DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 08/06/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups overlap and there isn’t an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the restriction is based on Lack of Unity and the applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19 & 20 are withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending examination as discussed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
It is noted that the applicant has listed a large number of documents for consideration in the information disclosure statements submitted in this application. As noted in MPEP 2001.05, if information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office. Information is not material unless it comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). As noted in MPEP 2004 (Section 13), it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. It is suggested that applicants eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner has considered the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search,609.05(b). Foreign language documents have been considered for relevance in light of information provided by applicant under guidelines in MPEP 609.04(a)(III).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claimed term “fiber shot” is not found in the instant specification and therefore lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “significantly slowing down” is a relative term and has no definite definition or way of evaluating the term and so the metes and bounds of the term are indefinite. Claims 2-18 are rejected for being dependent upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the term “fiber shot” is not defined or mentioned in the specification and therefore this term is considered indefinite. This term is being interpreted as simply meaning an amount of fiber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2017/0098806 (Bowersock).
Regarding claims 1 & 9, Bowersock teaches a layer of nonwoven fibrous thermal insulation fiber matrix of zirconia inorganic fibers and thermally insulative inorganic particles of fumed silica material dispersed within and a binder (Abstract; [0051, 0052, 0057, 0059]).
Regarding claims 3-5, the fibers are included in greater than 3%; the inorganic particles are from 10 – 60% wt.; the organic binder is from 2.5 – 10% wt. ([0050-0051, 0057]).
Regarding claim 15, since the same materials are used it is inherent that when comparing like for like, the insulation material taught by Bowersock would pass the V-2 level of the UL94 Flammability test.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0098806 (Bowersock).
Bowersock is silent to the surface area of the fumed silica used. However, the claimed surface area of about 100 – 400 m2/g for fumed silica is well known in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. (MPEP 2144.05). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claims 6-10, 12, 14 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0098806 (Bowersock) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0167438 (Evans).
The teachings of Bowersock as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Bowersock is silent to the thickness of the insulating material, the density of the fibrous thermal insulation and the encapsulation layer.
Regarding claims 6-10, Evans teaches a layer to address thermal runaway in batteries. The thermal layer is made of a reinforced silica aerogel (Abstract, [0123]). The thickness of the layer can be 3mm with a density of less than 0.6 g/cc, which reads on the claimed square density when the claimed thickness is considered ([0025, 0077, 0089, 0136, 0139, 0213]). The aerogel can be inorganic ([0106]). The thermal layer can be encapsulated by facing layers comprised of organic polymers (Figs. 5-7; [0043, 0141-0148, 0150-0156]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the parameters taught by Evans with Bowersock to understand possible thicknesses and densities to make the thermal layer and to create a thermal material that is favorable to resisting heat and fire, while minimizing thickness and weight. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and using known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR, MPEP 2141 (III)).
Regarding claim 12, since the thermal barrier can have the encapsulation layer along only one edge/surface, then another of the edges/surfaces would be open and therefore seen as being a vent located along the periphery.
Regarding claim 14, the encapsulation layer is sealed around the peripheral edge ([0043, 0141-0148, 0150-0156]).
Regarding claim 15, since the same materials are used it is inherent that when comparing like for like, the insulation material taught would pass the V-2 level of the UL94 Flammability test. Otherwise, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to make the layer to the specifications required for the applicability to pass the test.
Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0098806 (Bowersock) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0309095 (Olchawski).
The teachings of Bowersock as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Bowersock doesn’t teach using vermiculite, an encapsulation layer being organic, or an intumescent material.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 17, Olchawski teaches a thermal barrier layer that can include fibers and inorganic particles of expanded vermiculite ([0021-0024]). An encapsulating layer is taught as being over the battery with the thermal barrier located on one side and therefore the thermal insulation is encapsulated (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0012, 0016]). The encapsulating layer is taught to be a polymer such as polyamide and/or polybutylene terephthalate ([0047, 0052]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to using the organic encapsulation layer of Olchawski to understand what type of material can be used for the housing of the battery along side the thermal barrier to minimize the thermal runaway of pouch-type batteries.
Regarding claim 11, while a vent in the organic encapsulation layer is not explicitly taught, using vents in battery cases to allow gases to escape and prevent explosions is well known in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III).
Regarding claim 12, since the thermal barrier layer is taught as a 3-dimensional object for a prismatic battery, it has top, bottom and side edges and the vent would be inherently or could obviously placed along the periphery of one or both the opposite side edges.
Regarding claim 13, while the cited arts are silent to the size of the vent, sizing the vent hole to be 2 – 15 mm2, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as the size of the battery and/or the environment or use of the battery. Use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III).
Regarding claim 14, since the encapsulation layer is coated over the barrier layer, it is sealed around the peripheral edge (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, since the same materials are used it is inherent that when comparing like for like, the insulation material taught would pass the V-2 level of the UL94 Flammability test. Otherwise, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to make the layer to the specifications required for the applicability to pass the test.
Regarding claim 16, the use of intumescent material is well known in the art for thermal barrier layers and would be obvious to use. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and using known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR, MPEP 2141 (III)).
Regarding claim 18, while Olchawski is silent to the amount of expansion for the vermiculite, the claimed 10 – 100% are well known and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. (MPEP 2144.05)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
