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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 1/12/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 8 and 20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 8 and 20 listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Claims 8 and 20 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of claim 1, e.g., a thermal shielding device comprising:
a first metal layer;
ii. a second metal layer; and
iii. a polymeric core layer interposed between the first metal layer and the second metal layer, wherein the polymeric core layer is a dense material having 15 volume percent or less voids and/or pores;
wherein the thermal shielding device has a thermal conductivity of about 0.05 to about 4 W/mK, and upon heating the first metal layer and the thermal shielding device to a temperature of about 100 °C or more, the polymeric core layer causes a separation distance between the first and second metal layers to increase in one or more regions and a thickness of the thermal shielding device to increase by about 25 percent or more in the one or more regions
this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kellner et al (US 2018/0261811 A1) in view of Mizrahi (US 2014/0162086 A1) as detailed below.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 8 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 appears to be missing its claim number. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner et al (US 2018/0261811 A1) in view of Mizrahi (US 2014/0162086 A1).
Kellner teaches a thermal shielding device (e.g., high-voltage energy accumulator) comprising a first metal layer (32); a second metal layer (34); and a polymeric core layer (36) (e.g., plastic core layer) interposed between the first metal layer and the second metal layer; wherein the polymeric core layer includes a reinforcing filler (e.g., carbon fibers) and flame or fire retardant (abstract, para 26); wherein the polymeric core layer includes a first polymer having a melting temperature of about 100 °C to about 225 °C (e.g., polyethylene) (para 18, 26); wherein a sealing component is formed by bending the first metal layer (e.g., bent edge) or the second metal layer (e.g., the first metal layer) (para 25; fig 1); wherein the two metal layers may be welded (i.e., wherein the sealing component is welded to the second metal layer) (para 12, 23); wherein the core polymeric layer extends to the sealing component and a void space is present between the edge of the core polymeric layer and the sealing component; wherein the first metal layer includes a first metal sheet having a length and a width and the second metal layer includes a second metal sheet having a length and/or a width that is different from the first metal sheet (e.g., the second metal layer lacks the bend);
Kellner further teaches the thickness of its plastic core layer may be 2.0 mm and its metal layer may be 1.0 mm each for a total thickness of 4.0 mm, so a ratio of a thickness of the polymeric core layer to the thickness of the thermal shielding device is 0.50 (para 20).
Kellner fails to suggest the thermal shielding device has a thermal conductivity of about 0.05 to about 4 W/mK, and upon heating the first metal layer and the thermal shielding device to a temperature of about 100 °C or more, the polymeric core layer causes a separation distance between the first and second metal layers to increase in one or more regions and a thickness of the thermal shielding device to increase by about 15 percent or more in the one or more regions; wherein the polymeric core layer generates or releases a sufficient amount of gas at a temperature of about 100 °C or more to cause the separation of the metal layers and the increase in the thickness of the thermal shielding device in the one or more regions; the polymeric core layer is formed of a material, excluding any voids and/or pores in the polymeric core layer, having a density of about 0.90 to about 2.00 g/cm3 at a temperature of about 25 °C; wherein the flame retardant compound includes phosphorous or graphene; wherein an amount of metal fibers or other metal particles in the polymeric core layer is sufficiently low so that the thermal conductivity of the polymeric core layer is about 2.0 W/mK or less; wherein the device provides EMI shielding properties; wherein the thermal shielding device has good sound dampening properties as characterized by a composite loss factor of about 0.010 or more at a temperature of about 50 °C and a frequency of about 100 Hz; and wherein one or more edges of the device is covered with a folded covering component which covers the edges and unfolds when the metal layers separate; and wherein the polymeric core layer includes a chemical blowing agent, a hydrate, or a desiccant material.
Mizrahi teaches a light weight composite material formed of sandwich composites that include a fiber-filled polymeric layer and two metallic layers (para 2, 34; fig 1b); wherein the thermal shielding device has a thermal conductivity of about 0.05 to about 4 W/mK (e.g., less than 1 W/mK; i.e., wherein an amount of metal fibers or other metal particles in the polymeric core layer is sufficiently low so that the thermal conductivity of the polymeric core layer is about 2.0 W/mK or less); wherein the polymeric core comprises polyethylene, metal fibers, and phosphorous flame retardants (para 15, 16, 57, 62); wherein the polymeric core layer is formed of a material, excluding any voids and/or pores in the polymeric core layer (i.e., 15 volume percent or less), having a density of about 0.90 to about 2.00 g/cm3 at a temperature of about 25 °C (e.g., 1.3 to 2.6 2.00 g/cm3) (para 56). Mizrahi also teaches its polymeric layer comprises blowing agents (e.g., foaming agents), hydrates (e.g., aluminum trihydrate), desiccant (e.g., magnesium oxide), and mineral fillers (e.g., calcium carbonate, talc, mica) (para 57,73); and may include rubber subjected to compression process (e.g., compression molding) (i.e., a compressed rubber in the core layer that stores potential energy) (para 69, 131, 140)
Mizrahi further teaches its composite materials may be used in any number of applications requiring one or any combination of the properties described herein, including but not limited to relatively low density, relatively low thermal conductivity, relatively high stiffness to density ratio, or relatively low acoustical transmission (para 127); and its metal layers may be folded over themselves (para 32) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein one or more edges of the device is covered with a folded covering component which covers the edges and unfolds when the metal layers separate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the composite materials of Mizrahi with the high-voltage energy accumulator of Kellner for a high-voltage energy accumulator with relatively low density, relatively low thermal conductivity, relatively high stiffness to density ratio, and relatively low acoustical transmission.
Regarding the limitation “wherein any reinforcing fillers in the polymeric core layer are mineral fillers;” it would have been obvious to exclude any reinforcing fillers (e.g., carbon fibers) that are not mineral fillers if their reinforcing properties were not desired, since omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP § 2144.04 II).
Regarding the limitations “upon heating the first metal layer and the thermal shielding device to a temperature of about 100 °C or more, the polymeric core layer causes a separation distance between the first and second metal layers to increase in one or more regions and a thickness of the thermal shielding device to increase by about 25 percent or more in the one or more regions; wherein the polymeric core layer generates or releases a sufficient amount of gas at a temperature of about 100 °C or more to cause the separation of the metal layers and the increase in the thickness of the thermal shielding device in the one or more regions;” “wherein the device provides EMI shielding properties;” and “wherein the battery cover has good sound dampening properties as characterized by a composite loss factor of about 0.010 or more at a temperature of about 50 0C and a frequency of about 100 Hz;” Kellner as modified by Mizrahi teaches the structure and composition of the thermal shielding device of the instant claims, so it is deemed to possess these properties.
As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
Any claim limitations that read as optional or preferable do not need to be taught or suggested by the combination of Kellner as modified by Mizrahi
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends Kellner teaches that reinforcement is with fibers; and Kellner does not teach or enable any fibers other than carbon fibers.
Regarding the limitation “wherein any reinforcing fillers in the polymeric core layer are mineral fillers;” it would have been obvious to exclude any reinforcing fillers (e.g., carbon fibers) that are not mineral fillers if their reinforcing properties were not desired, since omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP § 2144.04 II).
Furthermore, Mizrahi teaches conductive metal fibers as an alternative to the reinforcing carbon black fibers of Kellner; and these are not forbidden by the instant claim language or specification (instant spec, para 83). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the metallic fibers of Mizrahi for the carbon fibers of Kellner, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783