Ex Parte Mascianica et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2019

14558234 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/558,234 12/02/2014
46442 7590 02/27/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Evan Mascianica
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
67186-143 PUS1;83486088 1045
EXAMINER
CREPEAU, JONATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EV AN MASCIANICA, JOSEF DOLLISON,
JEREMY SAMBORSKY, and DANIEL MILLER
Appeal2018-005680
Application 14/558,234
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part and enter a new ground of rejection
pursuant to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 50(b ).
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed December 2, 2014; Non-Final
Office Action ("Non-Final Act.") dated November 24, 2017; Appellant's
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed February 22, 2018; Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") dated April 27, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.")
dated May 10, 2018.
2 Appellant is Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which is identified in the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005680
Application 14/558,234
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to batteries, such as may be used
in hybrid electric vehicles. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 11 read as follows:
1. A battery module, comprising:
a first array of battery cells along a first axis extending
perpendicular to a direction of a length of the battery module;
a second array of battery cells along a second axis spaced-
apart from and parallel to the first axis, the first and second axes
extending perpendicular to axially facing walls of the cells within
a respective one of the first and second arrays, the axially facing
walls providing an increased surface area relative to the
remaining walls of the battery cells; and
a compression structure providing a heat exchanger
positioned adjacent axially facing walls of the first and second
arrays.
11. A battery module, comprising:
a first array of battery cells extending along a first axis
perpendicular to a direction of a length of the battery module;
a second array of battery cells extending along a second
axis spaced apart from and parallel to the first axis; and
a compression structure providing a heat exchanger
adjacent cells of the first and second arrays.
App. Br. 11, 12 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as
anticipated by Andre. 3
II. Claims 1-5 and 7-22 stand rejected under 103 as unpatentable over
Salvio4 and Andre.
3 US 2015/0249238 Al, published September 3, 2015.
4 WO 2012/160573 A2, published November 29, 2012.
2
Appeal2018-005680
Application 14/558,234
OPINION
Rejection I
Relevant to Appellant's arguments on appeal with regard to Rejection
I, the Examiner finds that Andre describes a battery module comprising a
plurality of battery cell arrays arranged as claimed, and a heat exchanger
which extends along the bottom surface of the arrays. Non-Final Act. 3.
The Examiner also finds that Andre describes opposing side flanks joined to
the heat exchanger for holding the battery cell arrays. Id.; Ans. 3--4. The
Examiner finds that Andre's flanks and heat exchanger, viewed together,
meet the claimed compression structure. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that the claimed compression structure is disclosed
as applying a compressive force on the battery cells, whereas Andre's cells
"appear to merely rest on the plate 33 and wall 53 without being compressed
by these structures." App. Br. 6. Appellant's argument is not persuasive.
We reproduce Andre's Figure 7 below:
3
Appeal2018-005680
Application 14/558,234
Figure 7 is a cross-sectional view of an assembled battery pack. Andre ,r 74,
Fig. 7. Flanks 23-1 located at opposite sides of a battery cell array are joined
to each other via tie rods and joined at their lower edges 45 to bottom wall
53 which, in tum, houses a heat regulating plate 33 and flow channels 35.
Id. ,r,r 88, 91, 94. As noted, the Examiner finds that Andre's flanks and heat
exchanger, together, meet the claimed compression structure. Appellant's
argument that Andre's heat exchanger alone is not a compression structure is
not persuasive of error in the Examiner's finding. 5
Rejection I is sustained.
Re} ection II
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, "a first array of battery cells along a first
axis" and "a second array of battery cells along a [parallel] second axis,"
with each of the first and second axes "extending perpendicular to a
direction of a length of the battery module." Claim 1 also requires that the
first and second axes extend "perpendicular to axially facing walls of the
cells," which axial facing cell walls have "an increased swface area relative
to the remaining walls of the battery cells." (Emphasis added.) Appellant
contends (App. Br. 2), and we agree, that the foregoing recitations in claim 1
require the cells and arrays to be oriented essentially as depicted in Figure 4
of the Specification. That is, claim 1 requires that cells within a given array
are arranged such that the sides of each cell having the largest surface area
(i.e. the major sides) are aligned along a common axis perpendicular to a
5 Appellant does not point to support in the Specification for the proposition
that the claimed compressive structure applies a compressive force to the
battery cells. Nor do we find such a requirement in the claims. In any event,
Andre states that "the cells are held together by flanks 23-1," which would
indicate application of a compressive force. Andre ,r 88 ( emphasis added).
4
Appeal2018-005680
Application 14/558,234
length axis of the battery module, and the arrays are aligned along a
common axis parallel to a length axis of the battery module. Consequently,
the recitation in claim 1 of "a heat exchanger positioned adjacent axially
facing walls of the first and second arrays" requires the heat exchanger to be
provided next to major surfaces of individual cells in each array. All of the
foregoing arrangements are shown in Appellant's annotated copy of Figures
2 and 4 (see App. Br. 2), which we reproduce below:
.uia!ly facing walls
94 (Fig. 4) nre
e>:.po~ed to ~ide
c1)mprc~~ion
structures 68, 70
Figures 2 and 4 show perspective views of a battery module comprising
plural battery cell arrays. Spec. ,r,r 41, 44. Appellant's annotation indicates
where axially facing cell walls are exposed to compression structures that
include a heat exchanger. App. Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Salvio discloses a battery cell array having
side-located heat exchangers, but that Salvio does not disclose first and
second arrays, each extending along an axis perpendicular to a length of the
battery module. Non-Final Act. ( citing Salvio Fig. 3). Rather, Salvio orients
cells orthogonal to the claimed orientation, such that Salvio's heat
exchangers are located adjacent only minor cell walls. The Examiner finds
that Andre discloses a battery module in which cells and cell arrays are
5
Appeal2018-005680
Application 14/558,234
arranged as claimed. Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner reasons that
substituting Andre's plurality of cell arrays for Salvio' s single array would
result in the claimed arrangement. Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that because neither Salvio nor Andre
discloses arranging a heat exchanger adjacent major cell wall surfaces, the
combination of these references would not lead to the claimed arrangement.
App. Br. 4. We agree. Salvio teaches that if plural cell arrays are provided,
they are arranged such that the relatively smaller transverse sides of the cells
are in thermal contact with the heat exchanger jacket plates. Salvio 7.
Andre similarly provides a heat exchanger in thermal contact with relatively
small transverse (bottom) sides of each cell within each array. Andre Fig. 2.
The Examiner does not present evidence or technical reasoning sufficient to
support a finding that one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to
depart from the foregoing teachings in both Salvio and Andre by providing a
heat exchanger structure adjacent major cell surfaces in each array.
For the foregoing reason, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, Rejection II as applied to
claim 1, and each claim depending therefrom, is not sustained.
The Examiner does not separately address independent claim 19,
relying instead on the same obviousness determination discussed above in
connection with claim 1. Accordingly, we also do not sustain Rejection II as
applied to claim 19. However, we apply a new ground of rejection to claim
19 as set forth below.
6
Appeal2018-005680
Application 14/558,234
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by
Andre.
Claim 19 is directed to a method in which a fluid flow is established
through a battery module having the same structure as is recited in claim 11.
As detailed above in connection with Rejection I, Appellant does not
persuade us of error in the Examiner's finding that Andre describes a battery
module that meets all of the structural recitations found in claim 11.
Particularly, as noted, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Andre
provides a compression structure that comprises side flanks and a heat
exchanger. Andre further teaches establishing a fluid flow through the heat
exchanger. Andre ,r 91 ( describing the channels within the heat exchanger
as "carrying heat transfer fluid"). Because Andre describes establishing
fluid flow through a passageway of a battery module that meets the claimed
structure, we find that claim 19 is anticipated.
We leave to the Examiner to consider patentability as to any claim
that depends from claim 19 in light of our findings and conclusions set forth
above. The fact that we have not addressed a dependent claim in any new
ground of rejection should not be construed to mean that we consider the
dependent claim to be directed to patentable subject matter or to be
patentable over the prior art.
7
Appeal2018-005680
Application 14/558,234
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-22 is
affirmed-in-part.
We enter a new ground of rejection for claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under§
41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. 4I.50(b)
8