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 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 8-9 that Kinney would not teach an oxidant in the polymer that would be capable of reacting with a thiol group to form a sulfur-sulfur bond. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Kinney teaches the use of organic peroxides including cumene hydroperoxide in use with polymers that contain thiol terminated groups [0037, 0108, 0171-0175]. Cumene peroxide is cited in the as instant application as an oxidant that is capable of forming sulfur-sulfur bonds with thiol terminated polymers [pg. pub 0088-0090]. Therefore, the oxidant of Kinney would be capable of performing the claimed function.
The arguments are presented on page 9 that the oxidant in claim 1 does not exist in the cured sealant and that the oxidant in Kinney has a different intended purpose. 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 oxidants of Kinney. Since the composition taught by Kinney and modified by the new prior art of Zhuo (US 2008/0166543 A1, hereafter Zhuo) includes the claimed elements in amounts that would render the claimed amounts obvious it would render the claims obvious.
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) in view of Zhuo (US 2008/0166543 A1, hereafter Zhuo).
With regard to claim 1, Kinney teaches a composition comprising:
a thiol-terminated polymer (polythioethers with terminal -SH groups) [0037];
an oxidant that would be capable of reacting with the thiol group to form a sulfur-sulfur bond (organic peroxide including cumene hydroperoxide, examples in [0108, use with polymer in [0171-0175]) [0108, 0171-0175];
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 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.
Kinney teaches oxidants including cumene hydroperoxide [0108] but does not explicitly teach the claimed volume percentage of the oxidant. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhuo teaches the use of cumene hydroperoxide in an amount of only 1 wt % (indicating only small amounts of initiators are needed, which would render obvious the claimed range since the weight and volume percentage would scale together) [table 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try the amount of cumene hydroperoxide of Zhuo with the composition of Kinney since it is known to be effective in resins with good thermal conductivity [Zhuo table 4, 0101].
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 and Zhou 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
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 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
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights