DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashina et al. WO2012118015 (submitted in IDS).
Regarding claims 1-6, Takashina discloses a battery system compriseing a multitude of battery cells arranged in different rows and columns as part of larger power supply system (background art page 1; figures 2 and 6), whereby the battery system includes cooling channels (reference 3 in figures), and the cooling channels bridging the different battery cells can be connected in either series (figures 7 and 9) and/or parallel (figure 8). Takashina differs from the present claims because Takashina fails to disclose the exact mixing and matching of series and parallel between battery stack rows, but the reference does explicitly disclose, as demonstrated above, that either series or parallel are suitable choices to cool the construct effectively. As such, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to have mixed and matched series and parallel arrangements of the coolant channels as desired for the purpose of predictably providing a battery system with adequate cooling capacity. The examiner notes that the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is matter of obviousness (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Takashina discloses the battery system used for electric vehicles (title, background art page 1).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berge et al. (CN110462920A) and optionally further in view of Takashina et al. WO2012118015 (submitted in IDS).
Regarding claims 1-6, Berge discloses a battery system (figure 1) which includes numerous abutting battery cells (figure 1, refence numeral 4) with cooling channels connecting them (figure 1, reference numerals 5 and 6). Berge further discloses that the cooling channels can be provided in parallel or series and discloses that the module can have a multitude of battery units, such as up to 30 (page 4, figure 1 description).
Berge generally discloses the claimed invention with the exception of two features, the mixing and matching of series and parallel, and the different rows of battery cells.
The examiner notes that the foregoing distinctions would appear to fall within the purview of an ordinary skilled reading the disclosure of Berge as (1) Berge already discloses both series and parallel arrangements are suitable and (2) adding more rows simply amounts to a predictable means of increasing battery power by taking the general disclosure of the art and simply upscaling the amount of individual units provided within a given surface area. The examiner notes that the courts have held that (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is matter of obviousness (MPEP 2143) and likewise (2) duplicating parts (battery rows) is not a patentable distinction in the absence of unexpected results (other than predictably providing more battery power) (see MPEP 2144 (VI)). Nonetheless, more proof is provided below.
Takashina, drawn also to the art of battery systems with cooling means (title), discloses that it was known to provide batteries in both face stacking and row arrangements (figure 6) and thus it would have been predictable to have used such an arrangement with Berge to have provided a commercially suitable battery with both good power supply and adequate cooling means. The examiner notes that the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is matter of obviousness (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Berge discloses the system is useful for electric vehicle systems (page 3, specific implementation methods). Takashina likewise discloses their system is useful for electric vehicles (title, background art page 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL N ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
