DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 10-18 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The phrase “significantly greater” appears to be a relative term of degree. The term “significantly greater” 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 Office has interpreted it as “measurably greater.”
In addition, the limitation “greater […] when the battery is in operation” is indefinite, because it is unclear what the conditions of operation are. Presumably, when the invention is operating, the coolant sufficiently cools the battery’s hotspots to keep it roughly the same temperature. It is unclear how and why the battery might run hotter at some “first zone,” and under what conditions—i.e., the way they are stacked, under a counterfactual cooling setup, under a counterfactual without cooling, in isolation, without optimization, without a specific differential geometry, or some other set of conditions. The claim has been interpreted broadly such that under some set of (counter)factual conditions the batteries could produce hotter temperatures in a first zone.
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.
Claims 10-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gou (CN 209675450 to Gou et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation).
Regarding Claim 10, Gou teaches:
an interface 21 for a cooling plate 1 comprising one face connected to the coolant manifold a second face connected to the cooling plate 1 (Figs. 1-2, p. 1)
the second face comprising at least two holes of different geometries 211/212 allowing the coolant to circulate between the manifold and each of the passages of the cooling plate (Fig. 2, pp. 4-5)
PNG
media_image1.png
562
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Gou teaches:
the interface configured to connect to the cooling plate positioned near a face of a battery 300 (Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image2.png
454
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the cooling plate has at least two passages, with different flowrates and pressures depending on the inlet 211/212 size, wherein, without the differential geometry of the inlet, the coolant would be uneven, leading to a first zone along the outer edge where the coolant was less effective, but wherein the differential geometry results in temperature smoothing (p. 4)
Regarding Claim 12, Gou teaches:
wherein the interface is configured to be connected upstream or downstream (Figs.)
Regarding Claim 14, Gou teaches:
an assembly for a battery pack with two cooling manifolds, a cooling plate, with interfaces (Fig. 5)
PNG
media_image3.png
540
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17-18, Gou teaches:
a motor vehicle comprising a battery cooling by the thermal management system containing the interface (p. 1, Figs.)
Claims 10-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2020/0036061 to Kim et al.).
Regarding Claims 10-12, Kim teaches:
an interface 120 for a cooling plate 110 comprising one face connected to the coolant manifold a second face connected to the cooling plate 1 (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 0038-0041)
the second face comprising at least two holes of different geometries allowing the coolant to circulate between the manifold and each of the passages of the cooling plate (¶ 0044)
PNG
media_image4.png
493
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
744
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the interface is configured to be connected to the cooling plate positioned near a face of a battery, the face of the battery being evenly cooled by the distribution of the coolant, which travels through holes with greater and less cross-sectional area (¶ 0044-0045)
the interface being upstream and/or downstream of the cooling plate (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches:
aluminum (¶ 0048)
Regarding Claim 14, Kim teaches:
an assembly comprising an interface, two of the manifolds, and the cooing plate (Figs. 1-3)
Regarding Claims 17-18, Kim teaches:
a battery for a vehicle cooled by the thermal management assembly of the above claims (¶ 0002)
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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou (CN 209675450 to Gou et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation) or Kim (US 2020/0036061 to Kim et al.).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Gou and Kim teach:
spacing the inlets at intervals along battery modules having a length X (Figs.)
providing Y coolant circulation passages paired to inlets
Gou and Kim do not teach:
wherein the passages are spaced apart from one another by a distance X/(Y+1)
Equal spacing is a routine way to distribute known cooling passages across a battery footprint. Dividing by Y+1 ensures that the end margins are equal to the margins between inlets, with truly equal spacing along the entire width. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
