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 US 2002/0177035 to Oweis et al. (hereinafter Oweis).
With respect to claims 1, 20, and 21, Lee teaches a battery unit including a unit module stack 21 formed by stacking a plurality of unit modules along a stacking direction, each unit module having a plurality of battery cells 211 (see annotated Figure 5); and a swelling absorption pad 1 interposed between adjacent ones of the unit modules in the stacking direction, the swelling absorption pad being planar along a plane oriented orthogonally to the stacking direction (see Figure 1; annotated Figure 6). Further, the swelling absorption pad has a coolant channel formed to extend therein between the adjacent ones of the plurality of unit modules from 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. See Figures 1, 2, and 6.
PNG
media_image3.png
592
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
497
478
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The coolant channel 101 includes an input 102 passage oriented along the plane of the swelling absorption pad and positioned at the first end of the swelling absorption pad, an output passage 103 oriented along the plane of the swelling absorption pad and 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 that connects to the cooling portion at a first height in the height dimension that is different than a second height in which the output passage connects to the cooling portion. As shown in Figure 1 above, the inlet and outlet passage of Lee are at the same height in the height dimension of the swelling absorption pad.
PNG
media_image5.png
504
514
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
374
786
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Oweis teaches a battery thermal management system including a swelling absorption pad 50 that is interposed between adjacent battery cells. A coolant channel 56 is formed between an input passage 52 and an output passage 51 by the opposed walls of the pad. The inlet 52 is connected to the cooling portion at a first height that is different (i.e. higher) than a second height at which the output port connects to the cooling portion. Both the input port and the output port of Oweis are oriented along the plane of the swelling absorption pad 50. See Figures 6A, 6B, 7, and 8; paras [0035-0036].
Because Oweis evidences that it was known in the art for a flexible cooling conduit for batteries to have an inlet passage at a height higher than 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. It has been established that where all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, 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. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP 2143.I.A.
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.
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 Oweis 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 Oweis 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 Oweis, 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 Oweis 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.
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.
Claims 8-15 and 17-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While Ronning discloses air cooling of a battery stack, 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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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/ /Patricia L Engle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991 SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights