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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3, Mar 2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection now addresses the newly-amended claims, as set forth below. In particular, the newly amended feature of “wherein a thermal conductivity at 23°C of the heat insulating portion is 30% or less of that of the buffering portion” is addressed by Abe et al. (Abe, H., Abe, I., Sato, K., & Naito, M. (2005). Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 88(5), 1359-1361) as set forth below.
Additionally, in pages 6-7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that paras [0031]-[0032] of Kritzer teach that it is advantageous to fashion projections/webs 5/7 (which read on the claimed buffering portion) out of a particularly temperature-resistant material, as these portions of the heat insulating material are subject to the highest temperature load. As such, Applicant argues that
“a person skilled in the art would have been motivated by Kritzer to employ the projections 5 or webs 7 consisting of a material having a smaller thermal conductivity than that of the base 11. This is opposite to the limitation of claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this interpretation, and submits that paras [0031]-[0032] make reference to the temperature resistance of the projection/web material, which is the ability of a material to maintain its physical properties (rigidity, strength, etc.) under high temperatures. This is a different property than thermal conductivity, a material’s ability to transmit heat. That these two terms refer to different properties is made clear in para [0039] of Kritzer, which states
“In addition to the low thermal conductivity, silicone rubber is characterized by being very temperature-resistant.”
Which clearly indicates that thermal conductivity and temperature resistance are understood to be separate, distinct quantities. There is therefore nothing in Kritzer that teaches away from employing a base that has a lower thermal conductivity than the projections/webs. To the contrary, Kritzer teaches that the overall device has a low thermal conductivity in order to prevent heat transfer between cells (Kritzer, [0024]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found motivation to make the base of the device out of a material with a particularly low thermal conductivity.
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.
Claims 15-16 are 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 15 recites the limitation "the powder and fiber" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 is similarly rejected as it depends from claim 15.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritzer (US 2020/0343495) in view of Abe et al. (Abe, H., Abe, I., Sato, K., & Naito, M. (2005). Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 88(5), 1359-1361).
As to Claim 1, Kritzer et al. discloses a heat insulating material (see e.g. device 4, comprising base 11 and projections/webs 5/7, which are made of a temperature-resistant material, [0050]) that is arranged so as to cover a surface included in a battery (see e.g. the projections/webs 5/7 cover at least a portion of cell 3, [0050] and Fig. 1). Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material comprises a heat insulating portion (see e.g. base 11, [0050] and Fig. 1) that is arranged so as to face the surface of the battery and a buffering portion (see e.g. projections/webs 5/7, [0050] and Fig. 1) that is more deformable by compression than the heat insulating portion (i.e., base 11 is described as “temperature-resistant and dimensionally stable” while projections/webs 5/7 are described as “temperature-resistant and elastic,” implying that 5/7 is more elastic and more deformable by compression than 11, [0050]).
Part of the buffering portion (5/7) of Kritzer et al. is arranged at a position closer to the surface of the battery than the heat insulating portion (see e.g. Fig. 1, showing buffering portion 5/7closer to cell 3 than base 11, Fig. 1) such that the heat insulating portion (11) and the buffering portion (5/7) are arranged so as to form a sea-island structure in which the heat insulating portion (11) forms a sea portion and the buffering portion (5/7) forms an island portion in plan view (i.e., top-down view) of the heat insulating material (see e.g. Fig. 1, showing a cross-sectional view of heat insulating material 4, in plan view the material would have a sea-island structure as described in the Instant Specification).
Further regarding claim 1, Kritzer et al. discloses a heat insulating material that, in one embodiment, comprises a heat insulating portion that is made of glass fabric (see e.g. base 11, [0050]), which can have a thermal conductivity of approximately 0.1671 to 0.1983 W/mK at 23°C (see attached document “Zheng,” pg. 1956, Table 2). Kritzer et al. further discloses a buffering portion (5/7) that is formed from silicone rubber (see e.g. [0050]), which has a typical thermal conductivity value of approximately 0.26 W/mK at 23°C (see e.g. Kritzer et al., para [0050] and see attached document “Baudot,” pg. 228, Fig. 2).
As such, Kritzer et al. discloses an embodiment of a heat insulating material wherein a thermal conductivity at 23°C of the heat insulating portion is smaller than that of the buffering portion. However, Kritzer does not disclose a heat insulating material in which
a thermal conductivity at 23°C of the heat insulating portion is 30% or less of that of the buffering portion, because the thermal conductivity of Kritzer’s heat insulating portion is approximately 0.1671 to 0.1983 W/mK, which is 64-76% of the buffering portion’s thermal conductivity value of approximately 0.26 W/mK.
Abe et al., working in the field of thermally insulating materials, teaches a thermal insulator made of fumed silica and ceramic fibers that possesses a thermal conductivity of approximately 0.0266 W/mK or lower at 23°C (see e.g. Abe et al.: pg. 1359, para 1, pg. 1360, para 3 and Table 1. While Abe et al. only presents conductivity values at 100°C and 400°C, the trend from Table 1 suggests that the thermal conductivity at 23°C is lower than at 100°C). This is ~10% of the thermal conductivity value of Kritzer’s buffering portion (which is ~0.26 W/mK as set forth above) and therefore less than 30% of the thermal conductivity value of Kritzer’s buffering portion. Abe et al. further teaches that this thermal insulator material provides excellent thermal insulation and sufficient strength for handling and machining (see e.g. Abe et al.: pg 1361, para 3, Conclusions).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kritzer’s heat insulating material by fashioning the heat insulating portion out of the thermally insulating material taught by Abe et al., which has a thermal conductivity at 23°C of 30% or less of that of the buffering portion. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Kritzer teaches that the heat insulating material preferably has a low thermal conductivity to insulate battery cells (see e.g. Kritzer, [0024]) and because Abe et al. teaches a thermally insulating material that provides excellent thermal insulation and sufficient strength for handling and machining.
As to Claim 2, Kritzer et al.’s in view of Abe et al. heat insulating material (see e.g. device 4, [0049]) for a battery comprises a buffering portion (see e.g. projections/webs 5/7, [0050]) that is described as “elastic” whereas the heat insulating portion (see e.g. base 11, [0050]) is described as dimensionally stable,” which one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably interpreted to mean that the compressive modulus of elasticity of the buffering portion is smaller than that of the heat insulating portion.
As to Claim 3, the buffering portion (see e.g. projections/webs 5/7, [0050]) of Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al.’s heat insulating material has a lower compressive modulus of elasticity than the heat insulating portion (see e.g. base 11, [0050]), as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above. The term “compressive modulus of elasticity” is commonly defined as an amount of compressive stress per amount of compressive strain (see pg. 2 of attached document “Hearn”). As such, the buffering portion, which has a lower compressive modulus of elasticity than the heat insulating portion, would necessarily possess a lower amount of compressive stress under 10% compressive strain than the buffering portion would possess under 10% compressive strain.
As to Claim 6, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches the heat insulating material for a battery according to claim 1, wherein the heat insulating portion is a porous body (see e.g. Abe et al.: Abstract and pg. 1359, para 1, indicating that the thermal insulation material has a porous nature).
As to Claim 7, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches the heat insulating material for a battery according to claim 6, wherein the heat insulating portion is a press-formed body of powder (see e.g. Abe et al.: pg. 1359, paras 5-6, the fumed silica/glass fiber thermal insulation material is subject to compression and pressed into a die and can thereby reasonably be said to be press-formed).
As to Claim 10, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches a buffering portion that is an elastomer-formed body (see e.g. projections/webs 5/7 may be made of silicone rubber, Kritzer: [0050]).
As to Claim 12, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches a battery (see e.g. energy storage system 1, which comprises storage cells 3 and thereby reads on the claimed battery, Kritzer [0049]) comprising a heat insulating material (see e.g. device 4, [0049]) that meets all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to Claim 13, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches a battery (see e.g. energy storage system 1, which comprises storage cells 3 and thereby reads on the claimed battery, Kritzer: [0049]) comprising a pair of cells arranged adjacent to each other, with the heat insulating material arranged between the pair of cells (see e.g. Kritzer: [0050] and Fig. 1 showing heat insulating material 4 arranged between cells 3).
As to Claim 15, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches the heat insulating material for a battery according to claim 1, wherein the press-formed body includes the powder and fiber (see e.g. Abe et al.: pg. 1359, para 5, stating that Abe et al.’s thermal insulation material comprises fumed silica powder and glass fiber).
As to Claim 16, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches the heat insulating material for a battery according to claim 15, wherein the press-formed body includes 50 wt% or more and 95 wt% or less of the powder and 1 wt% or more and 50 wt% or less of the fiber (see e.g. Abe et al.: 1359, paras 5-6, Abe et al.’s thermal insulation material, which reads on the claimed press-formed body, comprises 60 wt% fumed silica powder and 25 wt% glass fiber, which both lie within and thereby anticipate the instantly-claimed ranges).
As to Claim 18, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches a battery (see e.g. energy storage system 1, Kritzer: [0047]), comprising a heat insulating material that meets all of the limitations of the heat insulating material of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to Claim 19, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches a battery (see e.g. energy storage system 1, Kritzer: [0050]) that comprises a pair of cells (see e.g. cells 3, Kritzer: Fig. 1) arranged adjacent to each other, wherein the heat insulating material (4) is arranged between the pair of cells (see e.g. Kritzer: Fig. 1, showing heat insulating material 4 arranged between a pair of cells 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kogami et al. (US 2022/0255182) teaches a similar design concept of a thermally-insulating battery spacer having elastic projections (see Fig 9).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights