Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35
U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Status of Claims
Patent claims 1-20 (as amended) and new claims 21-24 are pending.
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, 2, 16, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0200429 to Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee) in view of GB 2549512 to Carpenter et al. (hereinafter Carpenter).
With respect to claims 1, 30, Lee teaches a battery unit including a unit module stack 21 formed by stacking a plurality of unit modules, each unit module having a plurality of battery cells 211 (see annotated Figure 5); and a swelling absorption pad 1 interposed between the unit modules adjacent to each other (annotated Figure 6), wherein the swelling absorption pad has a coolant channel formed to extend between a first end and a second end of the swelling absorption pad, the first and second ends being opposed to one another along a longitudinal direction of the swelling absorption pad, and the coolant channel being positioned within a height dimension of the swelling absorption pad, the
PNG
media_image1.png
614
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
height dimension being oriented orthogonally to the longitudinal direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
497
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
592
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Further, the coolant channel 101 includes an input 102 passage positioned at the first end of the swelling absorption pad, an output passage 103 positioned at the second end of the swelling absorption pad and a cooling portion configured to connect the input passage and the output passage to each other and having a greater sectional area than the input passage and the output passage (see Figures 1 and 2).
Lee is silent to a swelling absorption pad having an inlet passage at a first end and an outlet passage at a second end wherein the inlet passage connects to the cooling portion at a height different that the height at which the outlet passage connects to the cooling portion.
PNG
media_image5.png
484
682
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Carpenter discloses a thermal management device for a battery module wherein flexible thermal management conduit 615 has in inlet 620 at a height that is different that the outlet passage 621. See Figure 26. Carpenter teaches that the flexible device “conforms to the surface of each cell” (page 3, lines 5-6), “may be used with cell packs, having cells of any shape” (page 3, line 23), and the cooling of cells “may be performed in parallel and thereby reduce the overall required flow rate and/or length of flow path, and thus provide a more efficient system.” See page 3, line 31 to page 4, line 1. The conduit is not limited to any particular orientation in use.
As Carpenter evidences that it was known in the art for a flexible cooling conduit for batteries to have an inlet passage at a height different from an outlet passage, it would have been an obvious modification to the cooling device of Lee, particularly as Lee teaches “the fluid inlet 102 and the fluid outlet 103 can be disposed at different locations according to need.” See para [0033]. Note for example, that Lee discloses the inlet and outlet at different heights in the embodiment in Figure 3.
As to claim 2, the coolant channel of Lee has an opened shape such that the coolant flowing therethrough causes the walls of the channel to directly contact a pair of battery cells in contact with the expanded channel. See para [0012].
With respect to claim 16, it is known to duplicate parts for multiplied effect. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8,11 (7th Cir. 1977). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to duplicate the battery unit of Lee for the expected purpose of providing more energy storage.
As to claim 21, when rotated 90° clockwise the flexible conduit 615 of Carpenter has an inlet conduit (first height) that is higher than the outlet conduit (second height). See Figure 26 above.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, the battery unit (pack) includes a housing 20, shown in Figure 5.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Carpenter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8,268,472 to Ronning et al. (hereinafter Ronning).
The combination of Lee with Carpenter is silent to an air inlet and an air outlet disposed at first and second sides of the unit module stack. However, air cooling was known in the art of battery cooling. Ronning teaches an air inlet 58 at a first side of a unit module stack and an air outlet 64 at a second side of a unit module stack for cooling battery units 42. See abstract. It would have been obvious to add the air cooling means of Ronning to the system of Lee with Carpenter, in order to provide a robust means of cooling the batteries.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Carpenter as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of WO 2018065171 to Scharner et al. (hereinafter Scharner).
The combination of Lee with Carpenter is silent to a water tank and controller
positioned in the housing. Scharner discloses a cooling unit 4 for battery cells 2, wherein the cooling unit is in connection with a tank 5. The coolant may be water. Scharner further teaches that the system may be activated by a control unit. See description of Figure 1. It would have been obvious to provide a source for the coolant of Lee and locate the source within the housing of Lee, in order to assure coolant is always available and to reduce the distance the coolant must travel. Furthermore, one would have found it obvious to provide a controller for the system of Lee in order to provide accurate control over the temperature. Notably Scharner describes using a control unit with a temperature sensor and switch for each battery cell, enabling supply of water quickly to only the affected cells.
Claim(s) 8-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharner in view of Lee.
With respect to claim 8, Scharner teaches a battery pack, including a plurality of battery modules 2; a water tank 5 disposed adjacent a module stack including the plurality of battery modules 2 and configured to store a coolant; a coolant tube 6 configured to connect the water tank and the plurality of battery modules to each other; at least one sensor 7 installed inside the pack housing to detect a thermal runaway phenomenon occurring in at least a part of the plurality of battery modules; and a controller configured to output a control signal for introducing the coolant into the plurality of battery modules through the coolant tube when a thermal runaway phenomenon is detected by the sensor. Specifically, Scharner teaches that the sensors 7 may be passive, active, or passive with active assistance. If active, a control unit reacts to a temperature sensor at each cell to active the cooling system. Scharner is silent to a housing for the battery pack and coolant tank.
Lee teaches a system for cooling a battery pack wherein the battery pack is within a housing 20. It would have been obvious to provide housing for the battery pack and coolant tank of Scharner, in order to provide protection from environmental contaminants. As to the location of the tank, Scharner discloses that the tank is preferably pressurized. However, it is well-known in the art to use gravity to promote liquid flow and thus, placing the tank above the battery pack would have been an alternate and obvious means of achieving coolant flow on-demand.
As to claims 9-11 and 18, the battery pack of Scharner includes a plurality of closures 7 that may be passive (fusible alloy) or active, using a temperature sensor and a control unit. An active closure known to a POSITA is a. Each battery of Scharner includes a closure 7.
With respect to claim 12, the battery pack of Scharner is composed of multiple cells 2 wherein an elastic cooling channel structure 4 is located between each cell, but Scharner does not teach a battery pack composed of a plurality of unit modules, each having a plurality of battery cells. Lee teaches a battery unit including a unit module stack 21 formed by stacking a plurality of unit modules, each unit module having a plurality of battery cells 211 (see annotated Figure 5), and a swelling absorption pad 1 interposed between the unit modules adjacent to each other (annotated Figure 6). It would have been obvious to use the cooling system of Scharner on other types of energy storage devices, such as the battery unit of Lee, as one would have had an expectation of success when doing so since Lee uses a similar means to cool the battery cells.
As to claims 13 and 14, Scharner does not disclose the coolant device having the claimed structure since the cooling channel 12 of Scharner is disclosed to have a “meandering” shape, as shown in Figure 2. In the cooling system of Lee, the swelling absorption pad 1 has a coolant channel 101 formed to extend between a first end and a second end of the swelling absorption pad, the first and second ends being opposed to one another along a longitudinal direction of the swelling absorption pad, and the coolant channel being positioned within a height dimension of the swelling absorption pad, the height dimension being oriented orthogonally to the longitudinal direction. See Figures 1 and 2. Like the cooling channel of Scharner, the channel 101 of Lee is disclosed to be flexible such that it contacts the battery cells. See para [0012]. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to substitute the coolant channel of Lee for that of Scharner because one would have had an expectation of success when doing so. The substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
With respect to claim 17, the cells 2 of Scharner each include a positive and a negative terminal. The cell connector 3 (lead) connects adjacent cells. See Figure 1.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharner and Lee as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Carpenter.
Scharner as modified by Lee is silent to a swelling absorption pad having an inlet port located higher than the outlet port.
Carpenter discloses a thermal management device for a battery module wherein flexible thermal management conduit 615 has in inlet 620 at a height that is different that the outlet passage 621. See Figure 26. Carpenter teaches that the flexible device “conforms to the surface of each cell” (page 3, lines 5-6), “may be used with cell packs, having cells of any shape” (page 3, line 23), and the cooling of cells “may be performed in parallel and thereby reduce the overall required flow rate and/or length of flow path, and thus provide a more efficient system.” See page 3, line 31 to page 4, line 1. The conduit is not limited to any particular orientation in use, thus in some orientations the
PNG
media_image5.png
484
682
media_image5.png
Greyscale
inlet port will be higher that the outlet port.
As Carpenter evidences that it was known in the art for a flexible cooling conduit for batteries to have an inlet passage at a height different from an outlet passage, it would have been an obvious modification to the cooling device of Scharner with Lee, particularly as Lee teaches “the fluid inlet 102 and the fluid outlet 103 can be disposed at different locations according to need.” See para [0033]. Note for example, that Lee discloses the inlet and outlet at different heights in the embodiment in Figure 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ronning fails to teach or suggest an expansion pad disposed inside the air inlet 58 and the air outlet 64 and configured to expand due to contact with a coolant introduced into the battery unit to close the air inlet and the air outlet.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to
timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No.
11,450,908 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental
examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to
timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the
claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and
prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and
1442.04.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH MCKANE whose telephone number is
(571) 272-1275. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs; 6:30 am -
4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Patricia Engle can be reached on 571-272-6660. The fax phone number for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair.uspto.gov/epatent/portal/home.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the
Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the
automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-
1000.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/Leonardo Andujar/
Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991