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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 18-19, 21-22, 24-26 are currently pending. Claims 4, 10, 16-17, 20, 23 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remark/argument, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Widener (US20180309107A1), in view of Hiroyasu (WO2020202901A1, translation attached).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,6-9,11,18-19 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widener (US-20180309107-A1), in view of Hiroyasu (WO2020202901A1, translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Widener discloses a battery (i.e., electrochemical module (or battery pack) 10; [0035]; Fig 1), comprising:
a plurality of electrochemical cells comprising a first electrochemical cell and a second electrochemical cell (i.e., a plurality or individual electrochemical battery cells 12; [0035]; Fig 1)
Widener further discloses an inorganic platelet composition 16 located within interstitial spaces 14 between the electrochemical cells, wherein the inorganic platelet composition comprises a support layer comprising a non-woven fabric [0068, 0089] and heat-resistant inorganic fibers [0074].
Thus, the limitation of “a non-woven fiber web positioned between the first and second electrochemical cells” is met.
Widener further discloses:
the glass fibers comprise high softening point fibers that comprise less than or equal to 0.8 wt% Na2O (i.e., <0.5 % by weight in Glass E; [0078]) and less than or equal to 0.8 wt% K2O (i.e., <0.40% by weight in Glass E; [0078])
Widener further discloses that Glass E comprises 50.0-56.0 % by weight of SiO2 [0078]. Since PG Pub [0045] of the instant application recognizes SiO2 as a high softening fiber, the limitation of “the high softening point fibers make up greater than or equal to 30 wt% of the glass fibers” is considered met.
However, Widener does not disclose wt% of the glass fibers in the non-woven fiber web, and further does not disclose that the glass fibers make up “greater than 80 wt% of the non-woven fiber web” as claimed.
In this regard, HIROYASU teaches a heat-resistant heat-insulating sheet for a battery, wherein the heat-resistant heat-insulating sheet is inserted between a plurality of unit cells [0009 HIROYASU]. Hiroyasu, in Example 1, further teaches that the sheet comprises a low-density sheet produced by forming a nonwoven fabric made by a wet papermaking method [0065, 0101-0102], having E-glass fibers in 88 parts by mass [0101].
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the wt% of the glass fibers in the non-woven fiber web of Widener, as HIROYASU teaches that the sheet-like heat-resistant sheet has excellent heat insulation and easily prevents adjacent unit cell from being deteriorated due to the heat generated by neighboring cells [0059 Hiroyasu].
Widener further does not disclose an average length of the Glass E in the Table and further does not explicitly disclose that the glass fibers have an average length that is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 7 mm.
In this regard, Hiroyasu, in Example 1, teaches wherein the glass fibers have an average length of 10mm [0101 Hiroyasu], which does not fall within the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 7 mm”. However, Hiroyasu further teaches that the fiber length of the inorganic fibers is preferably about 1 to 25.2mm, more preferably about 3 to 20mm, and even more preferably about 5 to 15mm [Hiroyasu 0041], which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 0.5mm and less than or equal to 7mm”.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the average fiber length of Widener, such that it is within the overlapping range, as Hiroyasu teaches that the inorganic fibers having such average fiber length ensures the mechanical strength of the inorganic fibers (sheet) in the process of producing the sheet and are less likely to be twisted and bound, and the texture (uniformity of thickness and fiber density) can be well maintained [Hiroyasu 0041].
Regarding claim 2, Widener discloses a battery (i.e., electrochemical module (or battery pack) 10; [0035]; Fig 1), comprising:
a plurality of electrochemical cells comprising a first electrochemical cell and a second electrochemical cell (i.e., a plurality or individual electrochemical battery cells 12; [0035]; Fig 1 Widener).
Widener further discloses an inorganic platelet composition 16 located within interstitial spaces 14 between the electrochemical cells, wherein the inorganic platelet comprises a support layer comprising a non-woven fabric [0068, 0089 Widener]. Thus, the limitation of “a non-woven fiber web positioned between the first and second electrochemical cells” is met.
Widener further discloses that the non-woven fabric may be consolidated by a suitable method such as hydroentangling, needling, or thermal bonding techniques [0089 Widener], but does not disclose that the non-woven fiber web is wet laid.
In this regard, HIROYASU teaches that the sheet comprises a low-density sheet produced by forming a nonwoven fabric made by a wet papermaking method (i.e., wet-laid as claimed). HIROYASU further teaches that the sheet can be produced as a nonwoven fabric of inorganic fibers by a dry or a wet method, but preferably a wet method as inorganic fibers are less likely to be broken, and a sheet having good texture can be easily produced [0065 HIROYASU]. Alternatively, the sheet can be formed by thermal bonding, needle punching, or hydroentangling [0066 HIROYASU].
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the nonwoven fabric with a wet papermaking method (taught by HIROYASU), as an alternative to the hydroentangling, needling, or thermal bonding methods taught by Widener [0089], with a reasonable expectation to produce a nonwoven fiber web having good texture [0065 HIROYASU].
Widener further discloses:
the non-woven fiber web comprises glass fibers (i.e., heat resistant inorganic fibers [0074]-Widener);
the glass fibers comprise high softening point fibers that comprise less than or equal to 0.8 wt% Na2O (i.e., <0.5 % by weight in Glass E; [0078] Widener) and less than or equal to 0.8 wt% K2O (i.e., <0.40% by weight in Glass E; [0078] Widener)
Widener further discloses wherein Glass E comprises 50.0-56.0 % by weight of SiO2. Since PG Pub [0045] of the instant application recognizes SiO2 as a high softening fiber, the limitation of “the high softening point fibers make up greater than or equal to 30 wt% of the glass fibers” is met.
Widener does not explicitly disclose wherein the glass fibers make up greater than 80 wt% of the non-woven fiber web.
In this regard, HIROYASU, in Example 1, further teaches that the heat-resistant insulation sheet comprises a nonwoven fabric (i.e., a low-density sheet) made by a wet papermaking method, having E-glass fiber in 88 parts by mass [0101 HIROYASU], wherein the amount of E-glass fiber may range from 80% by mass or more [Hiroyasu 0033], which is wholly within the claimed range of “greater than 80 wt%”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the non-woven fiber web of Widener such that it comprises glass fibers in the encompassed wt% range, as Hiroyasu teaches that such non-woven fiber web mainly composed of glass fibers is non-flammable [Hiroyasu 0059].
Regarding claim 6, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the non-woven fiber web has a total thickness of about 0.1 to 0.5 mm [0110 Widener], which falls within the claimed range of “less than or equal to 3.5 mm.”
Regarding claim 7, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1. Widener does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-woven fiber web has a thermal conductivity of less than or equal to 70 mW/K-m.
However, since the battery of modified Widener (see rejection for claim 1) comprises similar materials (e.g., K2O, Na2O, high softening fibers) in similar amounts, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the non-woven fiber web of modified Widener to have a thermal conductivity of less than or equal to 70 mW/K-m (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claims 8-9, 11, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1, further comprising a fire retardant ([0092-0093 Widener] – for Claim 8) selected from a list comprising magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, carbonates ([0093 Widener] - for Claim 9).
Since Widener discloses the same fire retardant compounds as those claimed in Claim 9, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the fire retardants of Widener to release water and/or carbon dioxide upon exposure to heat (Claim 11).
Regarding claim 18, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1. Widener does not disclose wherein “the glass fibers have an average diameter of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 12 microns” as claimed.
In this regard, Hiroyasu teaches wherein the E-glass fiber in Example 1 has a fiber diameter of 10 μm [0101 Hiroyasu]. Hiroyasu further teaches that the fiber diameter of the inorganic fibers is preferably 3 to 30 μm [0037 Hiroyasu], which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 12 microns”.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the average diameter of Widener, such that it is within the overlapping range, as Hiroyasu teaches that when the fiber diameter is within such range, the gaps between the inorganic fibers become narrow, making it difficult for convection and gas passage within the gaps to occur, making it easier to obtain a heat insulating effect while also increasing the tensile strength of the sheet by ensuring contact points and intertwining points between the inorganic fibers [0037 Hiroyasu].
Regarding claim 19, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1,
wherein in Glass E, K2O makes up less than 0.4 % by weight of the glass fiber [0079 Widener], which falls within the claimed range of “less than or equal to 0.5 wt% of the high softening point fibers”, and
Na2O makes up less than 0.50 % by weight of the glass fiber [0079 Widener], which falls within the claimed range of “less than or equal to 0.5 wt% of the high softening point fibers.”
Regarding claim 24, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-woven fiber web exhibits a shrinkage of less than or equal to 15% in the machine direction and a shrinkage of less than or equal to 15% in the cross direction when retained in an 800 °C oven for 10 minutes.
However, since the non-woven fiber web of modified Widener comprises similar materials (e.g., Na2O, K2O, high softening point fibers) in similar amounts, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the non-woven fiber web to exhibit a shrinkage of less than or equal to 15% in the machine direction and a shrinkage of less than or equal to 15% in the cross direction when retained in an 800 °C oven for 10 minutes (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 25, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery [0006, 0095 Widener].
Regarding claim 26, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the high softening point fibers comprise less than or equal to 0.8 wt% Na2O and/or less than or equal to 0.8 wt% K2O, as claimed (see rejection for claim 1). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage the high softening point fibers to have a softening point greater than or equal to 800 °C (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widener (US-20180309107-A1), in view of Hiroyasu (WO2020202901A1, translation attached) and Evans (WO2021142169A1, in English, copy attached for citation).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1. Widener does not disclose wherein the battery further comprises an aerogel (claim 12) and further does not disclose wherein the aerogel is a silica aerogel or a silica hybrid aerogel having the formula (SiO2)x(RSiO1.5)y, where R is a methyl group, an ethyl group, a propyl group, and/or a butyl group, as claimed (claim 13).
In this regard, Evans is also directed to a battery thermal management member on a battery module or battery pack comprising at least one heat protection layer and a resilient layer (abstract), wherein the heat protection layer includes an aerogel composition (pg 5, line 3) such as silica aerogel (pg 5, lines 6-9). Evans further teaches that the fiber-reinforced aerogel composition may include non-woven materials, webs, mats, or combinations thereof comprising materials such as glass or fiber glass material like E-glass (pg 18, lines 3-4, 13-23). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the non-woven fiber web of Widener, such that it further includes an aerogel composition such as silica aerogel as taught by Evans, as Evans teaches that such aerogel composition provides resistance to compression deformation to accommodate the expansion of cells due to the degradation and swelling during charge/discharge cycles of a battery (pg 38, lines 18-21)
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widener (US20180309107A1), in view of Hiroyasu (WO2020202901A1, translation attached) and Turpin (US20210280336A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1. Widener does not disclose the glass fiber length and does not disclose “wherein the glass fibers comprise chopped strand glass fibers” as claimed.
In this regard, Turpin also teaches flame resistant electrical insulating materials for electric vehicle battery applications (title) comprising an inorganic fabric which may comprise chopped strand E-glass fibers [0042]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the E-glass of Widener such that it is in the form of chopped strand with a reasonable expectation to provide sufficient interlocking between the fibers while also obtaining a uniform dispersion of the glass fibers in the slurry [Turpin 0024].
Regarding claim 15, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1. Widener does not disclose “wherein the glass fibers comprise staple glass fibers” as claimed.
In this regard, Turpin teaches flame resistant electrical insulating materials for electric vehicle battery applications (title) comprising an inorganic fabric which may comprise glass staple fibers [0021-0022], E-glass fibers, R-glass fibers, ECR-glass fibers or a combination thereof [0033]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the glass fibers of Widener to further include the glass staple fibers of Turpin [0021-0022], with a reasonable expectation to provide sufficient interlocking between the fibers while also obtaining a uniform dispersion of the glass fibers in the slurry [Turpin 0024].
Claim(s) 21,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widener (US-20180309107-A1), in view of Hiroyasu (WO2020202901A1, translation attached) and Doshi (US20130344279A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, modified Widener teaches the battery of claim 1. Widener does not disclose wherein the non-woven fiber web further comprises multicomponent fibers (Claim 21), wherein the multicomponent fibers are bicomponent fibers (Claim 22).
In this regard, Doshi teaches a flexible insulating structure including a batting and a mixture of aerogel-containing particles (abstract), wherein the batting may be made of E-glass fibers [0023 Doshi]. Doshi further teaches that the fibers may be woven, non-woven, chopped, continuous, loose, bundled, or connected together in a web or scrim [0063 Doshi], wherein the fibers can be mono-component, bi-component, or multi-component [0063 Doshi].
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the non-woven web of Widener such that it includes the multi-component and bi-component fibers, as Doshi teaches that the batting comprising such multi-component or bi-component fiber has flame and/or fire resistance, low flame propagation, desirable surface burning characteristics [0020 Doshi].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/29/2026