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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 7/9/25 have been entered. Claims 16, 19, 25, and 30 have been amended. Claims 1-15, 18, and 23 have been cancelled. Claim 32 has been newly added. This leaves claims 16, 17, 19-22, and 24-32 currently active and pending.
The rejection below has been updated to reflect the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 17, 19-22, 26-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (US 5,134,030) in view of Gitto (US 2002/0155348) as evidenced by CDI Products (previously provided).
Regarding claim 16, 19, and 20, Ueda teaches a composite material panel (Ueda col 1-2, ln 57-2) comprising fibers and a graphite foil (Ueda col 3, ln 31-38), where the graphite foil has a thickness of less than 1 mm, with a particular example of 0.38 mm (Ueda col 3, ln 31-38). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03. Additionally, it is noted that “configured as a fire protection” is functional language. As the materials and thickness of the graphite foil panel of Ueda are within the claimed range, it would be expected to be fully capable of behaving as a “fire protection.” Further, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), See MPEP 2112.01.
Ueda further teaches that the fibers may be impregnated (i.e. embedded in a matrix) of various materials, including PTFE, a thermoplastic (Ueda col 3, ln 38-48) (as evidenced by CDI Products, previously provided).
Ueda is silent with respect to the presence of an additional flame retardant in the PTFE matrix.
Ueda and Gitto are related in the field of thermoplastic olefins. Gitto teaches adding ammonium polyphosphate to a thermoplastic (Gitto para 8) such as polyolefins, including polyethylenes (Gitto para 27) to achieve a flame retardant material with low smoke and low corrosive composition (Gitto para 22). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the PTFE of Ueda to include an ammonium phosphate compound as taught by Gitto because this would provide for a flame retardant compound with low smoke and corrosion.
Regarding claim 17, Ueda teaches a composite of fibers and graphite foil as above for claim 16. Ueda further teaches that the graphite foil is a layer, with a fibrous layer covering at least one surface (Ueda col 1-2, ln 57-2; col 3, ln 31-38).
Regarding claim 21, Ueda in view of Gitto teaches a composite of fibers and graphite foil as above for claim 16. Ueda further teaches that the fibers may be aramid, nickel-chromium-iron, stainless steel, ceramic fiber, glass fiber, or carbon fiber (Ueda col 3, ln 31-38; col 6, ln 11-22).
Regarding claim 22, Ueda in view of Gitto teaches a composite of fibers and graphite foil as above for claim 16. Ueda further teaches the fibers may be knitted or braided (Ueda col 1, ln 37-46; col 3, ln 38-48).
Regarding claims 26-28, Ueda in view of Gitto teaches a composite of fibers and graphite foil as above for claim 16. Ueda further teaches that the graphite may be laminated with other foil materials, such as an additional layer of PTFE (a plastic) which may be considered a ‘protective film,’ at a thickness of 0.1 mm (Ueda col 4, ln 15-24, 43-49; col 6, ln 23-27). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 31, Ueda in view of Gitto teaches a composite of fibers and graphite foil as above for claim 16. Ueda further teaches that the graphite may be laminated on the surface with other foil materials, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, a thermoplastic) which may be considered a ‘protective film’ (Ueda col 4, ln 15-24, 43-49; col 6, ln 23-27).
Ueda in view of Gitto is silent with respect to the presence of an additional flame retardant in the PTFE.
Ueda in view of Gitto and Gitto are related in the field of thermoplastic olefins. Gitto teaches adding ammonium polyphosphate to a thermoplastic (Gitto para 8) such as polyolefins, including polyethylenes (Gitto para 27) to achieve a flame retardant material with low smoke and low corrosive composition (Gitto para 22). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the PTFE of Ueda to include an ammonium phosphate compound as taught by Gitto because this would provide for a flame retardant compound with low smoke and corrosion.
Claims 24, 25, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Gitto, as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Koeck et al. (WO 2019/224199, English translation from Espacenet, previously provided).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Ueda in view of Gitto teaches a graphite foil and fiber composite panel as above for claim 16.
Ueda in view of Gitto is silent with respect to the graphite layer having holes filled with resin.
Ueda in view of Gitto and Koeck are related in the field of fiber layer and graphite foil composites. Koeck teaches that the graphite foil layer may have openings (holes) through the thickness of the layer (Koeck para 60), where the frequency and size of the openings allows the stiffness of the foil to be adjusted, with fewer holes providing similar stiffness to paper, and more holes allowing more flexibility kin to a honeycomb layer while maintaining thermal conductivity in the plane (Koeck para 61-64). Koeck further teaches these holes may be at least partially filled with resin as it allows stabilization of the composite material by directly connecting fiber layers on opposite sides (Koeck para 68).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the graphite foil layer of Ueda in view of Gitto to have openings (holes) at least partially filled with resin as taught by Koeck because this would provide the graphite foil with increased flexibility while maintaining thermal conductivity and increasing the stability of the composite by allowing the opposing sides of fiber layers to be directly connected to each other.
Regarding claim 29, Ueda in view of Gitto teaches a graphite foil and fiber composite panel as above for claim 16.
Ueda in view of Gitto does not explicitly teach that the graphite film has active or passive cooling applied to the edge regions.
Ueda in view of Gitto and Koeck are related in the field of fiber layer and graphite foil composites. Koeck teaches that the entire surface of the graphite film composite acts as a passive cooling agent, which would also apply to the edges of the film (Koeck para 14).
It therefore follows that the graphite foil of Ueda in view of Gitto would intrinsically possess passive cooling abilities, as evidenced by Koeck.
Regarding claim 30, Ueda in view of Gitto teaches a graphite foil and fiber composite panel as above for claim 16.
Ueda in view of Gitto is silent with respect to the graphite foil and composite being utilized as a battery housing.
Ueda in view of Gitto and Koeck are related in the field of fiber layer and graphite foil composites. Koeck teaches that a graphite film (foil) and fiber composite panel may be utilized as a battery housing (Koeck para 78). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a graphite foil and fiber composite panel, such as the one of Ueda in view of Gitto, to the use of a battery housing as taught by Koeck because they are formed of the same materials.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Gitto as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (US 2011/0114342).
Regarding claim 32, Ueda in view of Gitto teaches a graphite foil and fiber composite panel as above for claim 16.
Ueda in view of Gitto is silent with respect to the panel being utilized as a fire barrier door or wall in an insulated transport container.
Ueda in view of Gitto and Ono are related in the field of graphene layers with fiber reinforced matrix layers for fire resistance. Ono teaches that graphite layers (Ono para 109) may be combined with fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) layers (Ono para 96-100) for use as fire barrier layers in walls because the combination provides the benefit of fire resistance from the FRP and fire reaction properties from the graphite (Ono para 119-123). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a graphite foil and fiber composite panel as taught by Ueda in view of Gitto in a fire barrier wall as taught by Ono because the combination of the FRP and the graphite provides both fire resistance and fire reaction properties. That the panel is used in a insulated transport container is intended use of the composite material panel. Because the structure of Ueda in view of Gitto in further view of Ono is the same as claimed, it would be expected to be fully capable of use as a wall in an insulated transport container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/9/25 have been entered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments obviated the objection to claim 16 and overcame the prior 102(a)(1) rejection.
Applicant argues on page 6-7 that Ueda does not teach protective panels.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as cited in the rejection, above, e.g. at Ueda col 1-2, ln 57-2.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine fire-retardants into plastics because it degrades the properties of the plastic. Applicant selects one passage from Gitto suggesting a balance must be selected between desired properties when including fire retarding components. Applicant implies this is a teaching away that would render the Ueda reference inoperable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection above, Gitto provides reasons to include fire retardant compounds, even in the same materials used, such as polyethylenes, even if it also acknowledges that balance between different properties will need to be addressed. Further, it is noted that the passage Applicant cites is paragraph 4 of Gitto, from the background, and is explicitly the prior art issue Gitto is seeking to overcome.
Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 that the Examiner utilized hindsight reasoning or did not provide a reason to utilize the fire resistant compounds of Gitto in Ueda.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Gitto’s motivation of ‘increasing fire resistance’ is itself a motivation, from the instantly used references for the made combination. It is therefore neither hindsight, nor reasoning pulled from the Examiner’s experience.
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 LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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.
/L.B.F/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 10/18/25
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781