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 § 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 12, 16-20 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second thermal conductor material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first and second thermal conductor layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first and second thermal conductor layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first and second thermal conductor layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “an onset temperature of at least 85-90°C”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claimed range is unclear. The limitation claims a range “at least…” with another range “85-90°C”.
Dependent claim 20 is rendered indefinite due to its dependency on indefinite claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pingree (US 2017/0179554A1) in view of EP1492852B1.
Regarding claim 1, Pingree discloses a thermal management assembly (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-6) comprising:
a first electrochemical cell (battery cells 12 [0012]);
a heat sink (heat sink 32 [0013]); and
a thermal pathway comprising a first thermally interruptible interface interposed between the first electrochemical cell and the heat sink (upper cell holder 14, lower cell holder 16, laminated elements 22, intumescent coating 24,26, expandable thermal felt insulation 28, wax/phase change material 30 [0012]),
wherein the thermal pathway has a thermal conductance between the first electrochemical cell and the heat sink (laminated elements 22 configured to conduct heat away from battery cells, the laminated elements provide a heat conduction bath from the battery cells to the heat sink [0013]),
wherein the thermal pathway comprises a first expandable material comprising first intumescent particles (laminated elements include intumescent layers [0014], or intumescent coating 24,26 expands to induce separation [0017]),
wherein the first expandable material intimately contacts a non-expandable, thermally conductive material at the first thermally interruptible interface (upper cell holder 14, lower cell holder 16, laminated elements 22, intumescent coating 24,26, expandable thermal felt insulation 28, wax/phase change material 30 [0012] wherein any expandable element on the list intimately contacts a non-expandable, thermally conductive material; or intumescent coating 24,26 expands to induce separation between anode/cathode and battery cell [0016]-[0017]), and
wherein, if heated to at least a first onset temperature, the first expandable material expands and causes at least partial shear delamination at the first thermally interruptible interface, thereby reducing the thermal conductance of the thermal pathway (upper cell holder 14, lower cell holder 16, laminated elements 22, intumescent coating 24,26, expandable thermal felt insulation 28, wax/phase change material 30 [0012] wherein any expandable element on the list intimately contacts a non-expandable, thermally conductive material; or intumescent coating 24,26 expands to induce separation between anode/cathode and battery cell [0016]-[0017]).
However, Pingree does not disclose a first expandable material comprising at least 10 vol % of first intumescent particles.
EP1492852B1 discloses intumescent fire retardants in multi-layer tapes, wherein the concentration in the core layer or adhesive layer(s) of the tape is between 20 wt.% to 60 wt.% (see Title, Abstract, [0054]).
Pingree and EP1492852B1 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely multi-layer tapes/laminates comprising layers including intumescent materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Pingree by incorporating intumescent material in a concentration such as 20 wt.% to 60 wt.% because EP1492852B1 teaches obtaining sufficient fire retardant properties.
Regarding claim 2, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses the thermal pathway further comprises a second thermally interruptible interface interposed between the first electrochemical cell and the heat sink, wherein the first expandable material intimately contacts both of the first and second thermally interruptible interfaces, and wherein, if heated to at least the first onset temperature, the first expandable material expands and causes at least partial shear delamination at the second thermally interruptible interface, thereby reducing the thermal conductance of the thermal pathway (upper cell holder 14, lower cell holder 16, laminated elements 22, intumescent coating 24,26, expandable thermal felt insulation 28, wax/phase change material 30 [0012] wherein any expandable element on the list intimately contacts a non-expandable, thermally conductive material; or intumescent coating 24,26 expands to induce separation between anode/cathode and battery cell [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses the first expandable material has the form of a first thin layer (intumescent coating 24,26 [0016]-[0017], Fig. 1-6 have the form of a thin layer).
Regarding claim 4, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses the thermal pathway further comprises a first thermal conductor material in intimate contact with the first expandable material at the first thermally interruptible interface (intumescent coating 24,26 in contact with respective cathode 18 or anode 20 [0016]-[0017], Fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses the first thermal conductor material has the form of a second thin layer (cathode 18 or anode 20 [0016]-[0017], Fig. 1-6 having the form of a thin layer).
Regarding claim 6, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses the heat sink comprises a second electrochemical cell (array of battery cells 12 [0012]; one or more battery cell experiencing thermal runaway [0014]-[0020]; Thus, battery cells adjacent to battery cell(s) experiencing thermal runaway is capable of conducting heat generated by battery cell(s) experiencing thermal runaway).
Regarding claim 7, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses at least one of the first expandable material or the first thermal conductor material at least partially conforms to at least one of a surface of the first electrochemical cell or a surface of the heat sink (Fig. 1-3 show expandable material or thermal conductor material at least partially conforming to a surface of a battery cell 12 or heat sink 32).
Regarding claim 9, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses the thermal pathway further comprises a second expandable material interposed between the first thermal conductor material and the heat sink, wherein the second expandable material and the first thermal conductor material contact each other at a second thermally interruptible interface, wherein if heated to at least a second onset temperature the second expandable material expands sufficiently to at least partially disrupt the thermal pathway by causing shear delamination at the second thermally interruptible interface, thereby reducing the thermal conductance of the thermal pathway (intumescent coating 24,26 in contact with respective cathode 18 or anode 20 [0016]-[0017], Fig. 1-6; the prior art discloses two intumescent coatings).
Regarding claim 10, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses the first and second onset temperatures are the same (intumescent coating 24,26 in contact with respective cathode 18 or anode 20 [0016]-[0017], Fig. 1-6; Since the anode-side and cathode-side expandable materials are the same, the first and second onset temperatures would also be the same.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses the thermal pathway further comprises a second thermal conductor material interposed between the first expandable material and the heat sink, wherein the second thermal conductor material and the first expandable material contact each other at a second thermally interruptible interface, wherein if heated to at least a second onset temperature the first expandable material expands sufficiently to at least partially disrupt the thermal pathway by causing shear delamination at the second thermally interruptible interface, thereby reducing the thermal conductance of the thermal pathway (intumescent coating 24,26 in contact with respective cathode 18 or anode 20 [0016]-[0017], Fig. 1-6; the prior art discloses two intumescent coatings).
Regarding claim 13, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses thermal conductance between the first electrochemical cell and the heat sink is reduced by at least 50 percent at or above the first onset temperature (laminated elements 22 configured to reconfigure from a heat-conducting configuration to a non-heat conductive configuration when exposed to high temperature [0014], wherein reconfiguring the laminated elements from a heat-conducting configuration to a non-heat conductive configuration, i.e., no heat conductivity, approaches thermal conductance reduction of 100 percent).
Regarding claim 14, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses thermal conductance between the first electrochemical cell and the heat sink is reduced by at least 75 percent at or above the first onset temperature (laminated elements 22 configured to reconfigure from a heat-conducting configuration to a non-heat conductive configuration when exposed to high temperature [0014], wherein reconfiguring the laminated elements from a heat-conducting configuration to a non-heat conductive configuration, i.e., no heat conductivity, approaches thermal conductance reduction of 100 percent).
Regarding claim 15, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Pingree further discloses thermal conductance between the first electrochemical cell and the heat sink is reduced by at least 90 percent at or above the first onset temperature (laminated elements 22 configured to reconfigure from a heat-conducting configuration to a non-heat conductive configuration when exposed to high temperature [0014], wherein reconfiguring the laminated elements from a heat-conducting configuration to a non-heat conductive configuration, i.e., no heat conductivity, approaches thermal conductance reduction of 100 percent).
Claim(s) 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pingree (US 2017/0179554A1) in view of EP1492852B1, as applied to claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15 above, and further in view of Mehta et al. (US 2010/0075221A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Pingree does not disclose the first expandable material comprises the first intumescent particles dispersed in a first organic binder.
Mehta discloses cell thermal runaway propagation resistance using an internal layer of intumescent material, wherein the intumescent layers may be fabricated from any variety of intumescent materials such as expandable graphite in a polymeric binder (see Title, Abstract, [0038]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 12, modified Pingree discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Pingree does not disclose the second thermal conductor material comprises second intumescent particles dispersed in a second organic binder.
Mehta discloses cell thermal runaway propagation resistance using an internal layer of intumescent material, wherein the intumescent layers may be fabricated from any variety of intumescent materials such as expandable graphite in a polymeric binder (see Title, Abstract, [0038]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to claims 12, 16-20 (see Remarks filed 3/24/2026), said claims raise new issues as stated in this Office Action above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Pingree not meeting the claim limitation “the first expandable material expands and causes at least partial shear delamination at the first thermally interruptible interface, thereby reducing the thermal conductance of the thermal pathway” (see Remarks filed 3/24/2026), this is not found to be persuasive because paragraph [0020] of Pingree disclosing the intumescent layers 34 expand to further decrease the heat conductivity of the heat conducting layers 38, and the expansion of the intumescent layers 34 increases the insulating properties of the laminated element 22, thereby increasing the thermal isolation of the one or more battery cells 12 experiencing thermal runaway is considered to meet the claim limitation.
Specifically with respect to Pingree disclosing whether expansion of the intumescent layer causes ‘at least partial shear delamination at the first thermally interruptible interface’ it is noted that instant claim 1 defines the interface between the first expandable material and a non-expandable, thermally conductive material as the first thermally interruptible interface (“the first expandable material intimately contacts a non-expandable, thermally conductive material at the first thermally interruptible interface”). Thus, applicant’s mischaracterization of the prior art, i.e., that an intumescent layer cannot delaminate from a liquid, is not accurate nor relevant to the instant claims since the first thermally interruptible interface is between the expandable material/intumescent layer and the thermally conductive material not between the expandable material/intumescent layer and the matrix material. Paragraph [0019] of Pingree discloses the heat conducting layer(s) 38 comprises a heat conductive material suspended in a matrix material ([0019]), and the intimate contact between the heat conductive material of the heat conducting layer 38 and the intumescent layer 34 is considered to be the thermally interruptible layer. As such, in the event the intumescent layer expands, ‘shear delamination’ can occur between the intumescent layer and heat conductive material of the heat conducting layer.
Further, Pingree discloses melting of the matrix material decreasing the heat conductivity of the heat conducting layers and then expansion of the intumescent further decrease the heat conductivity of the heat conducting layers 38 (the matrix material melts first to decrease the heat conductivity of the heat conducting layers 38 [0019]; the intumescent layers 34 expand to further decrease the heat conductivity of the heat conducting layers 38 [0020]) which clearly states that the expanding intumescent layer has a further heat conductivity reducing effect and, thus, satisfies the claim limitation “…thereby reducing the thermal conductance of the thermal pathway”.
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights