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 .
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.
Claims 1, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, et. al. (US2017301965A1), in view of Zhang, et. al. (CN 106229436 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kato teaches a battery cover comprising: a side wall “[0024] a battery cover including side walls covering four side faces of a battery, wherein at least one side wall is the above-described wall member”) covering a side surface of a battery (see prior).” Kato at [0024].
Kato discloses the battery cover 1 “has a prismatic shape extending in an up-down direction and is formed into a generally rectangular frame shape when viewed from the top.” Kato at [0136] (Examiner notes that while Fig. 3 shows a cutout without the top on the “upper side,” Fig. 2 shows this same “upper side” surrounded by the battery cover 1); see also Fig. 1-2. The battery cover 1 consists of multiple layers, comprising a heat insulating member 100, namely a low density portion 103 on the interior facing side, the high density portion 102 on the outer circumferential edge. Kato at [0058 – 63]. This high density portion 102 comprises a compressed portion 104 which comprises a resin, surrounded by two air barrier layers 105a and 105b, formed from “[0072] a resin-impregnated nonwoven fabric. The resin-impregnated nonwoven fabric includes a nonwoven fabric and a resin impregnated into the nonwoven fabric. [0073] The nonwoven fabric is, for example, formed from fibers such as natural fibers including cotton, wool, hemp, pulp, silk, and mineral fiber; chemical fibers including rayon, nylon fiber, polyester fiber, vinylon fiber, acrylic fiber, aramid fiber, and polypropylene fiber; and glass fibers.” This high density multi-layer is “[0064] continuous” with the low density portion 103, which is formed of foam portion 106, with the first air barrier layer 105 a provided on one face of the foam portion and 105 b on the other side. Id. at [0064-65]. This interior layer is understood to comprise the foam layer and the compressed resin, as both are described as in contact with both air barrier layers. Id.
For this reason, the “first air barrier” reads upon “wherein the side wall includes a first surface layer in contact with the side surface of the battery,” and the “second air barrier” reads upon a second surface layer disposed on an opposite side of the side surface of the battery with respect to the first surface layer in a thickness direction of the side wall, a heat insulating layer (the foam layer low density layer 103; “[0063] The low-density portion 103 has heat-insulating properties”) disposed between the first surface layer and the second surface layer in the thickness direction. Id.
However, while the resin impregnated layer and the foam would at least suggest a cushioning effect due to the properties of foam and compressible resin, Kato does not directly disclose “a cushion layer disposed between the first surface layer and the heat insulating layer in the thickness direction.”
PNG
media_image1.png
355
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
365
299
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A, 3 of Kato.
PNG
media_image3.png
600
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Kato.
Zhang teaches a battery compartment body, wherein, “the top of the battery compartment body 1 may also be provided with an outer cushion layer 6, an intermediate cushion layer 8 and an inner cushion layer 9.” Zhang at 2-3. Zhang teaches a benefit to a cushion layer because this permits the battery compartment to “resist the violent shaking” of the component the battery is disposed in. Id. at p.2.
PNG
media_image4.png
234
399
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Zhang; Examiner notes that within this figure, the cushion is disposed upon the bottom, but in the text cited above, this also may be disposed upon the top of the battery.
Zhang’s disclosure of multiple cushion layers, the layers disposed substantially on the top side wall such that it comprises a battery cover, reads upon “a cushion layer” disposed between two layers in the thickness direction.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the battery cover of Kato, such that the cushion layer of Zhang is disposed between the first surface layer of Kato and the heat insulating layer of Kato in the thickness direction, because Kato teaches a benefit to resisting violent shaking.
Claim 1 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kato.
As previously modified, the “heat insulating layer” of modified layer is the foam portion 16 of the heat insulating member 100 of Kato. Kato at [0069] (“[0069] In the foam sheet 110 , the foam is formed into a sheet. Examples of the foam include polyurethane foam, polystyrene foam, polyolefin foam, chloroprene foam, and polyester foam. Use of the foam allows the heat insulating member 100 to have excellent heat-insulating properties. Of these examples of the foam, preferably, polyurethane foam is used in view of moldability and heat-insulating properties.”). While the cushion layer of Zhang is not disclosed as being foam or fiber (as in the air barrier layer), Examiner notes that the compressed resin layer impregnated into nonwoven fabric at least suggests a cushioning layer as previously discussed. As such, it would be obvious to further modify the cushioning layer of modified Kato to be the nonwoven fabric (a fiber based heat insulating material, given that “[0074] polyester fiber is used in view of heat resistance and handleability” ) of Kato, because Kato teaches a benefit to additional heat resistance that would be obvious to apply to the cushioning layer.
Claim 5 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kato.
Kato teaches the battery has a first surface on which a terminal is disposed (“[0240] two terminals 33 are provided on the top face of the battery 31”), a second surface away from the first surface in a first direction (the bottom surface of the battery module), and the side surface disposed between the first surface and the second surface in the first direction and extending in the first direction (“[0235] Then, at the four corners of the battery cover 1 , the side walls 2 (front wall 7 and left wall 5 , left wall 5 and rear wall 8 , rear wall 8 and right wall 6 , and right wall 6 and front wall 7 ) that are disposed next to each other generally at right angles are connected through the connecting portions 23 (left-front connecting portion 9 , left-rear connecting portion 10 , right-front connecting portion 11 , and right-rear connecting portion 12”). Kato at [0235, 240].
As modified, modified Kato teaches the cushion layer extends from one end portion over the other end portion of the side wall in the first direction (the cushion layer being disposed inside of the woven barrier layers). Kato at Fig. 3.
Claim 6 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 7, Kato teaches the side wall has an inner surface (Fig. 3, see rear thick portion 8 a) in contact with the side surface of the battery in the thickness direction and an outer surface (front thick portion 7 a) disposed on an opposite side of the side surface of the battery with respect to the inner surface in the thickness direction. Kato at Fig. 3.
Zhang teaches a cylindrical battery, having a series of recessed portions “longitudinal grooves 2” along the outer wall of the battery case battery. Zhang teaches these grooves are for “convenient installation and limit fixing.” Zhang at p.2. This reads upon “the outer surface has a recessed portion (the grooves 2) recessed in the thickness direction and a bulging portion (the non-recessed portion) bulging more than the recessed portion in the thickness direction.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify modified Kato with the recessed portions (longitudinal grooves 2) of Zhang, disposed on the outer side walls of the substantially prismatic battery of Kato, such that Kato teaches “the outer surface has a recessed portion recessed in the thickness direction and a bulging portion bulging more than the recessed portion in the thickness direction,” because Kato teaches a benefit to installation utilizing the grooves.
Claim 7 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 7. Claim 7 is obvious over modified Kato.
As previously modified, modified Kato utilizes the longitudinal grooves 2 of Zhang. However, the relative thickness of these recessed portions vs bulging portions (particularly within the modification) are not directly stated. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144 (IV)(A). As such, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the longitudinal grooves 2 of modified Kato such that “a thickness of the heat insulating layer in the recessed portion is thinner than the thickness of the heat insulating layer in the bulging portion.”
Claim 8 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 7. Claim 7 is obvious over modified Kato.
Here, “compressed more” indicates the recessed portion has a lower thickness, or is “thinner,” and the analysis is similar to that of Claim 8 above.
As previously modified, modified Kato utilizes the longitudinal grooves 2 of Zhang. However, the relative thickness of these recessed portions vs bulging portions (particularly within the modification) are not directly stated as previously noted.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144 (IV)(A). As such, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the longitudinal grooves 2 of modified Kato such that 9 “in a state where the battery cover is removed from the battery the heat insulating layer in the recessed portion is compressed more than the heat insulating layer in the bulging portion in the thickness direction.”
Claim 9 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 7. Claim 7 is obvious over modified Kato.
As modified, because Zhang teaches the recessed portions extend all along the outer side wall, modified Kato teaches the recessed portion extends along a corner of the battery.
Claim 10 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Foam Factory, Inc., “Understanding Foam Firmness and Compression Strength,” (November 23, 2011), accessed at https://www.foambymail.com/blog/understanding-foam-firmness-and-compression-strength/.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kato.
Modified Kato is silent as to the relative compressive hardness of the two layers; however, Kato does teach that the insulating layer is preferably polyurethane foam. Notably, as modified this layer is in the middle of the two surface layers (air barrier layers of Kato), and is in behind the cushioning layer (the cushioning layer of Zhang) as modified.
Foam Factory teaches an indentation load deflection test including 25 percent compression and 50 percent compression when describing the compression performance of a foam. Id. at p. 1, 3. Foam Factory teaches that lower ILD values (measured in pounds, which may be converted to kPA) indicate “the softest, and the most cushioning foams,” and higher ILD values provide greater support. Id. at p.2. In other words, the 50% compressive hardness of a foam is a result effective variable, given that modulating it can increase cushioning, provide a balance or provide greater support for weight.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the battery cover of modified Kato such that “the 50% compressive hardness of the cushion layer is lower than the 50% compressive hardness of the heat insulating layer,” because Foam Factory indicates it would have been a matter of routine optimization, because the 50% compressive hardness of a foam is a result effective variable which improves cushioning or support performance, indicating a benefit for the cushion layer to have a low 50% compressive hardness and the heat insulating layer which supports the cushioning layer to have a higher 50% compressive hardness.
Claim 2 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang, further in view of Foam Factory.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Kato.
As previously modified within Claim 2, Foam Factory teaches an indentation load deflection test including 25 percent compression and 50 percent compression when describing the compression performance of a foam. Id. at p. 1, 3. Foam Factory teaches that lower ILD values (measured in pounds, which may be converted to kPA) indicate “the softest, and the most cushioning foams,” and higher ILD values provide greater support. Id. at p.2. In other words, the 50% compressive hardness of a foam is a result effective variable, given that modulating it can increase cushioning, provide a balance or provide greater support for weight. Foam Factory teaches “on average, most ILD values fall on a spectrum from the low teens up to the 60s and 70s.” Id. All samples tested are 4 inches thick, 15 by 15 inches. Id. For a 15 square inch area under 11-79 lbs, this is a 25% compressive hardness of 5.06 kPa to 36.312 kPa. Foam Factory teaches that ILDs are not strictly linear; however, Foam Factory at least suggests that this 25% range is connected to the 50% ILD range, in that a low 25% compressive hardness value would indicate a similarly low 50% ILD.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the battery cover of modified Kato such that “wherein the 50% compressive hardness of the heat insulating layer is 10.0 kPa or more and the 50% compressive hardness of the cushion layer is 1.0 kPa or more and below 10.0 kPa,” because Foam Factory indicates it would have been a matter of routine optimization, because the 50% compressive hardness of a foam is a result effective variable which improves cushioning or support performance.
Claim 3 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zhang, further in view of Foam Factory.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Narbonne, et. al. (US2012003508A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kato.
Kato is silent as to the conductivity of the heat insulating layer.
Narbonne teaches an insulating filler placed between a series of electrochemical generators of lithium ion type within an assembly (i.e., a battery having an insulating filler between cells), wherein a flame retardant foam 10 “formed of an electrically insulating material” and “[0041] consists of a material chosen from the group comprising polyurethane, epoxy, polyethylene, melamine, polyester, formophenol, polystyrene, silicone or a mixture thereof. [0042] According to one embodiment, the thermal conductivity of the foam varies between 0.02 and 1 W/mK, preferably between 0.02 and 0.2 W/mK.” Narbonne at [0001 – 5, 25, 41-42]. Narbonne teaches a benefit to “combating propagation of the phenomenon of thermal runaway from one generator to the other generators in a battery, particularly with regard to generators of lithium-ion type.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the battery cover of modified Kato, such that the polyurethane foam of Kato has the thermal conductivity of the polyurethane foam of Narbonne, because Narbonne teaches a benefit to preventing thermal runaway.
Claim 4 is obvious over Kato, in view of Zheng, further in view of Narbonne.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as recited. As modified by Zhang, modified Kato is modified such that it comprises “the cushion layer of Zhang . . . between the first surface layer of Kato and heat insulating layer of Kato in the thickness direction.” This indicates that a motivation to “bring the side walls into contact with the battery” is not required, because the spacers 3 of Kato are already contacting the side walls; instead, the heat insulating portions of Kato (Examiner notes that the “heart insulating layer” at page 4 of the Non-Final Action is identified as the “foam layer low density layer 103”) and the cushioning layer of Zhang are modified to have the requisite orientation at the claimed point of contact (spacers 3).
Applicants argue: “in the battery cover of the present invention, the side wall is in contact with the side surface of the battery (namely, has the first surface layer in contact with the side surface of the battery), and the cushion layer is disposed between the first surface layer and the heat insulating layer, as shown in FIGS. 8A and 8B and the disclosure. This makes it possible to smoothly fit the battery cover to the battery. On the other hand, in the battery cover 1 disclosed in Kato, as shown in FIG. 7, the side walls 2 (specifically, the front wall 7 and the rear wall 8) are disposed away from the battery 31.
Kato provides the spaces 37 (air layers) between the side walls 2 and the battery 31. Therefore, heat conducted to the side walls 2 of the battery cover 1 from outside is not directly conducted to the side faces of the battery 31 through the battery cover 1 (see paras. [0259] and [0260] of Kato). This means that Kato does not provide a motivation to bring the side walls 2 of the battery cover 1 into contact with the battery 31. This is because bringing the side walls 2 into contact with the side faces of the battery 31 makes it impossible to generate a space 37 (an air layer) therebetween. This teaches away from the improvement of the heat insulating properties.”
However, the battery cover 1 (i.e. the case) has a prismatic shape, including a plurality of side walls 2; while this cover comprises an air barrier portion 37 in Fig. 7 as cited, the spacer 3 connects the side walls to the side surface of the battery. Kato at [0240 – 247], Fig. 7. These spacers 3 are met by spacers on an opposite side of the side surface of the battery with respect to the first surface layer in a thickness direction. Id. Further, Kato teaches “[0140] the side wall 2 and the connecting portion 23 are formed into a generally rectangular shape elongated in a circumferential direction (longitudinal direction). A thin portion (described later) that is made of the high-density portion is formed at the upper end portion and the lower end portion of the side wall 2 and the connecting portion 23 , and a thick portion (described later) that is made of the low-density portion and having heat-insulating properties is formed at the central portion thereof. The first spacer 3 is provided at the thin portion of the upper end portion, and the second spacer 4 is provided at the thin portion of the lower end portion.” The thick portion having insulating properties is depicted in Fig. 5A-5B, with small circles to indicate the insulating material within the thick portion. Id. at 5A-5B.
PNG
media_image5.png
529
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
392
389
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5A – 7 of Kato.
To reiterate the above points, as modified by Zhang, modified Kato is modified such that it comprises “the cushion layer of Zhang . . . between the first surface layer of Kato and heat insulating layer of Kato in the thickness direction.” This indicates that a motivation to “bring the side walls into contact with the battery” is not required, because the spacers are already contacting the side walls; instead, the heat insulating portions of Kato (Examiner notes that the “heart insulating layer” at page 4 of the Non-Final Action is identified as the “foam layer low density layer 103”) and the cushioning layer of Zhang are modified to have the requisite orientation at the claimed point of contact (spacers 3).
For the forgoing reasons, Kato does not teach away from the invention of Claim 1. As such, the rejection of Claim 1 is maintained. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the remaining claims rely upon the insufficiency of the rejection of Claim 1; the rejections of Claims 2-10 are maintained.
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 KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728