LG Expends Significant Efforts to Secure Patent Rights on Battery HeatExchanger

LG has a significant portfolio in the battery space, and has shown a willingness to aggressively pursue patent protection even on very specific improvements.  A recent example relates to a patent application centered on the structure of a serpentine heat exchanger (element 100 in the figures below) and an inlet tube of the heat exchanger.
Figure 7 of LG’s patent application shows a schematic of a first side of the heat exchanger 100
Figure 9, a schematic of an inlet extension portion 229 including inlet tube 204 of heat exchanger 100
LG claimed this invention as:
1. A battery cell assembly, comprising a battery cell . . . a heat exchanger . . . an inlet tube having a portion disposed within the inlet extension portion and another portion extending outwardly from the inlet extension portion . . . .
The Patent Office Examiner rejected the application, citing a prior art reference - Ouchi. Ouchi discloses flattened tubes 21 which are open at two ends and fluidically connected to headers 31 and 32.
Ouchi Figure 9, a perspective view of tube 21 
Ouchi Figure 13, a front elevation of a heat exchanger

Thus, Ouchi only discloses headers having ports 36 and 37 which are connected to heat exchanger tubes 21. The teachings of Ouchi provide no inlet tubes or inlet extension portion. The Examiner therefore relied on a secondary reference, Hoshino, which discloses tubes 11 and header 13 to allegedly provide an inlet tube disposed within and inlet extension as illustrated below.


Hoshino Figure 3, a perspective view showing the join between the header 13 and the tubes 11 
Hoshino, however, only provides another set of headers and heat exchange tubes which, similarly, fail to include an inlet tube.
LG therefore appealed to the PTAB arguing that the Examiner improperly rejected the application because it was improper to rely on Hoshino in order to allege that the heat exchange tubes, soldered to a header and included within the header, disclose the inlet tube and inlet extension portion. Even assuming that the similar heat exchanging tubes of Ouchi and Hoshino (both include tubes fluidically connected to headers) were combined, LG was of the opinion that they teach totally different elements of the claims.
The PTAB, siding with LG, wisely points out that “[t]he claims require the two-walled structure with the four wrapped portions include the inlet extension. It is that structure within which the inlet tube must be disposed. The structure of Ouchi including wrapped portions is tube 21. The Examiner does not identify an inlet extension on Ouchi’s tube 21 within which an inlet tube is disposed.”
Thankfully, this board decision corrects an Examiner’s broad overreach and failure to thoroughly examine the claims as a whole and confirmed that LG was correct to fight for patent rights by appealing to the PTAB to review the Examiner’s position.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions closes prosecution on the merits of the appl
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to rethink th
Read more