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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kritzer (US 2020/0343495).
As to Claim 1, Kritzer et al. discloses a heat insulating material (device 4, comprising base 11 and projections/webs 5/7, which are made of a temperature-resistant material) that is arranged so as to cover a surface included in a battery (the projections/webs 5/7 cover at least a portion of cell 3, [0050] and Fig. 1). Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material (4) comprises a heat insulating portion (base 11) that is arranged so as to face the surface of the battery (3) and a buffering portion (projections/webs 5/7) 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 (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 (Fig. 1 shows 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 (11) that is made of glass fabric ([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 ([0050]), which has a typical thermal conductivity value of approximately 0.26 W/mK at 23°C (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.
As to Claim 2, Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material (4) for a battery comprises a buffering portion (5/7) that is described as “elastic” whereas the heat insulating portion (11) 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 ([0050]).
As to Claim 3, the buffering portion (5/7) of Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material has a lower compressive modulus of elasticity than the heat insulating portion (11), 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 (5/7), which has a lower compressive modulus of elasticity than the heat insulating portion (11), would necessarily possess a lower amount of compressive stress under 10% compressive strain than the buffering portion (5/7) would possess under 10% compressive strain.
As to Claim 10, Kritzer et al. discloses a buffering portion (projections/webs 5/7) that is an elastomer-formed body (i.e., is made of silicone rubber, [0050]).
As to Claim 12, Kritzer et al. discloses a battery (energy storage system 1, which comprises storage cells 3 and thereby reads on the claimed battery) comprising a heat insulating material (device 4) that meets all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above ([0047]-[0048], Fig. 1).
As to Claim 13, Kritzer et al. discloses a battery (energy storage system 1, which comprises storage cells 3 and thereby reads on the claimed battery) comprising a pair of cells (3) arranged adjacent to each other, with the heat insulating material (4) arranged between the pair of cells (Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritzer (US 2020/0343495) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chopard (US 2019/0131675).
As to Claims 6-7, Regarding claims 6-7, Kritzer et al. discloses a heat insulating material (4) comprising a thermally-resistant insulating portion (11) that is a duromer, a mica foil, a glass fabric, or silicone rubber ([0050]). Kritzer et al. does not disclose an insulating portion that is either a porous body or a press-formed body of powder.
Chopard et al., also working in the field of thermal insulators for batteries, teaches a thermally-resistant portion (VIP panel) that is a porous material that is a press-formed body of powder (i.e., is made by pressing silicic acid powder into a plate, [0064]). Chopard et al. teaches that this porous material is thermally-resistant (i.e., a thermal insulator) and may have a 3-10-fold greater insulation efficiency than conventional thermal insulators ([0064]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to replace Kritzer et al.’s thermally-insulating portion with the press-formed, porous body of powder taught by Chopard et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to select Chopard et al.’s press-formed, porous body of powder for this purpose because Chopard et al. teaches that it is a thermally-resistant material that has a higher thermal insulation efficiency than conventional thermal insulators.
Claim(s) 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritzer (US 2020/0343495) and Abe (Abe, H., et al. (2005), Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 88(5), 1359-1361).
As to Claim 14, Kritzer et al. discloses a heat insulating material (device 4, comprising base 11 and projections/webs 5/7, which are made of a temperature-resistant material) that is arranged so as to cover a surface included in a battery (the projections/webs 5/7 cover at least a portion of cell 3, [0050] and Fig. 1). Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material (4) comprises a heat insulating portion (base 11) that is arranged so as to face the surface of the battery (3) and a buffering portion (projections/webs 5/7) 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 (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 (Fig. 1 shows 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). The sea portion (11) of Kritzer et al. is a portion surrounding each of the island portions (5/7), and the island portion (5/7) are portions surrounded by the sea portion (11, Fig. 1).
Further regarding claim 14, Kritzer et al. discloses a heat insulating portion (11) that serves to thermally insulate battery cells, but does not disclose an insulating portion that is either a porous body or a press-formed body of powder.
Abe et al., working in the field of thermally insulating materials, teaches heat insulation (fiber-reinforced porous fumed silica compact) that is a porous, press-formed body of powder (i.e., Abe et al.’s insulating silica compact comprises silica nanoparticles compacted into a board at a pressure of 0.1-1.5 MPa), and thereby reads on the instantly-claimed insulating portion (pg. 1359, col. 1, para 4 to col. 2, paras 1-2 and Fig. 1). Abe et al. further teaches that this insulating portion has a very low thermal conductivity (pg. 1360, col. 1, para 3 to col. 2, para 1 and Table 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to form the insulation portion of Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material out of a press-formed body of powder in the manner taught by Abe et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to use a press-formed body of powder because Abe et al. teaches that this material possesses a very low thermal conductivity.
As to Claim 15, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches a press-formed body (fiber-reinforced porous fumed silica compact) that includes powder (silica nanoparticles/SiC powder) and a fiber (i.e., glass fiber, see Abe et al.: Abstract and pg. 1359, col. 2, paras 1-2).
As to Claim 16, Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. teaches a press-formed body (fiber-reinforced porous fumed silica compact) that includes 75% powder and 25% fiber by mass (i.e., a 60:25:15 ratio of silica nanoparticles, glass fibers, and SiC powder), which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 50 wt% to 95 wt% powder and 1 wt% to 50 wt% (Abe et al.: pg. 1359, col. 2, paras 1-2).
As to Claim 17, the heat insulating material of Kritzer et al. in view of Abe et al. comprises a heat insulating portion (11) that is made of glass fabric ([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 ([0050]), which has a typical thermal conductivity value of approximately 0.26 W/mK at 23°C (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.
As to Claim 18, Kritzer et al. discloses a battery (energy storage system 1) that comprises a heat insulating material (device 4, comprising base 11 and projections/webs 5/7, which are made of a temperature-resistant material) that is arranged so as to cover a surface included in a battery (the projections/webs 5/7 cover at least a portion of cell 3, [0047], [0050] and Fig. 1). Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material (4) comprises a heat insulating portion (base 11) that is arranged so as to face the surface of the battery (3) and a buffering portion (projections/webs 5/7) 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 (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 (Fig. 1 shows 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).
The sea portion (11) of Kritzer et al. is a portion surrounding each of the island portions (5/7), and the island portion (5/7) are portions surrounded by the sea portion (11, Fig. 1).
Further regarding claim 18, Kritzer et al. discloses a heat insulating portion (11) that serves to thermally insulate battery cells, but does not disclose an insulating portion that is either a porous body or a press-formed body of powder.
Abe et al., working in the field of thermally insulating materials, teaches a fiber-reinforced porous fumed silica compact that is a porous body, is a press-formed body of powder (i.e., comprises silica nanoparticles compacted into a board at a pressure of 0.1-1.5 MPa), and thereby reads on the instantly-claimed insulating portion (pg. 1359, col. 1, para 4 to col. 2, paras 1-2 and Fig. 1). Abe et al. further teaches that this insulating portion has a very low thermal conductivity (pg. 1360, col. 1, para 3 to col. 2, para 1 and Table 1).
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 the insulation portion of Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material out of a press-formed body of powder in the manner taught by Abe et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to use a press-formed body of powder because Abe et al. teaches that this material possesses a very low thermal conductivity.
As to Claim 19, Kritzer et al. discloses a battery (1) that comprises a pair of cells (3) arranged adjacent to each other, wherein the heat insulating material (4) is arranged between the pair of cells (3, [0047], Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 16 Sep 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 10, and 12-13 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kritzer et al. (US 2020/0343495) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
In Applicant’s remarks, Applicant notes that in the embodiment citer by the prior rejection, the heat insulating portion (base 11) of Kritzer et al.’s heat insulating material is made of silicone rubber, and the buffering portion (projections/webs 5/7) is formed from silicone rubber with a porous aerogel filler ([0050], Fig. 1). Applicant argues that silicone rubber of the heat insulating portion has a typical thermal conductivity value that is greater than or equal to the silicone rubber/porous aerogel material of the buffering portion in the cited embodiment, and as such fails to anticipate the claimed limitation of “wherein a thermal conductivity at 23°C of the heat insulating portion is smaller than that of the buffering portion” The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s position, and the rejection has therefore been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kritzer et al., because Kritzer et al. additionally discloses an embodiment in which the thermal conductivity at 23°C of the heat insulating portion is smaller than that of the buffering portion, as set forth in detail in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kogami (US 2022/0359945) discloses a similar heat insulating material comprising a thermally-resistant insulating portion (heat-insulating sheet 5) and a buffering portion (elastic layer 6, [0008], Fig. 5).
Park (US 2013/0252063) discloses a similar heat insulating material comprising a buffering portion (protruding portions 142, [0047]-[0049] and Figs. 2A-2B).
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, Barton Jeffery can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723