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 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 8-11 and attached 1.132 declaration that Kinney would not teach the claimed amount of oxidant due to using an oxidant that would function differently that the claimed oxidant. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims are drawn to a product which would not be limited by different method steps or reactions the claimed product may later be involved in, compared to method steps or reactions the prior art product may later be involved in. The claims also do not require a final or fully cured product or specific oxidant that would differ from the oxidant of Kinney. Since the initial composition taught by Kinney includes the claimed elements in amounts that would render the claimed amounts obvious it would render the claims obvious.
Applicant’s arguments on page 11 that the previous office action did not properly reject the subject matter of previous claim 12 (which has been incorporated into independent claim 1) are found persuasive. The rejection has been updated as detailed in the claim rejections below.
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(s) 1-3, 9-10, 15, 18, 23, 26, 33-35, 40-41, and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinney et al. (US 2022/0002606 A1, hereafter Kinney).
With regard to claim 1, Kinney teaches a composition comprising:
a thiol-terminated compound (dithiol) [0038];
an oxidant (peroxides) [0038, 0108];
a thermally conductive filler package containing thermally conductive, electrically insulative filler particles (alumina or boron nitride) [0099, 0132], the filler particles having a thermal conductivity of at least 5W/mK [0100], thermal stability, and a volume resistivity of at least 1 ohm*m (boron nitride, indicated as having the claimed thermal stability and resistivity in as filed paragraphs [0007, 0038, 0093, 0097]) [0099];
Kinney does not explicitly teach the claimed volume percentage of the filler. However, Kinney teaches a weight percentage of the thermally conductive filler is at least 85% by weight and teaches adjusting amounts based on the desired thermal conductivity [0100]. This indicates that the amount of thermally conductive filler is a result effective variable that would be obvious to optimize to reach a desired thermal conductivity and would therefore teach or render obvious the claimed range since adjusting the weight % would also adjust the volume % since the values would scale together [0100].
Kinney does not explicitly teach the claimed volume percentage of the oxidant. However, Kinney teaches initiators including peroxides [0038-0039] and teaches initiators present in amounts of 0.1 to 1 % by weight (indicating only small amounts of initiators are needed) [0087] which would render obvious the claimed range since the weight and volume percentage would scale together.
Kinney does not explicitly teach the claimed volume percentage of the thiol-terminated compound. However, Kinney teaches the use of polysulfides as an example of polythiols and teaches using them (LP3) in amounts of 21 weight percentage [0035, 0223, tables 1-2]. This indicates that the polysulfide is a major component and would therefore teach or render obvious the claimed range since the weight % and volume % would scale together.
With regard to claim 2, Kinney teaches only one filler may be used (which would be 100% by volume) [0099].
With regard to claim 3, Kinney teaches thermally unstable filler particles (aluminum hydroxide taught as thermally unstable in paragraph [0098] of the as filed specification) [0099].
With regard to claim 9, Kinney does not explicitly teach the claimed volume percentage. However, Kinney teaches a weight percentage of the thermally conductive filler of at least 50% by weight and teaches adjusting amounts based on the desired thermal conductivity and would therefore teach or render obvious the claimed range [0100]. This indicates that the amount of thermally conductive filler is a result effective variable that would be obvious to optimize to reach a desired thermal conductivity and would therefore teach or render obvious the claimed range since adjusting the weight % would also adjust the volume % since the values would scale together [0100].
With regard to claim 10, Kinney teaches a molecular weight of 3500 g/mol which falls within the claimed range [0243].
With regard to claim 15, Kinney teaches the filler package further comprises non-thermally conductive, electrically insulative filler particles (calcium carbonate taught as non-thermally conductive in as filed paragraphs [0088, 0103]) [0106]. Kinney does not explicitly teach that is present in less than 10% by volume. However, Kinney teaches selecting amounts of non-conductive filler that would not be detrimental to the desired conductivity, which would obviate the use of low amounts including the claimed less than 10% by volume [0106] since the weight and volume percentage would scale together.
With regard to claim 18, Kinney teaches a dispersant [0081].
With regard to claim 23, Kinney teaches contacting (coating) a portion of a surface of a substrate (battery) with the composition (gap filler) of claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) [0128].
With regard to claims 45 and 33, Kinney teaches a substrate (battery) with a coating formed from the composition of claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) [0128].
With regard to claim 26, Kinney teaches a thermal conductivity of 0.95 W/mK which lies inside the claimed range (a) [0168]. Note that the claim only requires one of (a) through (i) as a result of “and/or” emphasis added after (h).
With regard to claim 34, Kinney teaches a thermally conductive part (gap filler) [0138].
With regard to claim 35, Kinney teaches a battery assembly comprising:
a battery cell [0008]; and
a coating formed from the composition of claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) on a surface of the battery cell [0008], wherein the coating, in an at least partially cured state comprises a thermal conductivity of 0.95 W/mK which overlaps the claimed range [0168].
With regard to claim 40, Kinney teaches a cooling plate (base plate providing thermal management) [0008-0009, 0132, 0136].
With regard to claim 41, Kinney teaches the coating is positioned between the battery cell and the cooling plate (base plate) [0008-0009, 0132, 0136].
With regard to claim 46, Kinney teaches a gap filler formed from the composition of claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) [0128].
With regard to claim 47, Kinney teaches a battery assembly (module) comprising the gap filler [0008, 0128].
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinney as applied to claims 1-3, 9-10, 15, 18, 23, 26, 33-35, 40-41, and 45-47 above, and further in view of Hartmann et al. (WO 2016126815 A1, hereafter Hartmann).
With regard to claim 42, Kinney does not explicitly teach extrusion. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hartmann teaches the use of extrusion to apply thermal management materials [0047, 0222, 0354]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the extrusion of Hartmann to apply the composition of Kinney since it is known to be capable of applying thermal management materials with sufficient gap fill [Hartmann 0222].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 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, 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724