DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed August 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 has been amended; support for the amendments can be found in cancelled claim 14. Claims and 14 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-12 and 15 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 11, 2025 have been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below in view of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the battery.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,3, 7-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 204144345 U), hereinafter referred to as Yu, in view of Flaugher (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20060286442 A1) and Ootsuki et al. (WO 2019163839 A1, citations taken from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 20210013460 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ootsuki.
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a power battery box (“a battery case”) (see e.g., Abstract). Yu teaches a box body 1 (“an outer housing for mechanical protection”) (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1). Yu teaches insulating layers 2, 3, and 5, and a fireproof layer 4 (“an inner casing for thermal confinement, said inner casing including at least one thermal insulation component and at least one flame protection component” and “the inner casing being a multilayer structure”) (see e.g., paragraph [0020 and Figure 1). Yu teaches the box body 1 is independent of the insulating layers 2, 3, and 5, and the fireproof layer 4 (“the outer housing being independent of the inner case”) (see e.g., Figure 1).
Yu does not explicitly teach the inner casing including a network for cooling the battery, the network comprising one or more channels for guiding air and a plurality of orifices for output of air from the channels towards the battery, said channel being formed via a surplus of material in the inner casing.
However, Flaugher teaches a battery enclosure (see e.g., Abstract). Flaugher teaches the battery enclosure comprises an insulation material 230 disposed on the top of the array of batteries and below the top portion 210 of the battery enclosure 100 (see e.g., paragraph [0022]). Flaugher teaches a support structure integrated with the insulation layer 230 that includes grooves or channels in order to allow air to flow over the top of the batteries 215 housed within the battery enclosure 100 (“the inner casing including a network for cooling the battery, the network comprising one or more channels for guiding air, said channel being formed via a surplus of material in the inner casing”) (see e.g., paragraph [0039]) in order to preserve battery life as a high heat environment may shorten the lives of the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the insulating layers of Yu to include grooves or channels in order to allow air to flow, as taught by Flaugher, in order to preserve battery life as a high heat environment may shorten the lives of the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Yu, as modified by Flaugher, does not explicitly teach a plurality of orifices for output of air from the channels towards the battery.
However, Ootsuki teaches a fire-resistant laminate comprising a base material 21 and fire-resistant resin layer 22 (see e.g., Abstract). Ootsuki teaches holes disposed in the base material 21 (see e.g., paragraph [0180]) and the fire-resistant resin layer 22 (see e.g., paragraph [0184] and Figure 4c) in order to reduce the force of heat by efficiently dispersing heat spouting out of a battery (see e.g., paragraph [0179]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the insulating layers of Yu, as modified by Flaugher, to includes holes disposed in the layers, as taught by Ootsuki, in order to reduce the force of heat by efficiently dispersing heat spouting out of a battery (see e.g., paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claim 3, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu teaches the insulating layer is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material (see e.g., paragraph [0012]) and the heat insulating layer is made of insulating flame retardant material, such as silica aerogel felt, one or several kinds of ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product (“wherein said inner casing comprises at least one layer including thermal insulation component and a flame protection component”) (see e.g., paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 7, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu teaches the insulating layer is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material (see e.g., paragraph [0012]) and the heat insulating layer is made of insulating flame retardant material, such as silica aerogel felt, one or several kinds of ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product (“wherein all of the layers of said inner casing comprise a thermal insulation component) (see e.g., paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 8, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu teaches the heat insulating layer is made of insulating flame retardant material, such as silica aerogel felt, one or several kinds of ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product (“wherein the thermal insulation component includes a material chosen from glass fibers, silica fibers, or a mixture thereof”) (see e.g., paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu teaches the heat insulating layer is made of insulating flame retardant material, such as silica aerogel felt, one or several kinds of ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product (see e.g., paragraph [0014]); therefore, the claim limitation of “wherein said inner casing is a structure at least partly woven” is met Yu teaches the material for the insulating layers, such as ceramic fiber felt or silicate fiber product, as described in the Instant Specification.
Regarding claim 11, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu teaches the box body structure is made of aluminum material (“wherein the outer housing comprises aluminum”) (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, does not explicitly teach wherein the outer housing and/or the inner casing comprises a vent.
Flaugher teaches the top portion of the battery enclosure includes one or more ventilation slits or vent holes in the side of top portion through which gases are permitted to escape (see e.g., paragraph [0010]) in order to preserve battery life as a high heat environment may shorten the lives of the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the box body of Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, to include a vent in the outer body, as taught by Flaugher, in order to allow gases to escape to preserve battery life as a high heat environment may shorten the lives of the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Claims 4-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 204144345 U) in view of Flaugher (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20060286442 A1) and Ootsuki et al. (WO 2019163839 A1, citations taken from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 20210013460 A1), and further in view of Cai et al. (CN 107914428), hereinafter referred to as Cai.
Regarding claim 4, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu teaches the insulating layer 2 is disposed facing the box body 1 (“wherein said inner casing comprises an outer layer disposed facing the outer housing”) (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1).
Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, does not explicitly teach wherein said inner casing comprises an outer layer that includes a component impermeable to water.
However, Cai teaches a battery heat insulation fireproof material with good heat-insulating property, fire resistance, hydrophobicity, reliability and low density (see e.g., Abstract). Cai teaches a fiber cloth on the lower layer coated aerogel felt with strong hydrophobicity (see e.g., paragraph [0019]) in order to have a long service life (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the insulating layers of Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, to include a component with strong hydrophobicity, as taught by Cai, in order to have excellent heat insulation fireproof performance and strong hydrophobicity in order to have a long service life (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu teaches the insulating layer 4 is disposed facing the batteries (“wherein said inner casing comprises an inner layer disposed facing a battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0020] and Figure 1).
Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, does not explicitly teach wherein said inner casing comprises an inner layer that includes a component impermeable to water.
However, Cai teaches a battery heat insulation fireproof material with good heat-insulating property, fire resistance, hydrophobicity, reliability and low density (see e.g., Abstract). Cai teaches a fiber cloth on the lower layer coated aerogel felt with strong hydrophobicity (see e.g., paragraph [0019]) in order to have a long service life (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the insulating layers of Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, to include a component with strong hydrophobicity, as taught by Cai, in order to have excellent heat insulation fireproof performance and strong hydrophobicity in order to have a long service life (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Yu teaches the insulating layer 3 is disposed between the inner layer (insulating layer 4) and outer layer (insulating layer 2) (see e.g., Figure 1), wherein the insulating layer 3 is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material (“wherein a thermal insulation component in the form of foam is disposed between said inner layer and an outer layer of the inner casing for thermal confinement”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 15, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 4, as previously described.
Yu teaches the insulating layer 3 is disposed between the inner layer (insulating layer 4) and outer layer (insulating layer 2) (see e.g., Figure 1), wherein the insulating layer 3 is made of one or several kinds of foaming material or rubber material (“wherein a thermal insulation component in the form of foam is disposed between said inner layer and an outer layer of the inner casing for thermal confinement”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 204144345 U) in view of Flaugher (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20060286442 A1) and Ootsuki et al. (WO 2019163839 A1, citations taken from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 20210013460 A1), and further in view of Fernando et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2013/0092321 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fernando.
Regarding claim 9, Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, does not explicitly teach a battery case wherein the flame protection component comprises vermiculite.
However, Fernando teaches a fire barrier laminate (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Fernando teaches the inorganic platelet material of the fire barrier layer may comprise at least one of vermiculite, mica, clay or talc (“wherein the flame protection component comprises vermiculite”) (see e.g., paragraph [0015]) in order to solve problems previously associated with the use of lightweight ceramic or inorganic papers, which tend to be fragile to handling or in use where harsh mechanical environments are encountered (see e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the fireproof layer of Yu, as modified by Flaugher and Ootsuki, to comprise vermiculite, as taught by Fernando, in order to solve problems previously associated with the use of lightweight ceramic or inorganic papers, which tend to be fragile to handling or in use where harsh mechanical environments are encountered (see e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights