DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 7, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 14 and 18 are currently amended. Claims 3 and 12 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-11, 13-15 and 17-19 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendment. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendment.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation “the temperature range is from 20°C to 150°C”.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which defines “a temperature range for an evolution of heat by the cylindrical battery cell”.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1.
Claim 1 previously defines “a temperature range from 100°C to 800°C”.
The limitation of claim 6 is interpreted to have intended to refer to the “temperature range” defined in claim 5. Applicant is encouraged to rephrase the limitation of claim 6 to read: “the temperature range for an evolution of heat by the cylindrical battery cell is from 20°C to 150°C”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0013460, hereinafter Ootsuki, with evidence from J. Therm. Anal., vol. 36, pp 1265-1279, hereinafter Emons.
Regarding claim 1, Ootsuki teaches a battery cooling device. The battery cooling device comprises a fire-resistant laminate (25, “multilayer system”) capable of surrounding a cylindrical battery cell of an electrically driven aircraft.
The fire-resistant laminate (25, “multilayer system”) comprises two fire-resistant resin layers (22, “inner layer” and “outer layer”) sandwiching a base material layer (21, “middle layer”) (paragraph [0079] and figure 2). The two fire-resistant resin layers (22) comprise fire protection material (paragraphs [0085, 0198]).
The fire-resistant laminate (25) surrounds the battery cell (11) (paragraph [0212]). The battery cell (11) may be a cylindrical battery cell (paragraph [0205]). The inner fire-resistant resin layer (22) faces the battery cell (11) (paragraph [0204]). Once the fire-resistant laminate (25) is wound around the battery (11), the outer fire-resistant layer (22) would necessarily surround the inner fire-resistant resin layer (22). Similarly, once the fire-resistant laminate (25) is wound around the cylindrical battery cell, the base material layer (21, “middle layer”) would be disposed between the inner fire-resistant resin layer (22) and outer fire-resistant layer (22) in a perpendicular direction to a longitudinal extent of the cylindrical battery cell.
Ootsuki teaches that the base material layer (21, “middle layer”) includes holes (3), which are filled with the fire-resistant resin of the fire-resistant layers (22) (paragraphs [0183, 0184] and figures 3 and 4a). Given that the holes (3) include fire-resistant resin, they necessarily include the fire-resistant additive. Ootsuki teaches that the fire-resistant additive may be a hydrated compound, which evolves water vapor as it absorbs heat (paragraph [0117]). Therefore, the hydrated compound is a phase change material (PCM) and the base material layer (21, “middle layer”) includes a PCM within its holes (3). The base material layer (21) is then a “latent heat store”.
Ootsuki teaches that the PCM within the base material layer (21, “middle layer”) is held within the resin and within the holes (3) of the base material layer (21) – therefore it is macroencapsulated within a carrier matrix made up of the resin and the base material layer (21, “middle layer”).
Ootsuki teaches magnesium sulfate heptahydrate (MgSO4·7H2O) as a candidate hydrated compound (paragraph [0118]). MgSO4·7H2O is reported in the literature to have a melting point of 48.1°C – see, Emons (p. 1274, last 3 lines and p. 1275, first line).
Both fire-resistant layers (22, “inner layer” and “outer layer”) include two layers – one layer is an adhesive tape and the other layer comprises an endothermic agent, which is a hydrated material (paragraphs [0199, 0085, 0117]). MgSO4·7H2O is shown to experience a dehydration at 105°C – see, Emons (p. 1275 and figure 6).
The adhesive tape (“first layer”) includes a base material that is a resin film or a nonwoven fabric (paragraph [0202]). Such a base material necessarily possesses a degree of mechanical stability, because its purpose is to support the adhesive and maintain it in place. Thus, the adhesive tape is understood to be “mechanically stable in form”.
The adhesive tape (“first layer”) of the inner fire-resistant layer (22) is disposed directly on the surface of the battery cell (11) (paragraph [0198]). The “second layer” is disposed between the adhesive tape (“first layer”) and the base material layer (21, “middle layer”) in the perpendicular direction to the longitudinal extent of the cylindrical battery cell.
Regarding claim 4, Ootsuki teaches that the fire-resistant laminate (25, “multilayer system”) is capable of being placed around a cylindrical cell. In this configuration, the base material layer (21, “latent heat store”) is formed as a slit sleeve around the inner fire-resistant layer (22) (figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Ootsuki teaches that the fire protection material, which includes the hydrated compound (PCM) is configured for a temperature range for an evolution of heat by the battery cell on thermal runaway from the battery cell (paragraph [0008]). Thermal runaway is an operating state of the battery cell.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Ootsuki teaches that the second layer of the fire-resistant layer (22) includes a metal hydrate (paragraph [0117]).
Regarding claim 11, Ootsuki teaches that the second layer of the fire-resistant layer (22) is configured for a temperature range for an evolution of heat by the battery cell on thermal runaway from the battery cell (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Ootsuki teaches that both the inner and outer fire-resistant layers (22) are self-adhesive (paragraph [0199]).
Regarding claim 14, Ootsuki teaches a self-adhesive tape as the “first layer” (paragraphs [0199, 0200]).
Regarding claim 15, Ootsuki teaches that the outer fire-resistant layer (22) completely covers (“envelops”) the holes (3) of the base material layer (21), which contain the PCM.
Regarding claim 17, Ootsuki teaches a battery module comprising the battery cooling device of claim 1 and a plurality of battery cells (11) (paragraph [0204]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0013460, hereinafter Ootsuki.
Regarding claim 6, Ootsuki teaches that the hydrated compound (PCM) has a thermal decomposition onset temperature in the range greater than 50°C and less than 250°C (paragraphs [0121, 0125]).
Ootsuki’s optimum range overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 20°C to 150°C It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0013460, hereinafter Ootsuki as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,462,820, hereinafter Tanaka.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ootsuki teaches an adhesive tape (“first layer”). The adhesive tape (“first layer”) includes a base material that is a known base material in the art (paragraph [0202]).
Ootsuki fails to teach that the adhesive tape (“first layer”) is formed with fiber material.
Aramid fiber is a well-known constituent for use as the base material of adhesive tapes used in the art – see, e.g. Tanaka (col. 6, lines 58-67; col. 8, lines 65-67; col. 9, lines 1-7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use aramid fibers as the base material for Ootsuki’s adhesive tape without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0013460, hereinafter Ootsuki as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0339010, hereinafter Villanueva.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Ootsuki teaches a battery pack.
Ootsuki fails to teach an aircraft.
The use of battery packs to power electrically driven vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft is well-known in the art – see, e.g. Villanueva (paragraphs [0057, 0058, 0109]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ootsuki’s battery pack in an eVTOL aircraft for the purpose of powering the eVTOL aircraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further consideration, the Emons reference has been provided to supplement Ootsuki as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724