taught by Coupar and, if there was a desire to make separable the peripheral portions for the dividers, modify the flanges axially overlap, so peripheral portions can better engage with one another, as taught by Chorian.
Regarding Claim 16, Coupar modified by Chorian teaches the battery pack assembly of claim 15, wherein Chorian further teaches that an interface between the first flange and a flange of a peripheral portion of another divider is a shiplap interface (“The frame 60 can include shiplap or tongue-and-groove-features that help the frame engage an axially adjacent frame within the battery pack,” paragraph 46). As stated in that excerpt, Chorian teaches that the shiplap interface helps the peripheral portion engage an axially adjacent peripheral portion within the battery pack.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery pack assembly taught by Coupar and modify the flanges such that they interface via shiplap interface so peripheral portions can better engage with one another, as taught by Chorian.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights