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 Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 4, “between in a range between” should read --in a range between--; in claim 5, “between in a range between” should read --in a range between--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1, 3-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razack (US 2022/0158273) in view of Tao et al. (CN 114566734 A), hereinafter “Tao”, wherein an English machine translation of Tao is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Razack teaches a battery operated vehicle (corresponding to the claimed electric vehicle) (Razack, [0006]), an energy storage system (corresponding to the claimed battery pack and battery system) including multiple groups of energy storage devices which may be batteries (corresponding to the claimed plurality of battery cells) (Razack, [0087], [0107]), a thermal management system which may include at least one heat sink having at least one channel (corresponding to the claimed cooling circuit and which one skilled in the art would understand cool the batteries) which may allow fluid (corresponding to the claimed cooling fluid), such as liquid refrigerant, to flow through (Razack, [0076]) and wherein the heat sink element may be in thermal contact with the energy storage devices (Razack, [0088]).
Razack further depicts the cooling channels having a flow direction and cooling channel segments extending along the battery cells with the cooling channel segments having upstream ends and downstream ends where the fluid enters and leaves each segment respectively (Razack, Fig. 7D, see examiner annotated figure below) and wherein the segments, being part of the cooling channel, are in thermal contact with the energy storage devices as described above (corresponding to the claimed cooling channel segments being thermally conductively connected to one of the battery cells) (Razack, [0088]).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
1126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim limitation including the recitation of a phase-change material (PCM) “configured to melt and detach from the inner wall when the battery cell to which the cooling channel segment is thermally conductively connected to overheats, to be carried along the flow direction by the cooling fluid, and to solidify and accumulate at the downstream end of the cooling channel segment to block the cooling fluid from leaving the cooling channel segment” is an instance of functional language. One skilled in the art would recognize that said functional language merely imparts a structure including a coating layer disposed on the cooling channel inner surface and comprising a material capable of melting upon the absorption of heat and resolidifying as it cools. "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." See MPEP §2114(I). While Razack discloses a phase-change material (PCM) coating wherein the PCM may be a powder or paste with a melting temperature from 20 to 100 °C (which one skilled in the art would recognize corresponds to a solid-liquid phase change material that melts upon absorption of heat as a melting temperature was provided, wherein a liquid-gas phase change material would require a boiling point) (Razack, [0247], [0249]), Razack does not expressly teach the PCM coating provided within the cooling channels.
However, Tao teaches a lithium battery pack (Tao, [0009]) and heat-conducting pipes (corresponding to the claimed cooling channels), wherein the heat-conducting pipes include a phase-change energy storage layer (corresponding to the claimed PCM lining) and the phase-change energy storage layer can quickly absorb heat from the battery in a short period of time and act as an effective buffer to avoid battery explosions that may be caused by rapid temperature changes, further ensuring the stability of the lithium battery pack (Tao, [0023]-[0024]). 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 Razack’s PCM as a phase-exchange energy storage layer within the cooling channels in order to provide an effective heat buffer and to ensure the stability of the battery pack as taught by Tao (Tao, [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Tao’s phase-change energy storage material layer included in the battery pack suggested by Razack modified by Tao would be provided around the entire circumference of the cooling channels (Tao, Fig. 5) and thus would satisfy the limitation that the inner wall of the cooling channel segments lined with the PCM is the inner wall closest to the battery cell the cooling channel segment extends along and is thermally conductively connected to.
Regarding claims 4 – 6, Razack teaches the PCM may have a melting temperature ranging from 20 to 100 °C, which overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Razack teaches the PCM may be applied as a coating (Razack, [0247]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razack in view of Tao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hou et al. (CN 117109328 A), hereinafter “Hou”, wherein an English language machine translation of Hou is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “for facilitating the blocking of the cooling fluid from leaving the cooling channel segment” is an instance of functional language that merely imparts a structure with an outflow portion having less width than the body of the channel segment. "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." See MPEP §2114(I). Razack does not teach a constricted downstream end of the cooling segments.
However, Hou teaches a heat exchange body with a flow channel (corresponding to the claimed cooling channel) through which cooling liquid (corresponding to the claimed cooling fluid) flows to dissipate heat from a battery cell (corresponding to the claimed battery cells) or battery module (corresponding to the claimed battery pack) (Hou, [0125]). Hou also teaches a diverting block 14 which can resist the flow of the fluid that is about to flow out of the first section (corresponding to the claimed channel segment) and functions to change the flow direction of the fluid to form a swirling flow thereby causing impurities to accumulate improving cleanliness and resistance to impurities (Hou, [0231]). 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 Hou’s diverting block to the outflow portion of Razack’s channel segments in order to reverse flow, improving the cleanliness and resistance to impurities of the cooling channels (Hou, [0231]). Hou further depicts the outflow region around the diverting block being narrower than the middle portion of the flow channel which satisfies the functional limitation described above (Hou, Fig. 16).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razack in view of Tao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qiu et al. (CN 219802923 U), hereinafter “Qiu”, wherein an English language machine translation of Qiu is used and cited herein.
Regarding claims 8 – 9, Razack teaches the PCM may be an inorganic material but does not teach the PCM as an alloy in general or as an alloy selected from the claimed list.
However, Qiu teaches a bismuth indium tin alloy as a component of a two-stage heat sink for a self-cooling radiator which solves the reasonably pertinent problem of radiative cooling (Qiu, [0001], [0005], [0006]). See MPEP §2141.01(a)(I). The material has a large latent heat of phase change, a controllable phase change temperature zone, high thermal conductivity, a low volume expansion rate, high density, high stability, and good compatibility with structural materials (Qiu, [0005]). 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 Razack’s inorganic material PCM with Qiu’s bismuth indium tin in order to provide a PCM with a large latent heat of phase change, a controllable phase change temperature zone, high thermal conductivity, a low volume expansion rate, high density, high stability, and good compatibility with structural materials (Qiu, [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 2022/0158296) teaches a segmented flow channel with constricted outlets.
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
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights