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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Objections
Claims 37-48 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 37-48 jave not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brooks (GB 2298969 A).
Regarding claim 1, Brooks discloses a barrier for use between battery cells in an electrical energy storage system (this limitation is directed toward an intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not impart any structure to the claimed apparatus, see MPEP §2111.02), the barrier comprising:
at least one insulation layer (such as insulation plates 10-14); and
at least one compressible layer (conductor plates 3, 4 along with tapered section t, see Fig. 1) coupled to the at least one insulation layer (see Fig. 2 where the insulation layers 10a and 11 are stacked/coupled to the compression layer 3, 4, t), wherein the compressible layer comprises a pair of rigid plates (see conductor plates 3, 4 in Fig. 1) and one or more spring elements (tapered section t, see pages 11-12 which discloses the spring like effect exhibited by tapered sections t) disposed between the rigid plates (tapered sections t are disposed between the flat portions/plates of the conductor plates 3 and 4).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-14, 26 and 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martz (US 2011/0293982) in view of Teng (US 2013/0143093).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Martz discloses a barrier for use between battery cells in an electrical energy storage system (this limitation is directed toward an intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not impart any structure to the claimed apparatus, see MPEP §2111.02), the barrier comprising:
at least one compressible layer (plates 66 and 64 along with corrugated plate 62, see paragraph 30 which discloses the compressible nature of the cooling plate 62), wherein the compressible layer comprises a pair of rigid plates (plates 66 and 64) and one or more spring elements (corrugated plate 62) disposed between the rigid plates (as depicted in Fig. 4).
Martz, however, is silent regarding insulation layer that is coupled to the compressible layer.
Teng also discloses a battery (see abstract).
Teng teaches, like Martz, a cooling plate (20) that sits in between battery cells (12). Teng goes on to teach that in between the battery cells and the cooling plate lies a insulation layer (14). Teng teaches such a configuration in order to thermally insulate the battery cells as well as provide an accommodating feature for thermal expansion (paragraph 12).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the insulating plate of Teng to the battery stack of Martz such that it is coupled with the compressive layer in order to thermally insulate the battery cell while also providing addition accommodating features for thermal expansion of the cell.
Regarding claims 2-4, Martz further discloses The barrier of claim 1, wherein at least one of the pair of rigid plates is a thermally conductive plate (the plate is aluminum, see paragraph 31, which has a thermal conductivity above 200 mW/m-K).
Regarding claim 5, Martz further discloses the pair of rigid plates are substantially identical in size and shape (as depicted in Fig. 4), and wherein the pair of rigid plates are in an aligned configuration (they are aligned with each other, see Fig. 4), wherein, in an aligned configuration, an outer edges of one of the pair of rigid plates are substantially aligned with the outer edges of the other of the pair of rigid plates (as depicted in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Martz further discloses a guide (such as guide/frame 20) is positioned between the pair of rigid plates (see Fig. 4), wherein the guide maintains the rigid plates in the aligned configuration.
Regarding claims 9-10, Martz further discloses bow/wave springs (corrugated sheet 64).
Regarding claims 11-12, Martz further discloses the spring elements are configured to force the rigid plates against adjacent battery cells in the electrical energy storage system (corrugated plate 62 will provide a force against the adjacent battery cells, especially during battery cell expansion).
Regarding claim 13, Martz further discloses the one or more springs are positioned between the rigid plates such that a fluid channel is formed between the rigid plates (as described in paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 14, Martz further discloses a fluid channel having a width of between 1 mm and 5 mm is formed between the rigid plates (see paragraph 31 which discloses that the distance between the rigid plates (64, 66) is 3-4mm which also defines the fluid channel).
Regarding claim 26, Martz further discloses the barrier has an average thickness in a range of between about 5 mm to about 30 mm in an uncompressed state, and wherein the barrier is compressible to a minimum average thickness of between about 2 mm and 10 mm (as modified above, Martz teaches a thickness of the plates which is 0.2mm and the thickness of the corrugated plate is 4mm and in addition to the thermal pads of Teng renders a barrier with a thickness of slightly more than 5 and see paragraph 31 of Martz which teaches a compressed state in which the thickness will be slightly above 2mm after accounting for the thickness of the insulation layer of Teng).
Regarding claim 30, Martz further discloses an electrical power system comprising one or more battery modules as described in claim 29 and a fluid transfer system coupled to the battery module (fluid transfer system including the fluid flow through the cooling fin as described in paragraph 31), wherein the fluid transfer system is configured to pass a fluid into the one or more battery modules and is configured to collect the fluid after the fluid passes through the one or more battery modules.
Regarding claims 31-32, the limitations of these claims are directed to materials that are worked upon by the claimed apparatus and do not further limit the claim. In other words, modified Martz teaches a structure that is capable of working on the claimed materials. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding claims 33-34, Martz further discloses the fluid transfer system is configured such that the fluid heats or cools, respectively, the plurality of battery cells in the battery module (as described in paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 35, Martz further discloses at least one of the one or more battery modules further comprises a manifold coupled to the fluid transfer system having one or more ports aligned with the flow channels, wherein, during use, fluid from the fluid transfer system passes into the manifold and exits through the one or more ports into the flow channels (fluid flows through a number of channels, as depicted in Fig. 1, and that the fluid comes from a pump, see paragraph 35 which indicates the use of a manifold to distribute the fluid through a number of inlets).
Regarding claim 36, Martz further discloses the fluid transfer system comprises a cooling component, wherein the cooling component is configured to maintain a temperature of the fluid at or below an operating temperature of the battery cells (see paragraph 43 which discloses providing heat or cooling the cells via heat transfer with the fluid which indicates that temperature management of the coolant/heating fluid is done by a device outside of the battery).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martz (US 2011/0293982) in view of Teng (US 2013/0143093) and further in view of Shimizu (US 2014/0023893).
Regarding claim 7, Martz discloses a compressive spring element between the battery cells (corrugated sheet 62) and teaches of its compressive features (see paragraph 30 and 32). Martz, however, does not teach a cantilever spring as the spring element.
Shimizu also discloses a battery pack.
Shimizu, like Martz, teaches a compressive spring (50a, 50b, paragraph 50) in between the battery cells (as depicted in Figs. 2 and 3). Shimizu goes on to teach that a cantilever spring is utilized to absorb the movement of the cells (paragraph 23), similar to that of Martz.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the corrugated plate spring element of modified Martz with the cantilever springs of Shimizu to provide for compressive compensation in the battery upon expansion of the cells. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known compressive spring element for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martz (US 2011/0293982) in view of Teng (US 2013/0143093) and further in view of Wagner (US 2019/0044113).
Regarding claim 8, Martz discloses a compressive spring element between the battery cells (corrugated sheet 62) and teaches of its compressive features (see paragraph 30 and 32). Martz, however, does not teach a coil spring as the spring element.
Wagner also discloses a battery pack.
Wagner, like Martz, teaches a compressive spring (6) in between the battery cells. Wagner goes on to teach that a coil spring is utilized to absorb the expansion of the cells (paragraph 9), similar to that of Martz.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the corrugated plate spring element of modified Martz with the coil springs of Wagner to provide for compressive compensation in the battery upon expansion of the cells. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known compressive spring element for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Claim(s) 15-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martz (US 2011/0293982) in view of Teng (US 2013/0143093) and further in view of Ding (CN 210136917 U with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claims 15-20, Martz, as modified above, teaches a insulation layer between the cooling plate and the battery cell that assists in thermal expansion of the cell. However, Martz is silent regarding the specific materials of this insulation layer. More specifically, Martz does not teach:
the insulation layer comprises an aerogel;
the insulation layer comprises a reinforcement material;
wherein the reinforcement material is a fiber selected from organic polymer-based fibers, inorganic fibers, carbon-based fibers or a combination thereof;
wherein the insulation layer comprises one or more additives, the additives being present at a level of at least about 5 to 20 percent by weight of the aerogel, and
wherein the one or more additives comprise fire-class additives.
Ding also discloses a battery back (see abstract).
Ding, like modified Martz, teaches a thermally insulating material between battery cells to accommodate for expansion (see abstract).
Ding goes on to teach that the insulating material is an aerogel coated felt (fiber/reinforcement material) material that includes a fireproof cloth layer (lines 161-170 and see lines 95-96 where the fireproof layer is silicon rubber). Ding teaches such an aerogel based layer to ensure the working temperature range of the lithium battery while providing a vibration reduction effect as well as preventing fire spread in the event of a battery fire (lines 107-114).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the aerogel based layer of Ding in the location of the insulating layer of modified Ding in order to ensure the working temperature range of the lithium battery while providing a vibration reduction effect as well as preventing fire spread in the event of a battery fire.
Regarding claim 21, Martz, as modified above in claims 15-20, further discloses the insulation layer has a flexural modulus of about 2 MPa to about 8 MPa (reinforced silica aerogel has a flexural modulus in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 22, Martz, as modified above in claims 15-20, further discloses the insulation layer has a compressive resistance, wherein the compressive resistance at 25% strain is between about 40 kPa to about 180 kPa. The reinforced aerogel of the claim is structurally identical to the claimed aerogel and therefore a similar compressive resistance is assumed to be present).
Regarding claims 23-25, Martz, as modified above in claims 15-20, teaches a facing layer of a silicon rubber (as mentioned above in the rejection of claims 15-20) which is inert to a hydrocarbon and fluorinated dielectric fluid).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights