DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/13/2024 has been fully considered.
Priority
The priority claim to provisional application PRO 63/366850 filed on 6/23/2022 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first and third section connected together via the second section, the first, second, and third sections defining a U- shape” of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Notably, figure 15 teaches the first and second section connected together via the third section, the first, second, and third sections defining a U- shape, which is not what is claimed. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 12, this claim includes “a third section, the first and third section connected together via the second section, the first, second, and third sections defining a U- shape.” It is not clear how this is possible, when the first and second sections are already claimed as “a first section, the one or more battery cells in heat exchange relationship with the first section, and a second section in heat exchange relationship with the first section, the second section in heat exchange relationship with an environment outside the enclosure for providing heat exchange between the one or more battery cells and the environment.” In looking to the drawings for clarification, no figure was found to teach the structure of claim 12. Figure 15 teaches the first and second section connected together via the third section, the first, second, and third sections defining a U- shape, which is not what is claimed. Thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled by the disclosure to construct the structure of claim 12, and the claim is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over March (US 20170125863 A1).
Regarding claim 1, March teaches a battery pack, comprising:
an enclosure including interconnected walls (65 “enclosure” taught by figure 2);
one or more battery cells contained within the enclosure (56 “battery cells” taught by figure 2); and
a heat-conducting plate defining one or more of the interconnected walls and being structurally load-bearing (62 “heat exchanger plate” taught by figure 2), the heat-conducting plate having
a first section, the one or more battery cells in heat exchange relationship with the first section (84 “interior wall” taught by figure 5 and paragraph 54 “the plate body 68 of the heat exchanger plate 62 includes an interior wall 84, which faces toward an interior of the battery pack 24, and an exterior wall 86, which faces toward the exterior environment”), and
a second section in heat exchange relationship with the first section, the second section in heat exchange relationship with an environment outside the enclosure for providing heat exchange between the one or more battery cells and the environment (86 “exterior wall” taught by figure 5 and paragraph 54 “the plate body 68 of the heat exchanger plate 62 includes an interior wall 84, which faces toward an interior of the battery pack 24, and an exterior wall 86, which faces toward the exterior environment”).
Regarding claim 2, March teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
March also teaches wherein the one or more battery cells are secured to the first section of the heat-conducting plate (taught by figure 5 and paragraph 54 “The interior wall 84 includes an exterior surface 88 that interfaces with the battery cells 56 of the battery pack 24”).
Regarding claim 3, March teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
March also teaches wherein the first section and the second section extend transversally to one another and each define a respective side of the enclosure (taught by figures 2-3, and 5 and paragraph 54 “the plate body 68 of the heat exchanger plate 62 includes an interior wall 84, which faces toward an interior of the battery pack 24, and an exterior wall 86, which faces toward the exterior environment”).
Regarding claim 4, March teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
March also teaches wherein the first section includes a first plate and the second section includes a second plate (taught by figures 2-3, and 5 and paragraph 54 “the plate body 68 of the heat exchanger plate 62 includes an interior wall 84, which faces toward an interior of the battery pack 24, and an exterior wall 86, which faces toward the exterior environment”), the heat-conducting plate including heat pipes mounted to both of the first plate and the second plate, a heat pipe of the heat pipes extending from a first end on the first plate to a second end on the second plate (70 “internal cooling circuit” taught by figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 6, March teaches the battery pack of claim 4, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
March also teaches wherein the first plate and the second plate define grooves, the heat pipes received within the grooves (taught by figure 6).
Regarding claim 14, March teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
March also teaches comprising a battery support secured to the first section (58 “spacers” taught by figure 2),
the battery support defines a plurality of cell-engaging protrusions each defining a cavity receiving a respective one of the one or more battery cells (taught by figure 2).
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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over March (US 20170125863 A1).
Regarding claim 7, March teaches the battery pack of claim 6, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
March does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second plates are made of a material having a thermal conduction of at least 10 W/mK. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first and second plates out of a material having a thermal conduction of at least 10 W/mK, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over March (US 20170125863 A1) in view of Eulitz (US 11581605 B2).
Regarding claim 5, March teaches the battery pack of claim 4, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
March does not teach wherein the second plate has an inner side facing the one or more battery cells and an outer side opposed to the inner side, the outer side defining fins.
Eulitz teaches wherein the second plate has an inner side facing the one or more battery cells and an outer side opposed to the inner side, the outer side defining fins (51 “cooling fins” taught by figure 4 and paragraph 16 “On the container 40 there are provided cooling fins 51 for dissipating heat to the surroundings”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the cooling fins of Eulitz onto the outer side of the second plate of March, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because increasing the surface area of a heat exchanging plate increases the rate at which heat can be exchanged and fins increase the surface area of an otherwise flat plate.
Claim(s) 8-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over March (US 20170125863 A1) in view of Singh (US 20240353270 A1).
Regarding claim 8, March teaches the battery pack of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
March also teaches wherein the heat-conducting plate includes:
a first casing and a second casing defining a cavity therebetween (68 “plate body” taught by figure 5);
a working fluid within the cavity (C “coolant” taught in figure 4).
However, March does not teach a core assembly having a wicking layer adjacent an inner side of the first casing, and
a vapor core, the wicking layer and the vapor core received within the cavity.
Singh teaches a core assembly having a wicking layer adjacent an inner side of the first casing (12 “wick” taught by figure 3), and
a vapor core, the wicking layer and the vapor core received within the cavity (11 “internal space” taught by figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the wicking layer and vapor core of Singh into the cavity of March, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a wicking layer and vapor core allow heat transfer through phase-change cooling.
Regarding claim 9, March in view of Singh teaches the battery pack of claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
March also teaches comprising one or more coolant conduits embedded within the second section (170 “internal cooling circuit” taught by figures 3-4, and 6), the coolant conduits flowing a coolant (C “coolant” taught by figure 4) and in fluid communication with a cooling system for extracting heat from the coolant (taught by paragraph 53 “Although not shown, the coolant C exiting the outlet 78 may be delivered to a radiator or some other heat exchanging device, be cooled, and then returned to the inlet 76 in a closed loop”).
Regarding claim 10, March in view of Singh teaches the battery pack of claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
March also teaches one or more coolant conduits (170 “internal cooling circuit” taught by figures 3-4, and 6), the second section wrapped around the one or more coolant conduits (taught by figure 6), the coolant conduits flowing a coolant (C “coolant” taught by figure 4) and in fluid communication with a cooling system for extracting heat from the coolant (taught by paragraph 53 “Although not shown, the coolant C exiting the outlet 78 may be delivered to a radiator or some other heat exchanging device, be cooled, and then returned to the inlet 76 in a closed loop”).
Regarding claim 13, March in view of Singh teaches the battery pack of claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
March also teaches wherein the first section includes four lateral sections each extending generally transversally from a respective edge of the second section, the four lateral sections and the second section defining the enclosure (67 “a plurality of walls” taught by figure 2).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over March (US 20170125863 A1) in view of Singh (US 20240353270 A1) and in further view of Eulitz (US 11581605 B2).
Regarding claim 11, March in view of Singh teaches the battery pack of claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, March does not teach fins protruding from the second section of the heat-conducting plate.
Eulitz teaches fins protruding from the second section of the heat-conducting plate (51 “cooling fins” taught by figure 4 and paragraph 16 “On the container 40 there are provided cooling fins 51 for dissipating heat to the surroundings”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the cooling fins of Eulitz onto the outer side of the second plate of March, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because increasing the surface area of a heat exchanging plate increases the rate at which heat can be exchanged and fins increase the surface area of an otherwise flat plate.
Claim(s) 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over March (US 20170125863 A1) in view of Saito (US 12583306 B2).
Regarding claim 15, March teaches an electric vehicle, comprising:
a battery pack (24 “a battery pack” taught in figure 1), the battery pack having:
an enclosure including interconnected walls (65 “enclosure” taught by figure 2);
one or more battery cells contained within the enclosure (56 “battery cells” taught by figure 2); and
a heat-conducting plate defining one or more of the interconnected walls and being structurally load-bearing and configured to increase a stiffness of the frame (62 “heat exchanger plate” taught by figure 2), the heat-conducting plate having
a first section, the one or more battery cells in heat exchange relationship with the first section (84 “interior wall” taught by figure 5 and paragraph 54 “the plate body 68 of the heat exchanger plate 62 includes an interior wall 84, which faces toward an interior of the battery pack 24, and an exterior wall 86, which faces toward the exterior environment”), and
a second section in heat exchange relationship with the first section, the second section in heat exchange relationship with an environment outside the enclosure for providing heat exchange between the one or more battery cells and the environment (86 “exterior wall” taught by figure 5 and paragraph 54 “the plate body 68 of the heat exchanger plate 62 includes an interior wall 84, which faces toward an interior of the battery pack 24, and an exterior wall 86, which faces toward the exterior environment”).
March does not teach a chassis including a frame having frame members.
Saito teaches a chassis including a frame having frame members (1L “a left side member,” and 1R “a right side member” taught by figures 1-2), and
a battery pack secured to the frame (3 “first member,” 4 “second member,” and 7 “plurality of frames” taught by figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the chassis of Saito into the electric vehicle including the battery pack of March, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a chassis allows the vehicle to have heavy components placed upon it without breaking, like a battery pack and a motor.
Regarding claim 16, March in view of Saito teaches the battery pack of claim 15, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
March in view of Saito also teaches wherein one of the frame members is secured to another of the frame members via the heat-conducting plate (the frame members of Saito are taught connected by the heat-conducting plate by figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, March in view of Saito teaches the battery pack of claim 15, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
March also teaches wherein the heat-conducting plate has a bottom face exposed to an environment outside the electric vehicle (taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, March in view of Saito teaches the battery pack of claim 15, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
March does not explicitly teach wherein a stiffness of the frame is increased by the heat-conducting plate by at least 10%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose a material that results in the conducting plate being stiff enough to increase the stiffness of the frame by at least 10%, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 20, March in view of Saito teaches the battery pack of claim 15, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
March also teaches wherein the heat-conducting plate is configured to support a weight of the one or more battery cells (taught by figure 2).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over March (US 20170125863 A1) in view of Saito (US 12583306 B2) and in further view of Yokoyama (US 12304294 B2).
Regarding claim 19, March in view of Saito teaches the battery pack of claim 15, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
March also teaches brackets, the heat conducting plate secured to the frame members via the brackets, a load path extending from the frame members to the heat-conducting plate via the brackets, the brackets configured to support a weight of the battery pack.
Yokoyama teaches brackets (10 “battery brackets” taught by figures 3, 6, and 7), the heat conducting plate secured to the frame members via the brackets, a load path extending from the frame members to the heat-conducting plate via the brackets, the brackets configured to support a weight of the battery pack (taught by figure 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights