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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-7 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 7, 19, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Therefore, an intermediate wall with a substantially constant wall thickness in the central inter-cell cooling region is indefinite as it is not clear what amount of deviation from constant falls within the scope of “substantially constant”.
Claims 6 and 17 recite the limitation "the at least one support element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 19 recite the limitations "the first inner side" and “the second inner side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-20 recite the limitation "the intermediate wall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 5 and 14-16, the phrases "on one hand" and “on the other hand” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if these limitations are used to recite alternatives or are referring to structural surfaces of the support element and are both included.
Regarding claims 7 and 19-20, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,9,12,14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot et al. (US 20160156005).
Regarding claim 1, Elliot teaches an inter-cell cooling device for arrangement in an intermediate space between two battery cells 7/8 of a cell stack arranged adjacent to one another in a stacking direction, wherein the part of the inter-cell cooling device which, when the inter-cell cooling device is arranged in the intermediate space, is located entirely within the intermediate space, represents a central inter-cell cooling region 6, wherein the inter-cell cooling device comprises:
a first side wall with a first outer side for arrangement on a first cell side of one of the two adjacent battery cells; a second side wall opposite the first side wall with respect to a first direction and having a second outer side for arrangement on a second cell side of the other of the two adjacent battery cells; and a heating device, or electrical link element designed as a heating layer for heating the inter-cell cooling devices,
wherein with respect to the first direction, at least one cooling channel 13a through which a coolant can flow, is formed between the first and second side wall as part of the central inter-cell cooling region (P54-59), and the heating layer is designed to heat a coolant located in the at least one cooling channel, as shown in annotated Fig. 2, below.
While Elliot is silent in explicitly teaching that and the heating layer is designed to heat a coolant located in the at least one cooling channel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the heating layer is designed to heat/capable of heating the coolant, as the heating element is designed to produce heat and can be fixed in or outside of the thermally conductive circulation duct
PNG
media_image1.png
660
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Elliot teaches the heating layer is formed as the first and/or second side wall (P61).
Regarding claim 4, Elliot teaches the heating layer extends over a majority of a length and width of the central inter-cell cooling region (P58-61; Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Elliot teaches the inter-cell cooling device in the central inter-cell cooling region comprises at least one support element, formed by separating structure of fluid ducts 13a/ 3 which is arranged in contact on a first inner side of the first side wall opposite the first outer side of the first side wall, on the one hand, and on a second inner side of the second side wall opposite the second outer side of the second side wall, on the other hand, and which locally supports the first side wall against the second side wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5)
Regarding claim 9, Elliot teaches a battery module 15 with an inter-cell cooling device 6, according to claim 1, and with a cell stack, which comprises at least two battery cells arranged adjacent to one another in a stacking direction, wherein the inter-cell cooling device is arranged in an intermediate space between the two battery cells 7/8 (P58-62; Fig. 1-3.5).
Regarding claim 12, Elliot teaches the heating layer extends over a majority of a length and width of the central inter-cell cooling region (P58-61; Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 14, Elliot teaches the inter-cell cooling device in the central inter-cell cooling region comprises at least one support element, formed by separating structure of fluid ducts 13a/ 3 which is arranged in contact on a first inner side of the first side wall opposite the first outer side of the first side wall, on the one hand, and on a second inner side of the second side wall opposite the second outer side of the second side wall, on the other hand, and which locally supports the first side wall against the second side wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5)
Regarding claim 16, Elliot teaches the inter-cell cooling device in the central inter-cell cooling region comprises at least one support element, formed by separating structure of fluid ducts 13a/ 3 which is arranged in contact on a first inner side of the first side wall opposite the first outer side of the first side wall, on the one hand, and on a second inner side of the second side wall opposite the second outer side of the second side wall, on the other hand, and which locally supports the first side wall against the second side wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5)
Regarding claim 17, Elliot teaches the at least one support element is an intermediate wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5)
Regarding claim 18, Elliot teaches the at least one support element is an intermediate wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5).
Claims 3, 6-8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Jong-seok et al. (KR 20220090207 A).
Regarding claim 3, Elliot teaches is silent in teaching the heating layer is designed as an intermediate wall and/or is part of an intermediate wall arranged between the first and second side wall with respect to the first direction; however, Jong-Seok, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a cooling/heating device for batteries with side walls and a cooling channel (P71-86).
Jong- Seok teaching integrating a heating layer in an intermediate wall arranged between a first and second side wall of any existing cooling device to allow efficient heat transfer between a fluid and device that’s generating or requiring heating (P14.35-36.67-100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a heating layer designed as an intermediate wall and/or as part of an intermediate wall arranged between the first and second side wall with respect to the first direction in Elliot, as taught by Jong-Seok as an obvious design choice that allows efficient thermal exchange between a fluid and heating element and because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
The results are not unexpected because merely integrating a heating layer in an intermediate wall of Elliot does not change the function of the cooler, plates, or module, and provides the exact functionality taught by Elliot – to provide a heating device for a battery.
Regarding claim 6, modified Elliot teaches at least one support element is an intermediate wall (Elliot; P55-56; Fig. 1-5 and Jong-Seok; P71-88)
Regarding claim 7, modified Elliot teaches the intermediate wall has a first wall side and a second wall side opposite the first wall side with respect to the first direction, wherein a distance of the first wall side from the second wall side defines a wall thickness of the intermediate wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5).
Modified Elliot is silent in teaching wherein the first wall side and/or the second wall side is formed with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, in particular wherein the intermediate wall has a substantially constant wall thickness in the central inter-cell cooling region; however, Jong-Seok of modified Elliot teaches an intermediate wall, or spacer with a first wall side and a second wall side opposite the first wall side with respect to the first direction, wherein a distance of the first wall side from the second wall side defines a wall thickness of the intermediate wall wherein the first wall side and/or the second wall side is formed with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, in particular wherein the intermediate wall has a substantially constant wall thickness in the central inter-cell cooling region, as a design choice for reinforcing and maintaining space in cooling conduits to guide a flow path and to maintain its shape allowing uniform heat transfer (P74-78; Fig. 2-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the intermediate wall of Elliot with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, as taught by Jong-Seok as an obvious design choice that allows maintenance of substantially uniform temperature control and because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 8, modified Elliot is silent in teaching the intermediate wall: has multiple elevations and depressions in the first direction with respect to an imaginary center plane perpendicular to the first direction; and/or is corrugated; and/or has a zigzag profile; and/or has a meandering profile; however, Jong-Seok of modified Elliot teaches an intermediate wall, or spacer that may have multiple elevations and depressions in the first direction via a zigzag profile or meandering profile as a design choice for reinforcing and maintaining space in cooling conduits to guide a flow path and to maintain its shape allowing uniform heat transfer (P74-78; Fig. 2-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the intermediate wall of Elliot with multiple elevations and depressions in the first direction with respect to an imaginary center plane perpendicular to the first direction , as taught by Jong-Seok as an obvious design choice that allows maintenance of substantially uniform temperature control and because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 13, modified Elliot teaches the heating layer extends over a majority of a length and width of the central inter-cell cooling region (P58-61; Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, modified Elliot teaches the inter-cell cooling device in the central inter-cell cooling region comprises at least one support element, formed by separating structure of fluid ducts 13a/ 3 which is arranged in contact on a first inner side of the first side wall opposite the first outer side of the first side wall, on the one hand, and on a second inner side of the second side wall opposite the second outer side of the second side wall, on the other hand, and which locally supports the first side wall against the second side wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheadle et al. (US 20190366876).
Regarding claim 10, Elliot teaches a cooling device for a battery module, wherein the cooling device has an inter-cell cooling device according to claim 1, and controlling said operation (P39-40), but is silent in teaching exactly how, or a control device for controlling a coolant flow through the inter-cell cooling device and for controlling the heating device, wherein the control device is designed to control the coolant flow and the heating device in such a way that the inter-cell cooling device is not flown through by a coolant when the heating device is in an active heating state.
However, Cheadle, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches an cooling device for batteries with a heating element (P70-74; Fig. 1-6). Cheadle teaches that when it is desired to rapidly heat a fluid in an cooling device a control device for controlling a coolant flow through the cooling device and for controlling the heating device, should not allow coolant to be thrown through the device and the heating element should be operated (P141-149; Fig. 14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a control device for controlling a coolant flow through the inter-cell cooling device of Elliot and for controlling the heating device, wherein the control device is designed to control the coolant flow and the heating device in such a way that the inter-cell cooling device is not flown through by a coolant when the heating device is in an active heating state, as taught by Cheadle as a way to rapidly heat the device, such as for start-up. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot as applied to at least claim 2 above, and further in view of Jong-Seok et al. (KR 20220090207 A).
Regarding claim 11, Elliot teaches is silent in teaching the heating layer is designed as an intermediate wall and/or is part of an intermediate wall arranged between the first and second side wall with respect to the first direction; however, Jong-Seok, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a cooling/heating device for batteries with side walls and a cooling channel (P71-86).
Jong- Seok teaching integrating a heating layer in an intermediate wall arranged between a first and second side wall of any existing cooling device to allow efficient heat transfer between a fluid and device that’s generating or requiring heating (P14.35-36.67-100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a heating layer designed as an intermediate wall and/or as part of an intermediate wall arranged between the first and second side wall with respect to the first direction in Elliot, as taught by Jong-Seok as an obvious design choice that allows efficient thermal exchange between a fluid and heating element and because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
The results are not unexpected because merely integrating a heating layer in an intermediate wall of Elliot does not change the function of the cooler, plates, or module, and provides the exact functionality taught by Elliot – to provide a heating device for a battery.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot as applied to at least claim 4 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 20110052960).
Regarding claim 19, Elliot teaches the intermediate wall has a first wall side and a second wall side opposite the first wall side with respect to the first direction, wherein a distance of the first wall side from the second wall side defines a wall thickness of the intermediate wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5).
Elliot is silent in teaching wherein the first wall side and/or the second wall side is formed with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, in particular wherein the intermediate wall has a substantially constant wall thickness in the central inter-cell cooling region; however, Kwon, in a similar field of endeavor also teaches an inter-cell cooling device 12 with the same intermediate wall formation as that of Elliot (P63-70; Fig. 5F).
Kwon teaches an intermediate wall, or spacer with a first wall side and a second wall side opposite the first wall side with respect to the first direction, wherein a distance of the first wall side from the second wall side defines a wall thickness of the intermediate wall wherein the first wall side and/or the second wall side is formed with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, in particular wherein the intermediate wall has a substantially constant wall thickness in the central inter-cell cooling region, as a design choice for reinforcing and maintaining space in cooling conduits such that they maintain contact with the battery cells (P65-83; Fig. 4-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the intermediate wall of Elliot with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, as taught by Kwon as n obvious design choice that allows maintenance of substantially uniform temperature control and because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot as applied to at least claim 5 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 20110052960).
Regarding claim 20, Elliot teaches the intermediate wall has a first wall side and a second wall side opposite the first wall side with respect to the first direction, wherein a distance of the first wall side from the second wall side defines a wall thickness of the intermediate wall (P55-56; Fig. 1-5).
Elliot is silent in teaching wherein the first wall side and/or the second wall side is formed with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, in particular wherein the intermediate wall has a substantially constant wall thickness in the central inter-cell cooling region; however, Kwon, in a similar field of endeavor also teaches an inter-cell cooling device 12 with the same intermediate wall formation as that of Elliot (P63-70; Fig. 5F).
Kwon teaches an intermediate wall, or spacer with a first wall side and a second wall side opposite the first wall side with respect to the first direction, wherein a distance of the first wall side from the second wall side defines a wall thickness of the intermediate wall wherein the first wall side and/or the second wall side is formed with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, in particular wherein the intermediate wall has a substantially constant wall thickness in the central inter-cell cooling region, as a design choice for reinforcing and maintaining space in cooling conduits such that they maintain contact with the battery cells (P65-83; Fig. 4-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the intermediate wall of Elliot with a surface geometry different from a plane, and the first wall side locally contacts the first inner side and the second wall side locally contacts the second inner side, as taught by Kwon as an obvious design choice that allows maintenance of substantially uniform temperature control and because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights