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 Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 13-32. The examined Claims are 13-32, with Claims 13, 16, 21-24, 26, 28-32 being amended.
Response to Arguments
In view of the aforementioned amendments to the Claims, the previous objections of record and rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d) are hereby withdrawn.
Furthermore, Applicant has mainly amended independent Claims 13, 23, and 31 to recite that the carrier layer fabric consists essentially of silicate fibers “provided with a metal oxide surface finish” (wherein certain dependent Claims further limit the metal oxide to be Al2O3), and to recite that the mineral protective material consists essentially of phlogopite.
Accordingly, Applicant presents arguments in favor of the instantly amended Claims versus the prior art references of record (Pages 7-10 of Remarks). In particular Applicant argues the following:
Miller’s metal oxide coating cannot be understood to be a metal oxide “finish” because a “finish” is a surface modification of the silicate fibers of the instant Claims (Page 8 of Remarks). Applicant argues that the “finish” being a surface modification of the silicate fibers is explicitly clarified in the at least independent Claims 13, 23, and 31 (Page 8 of Remarks). In other words, Applicant argues that Miller discloses a coating of the fibers/fabric, but does not teach a “surface modification” of the fibers/fabric (Page 8 of Remarks).
In the fibers comprising silica and alumina, alumina constitutes a raw material for producing the fibers, not a surface modification/finish of the fibers (Page 8 of Remarks).
Given that Miller’s fabric layer is not the same as the instantly claimed carrier layer, Miller’s fabric layer does not inherently possess a tensile strength of more than 900 N/ 5 cm (Page 9 of Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Regarding (A), nothing in independent Claims 13, 23, and 31 (or any other Claim for that manner) precludes the silicate fibers of Miller having a metal oxide (i.e. alumina) coating on a surface thereof from being interpreted as silicate fibers provided with a metal oxide surface finish. Indeed, neither the Claims nor the instant Specification explicitly define that a metal oxide coating as in Miller is not a “metal oxide surface finish” or that such a coating cannot be interpreted as a “metal oxide surface finish.” In fact, nothing in the Claims, the instant Specification, or Applicant’s remarks explains how a metal oxide surface finish that is allegedly a “surface modification of the silicate fibers” is structurally distinguished from a metal oxide coating as in Miller (it is also noted that the phrase “surface modification” is itself removed from the instant Claims).
Regarding (B), even if the alumina is utilized as a raw material for producing the fibers, at least some portion of the alumina remains in the final fibers such that the fibers are alumina-silicate fibers. Furthermore, and similar to as in said (A) remarks, absent a definition to what explicitly constitutes a metal oxide surface finish, the manner in which alumina is disposed on the surface of the silicate fibers, renders said silicate fibers as being ones interpreted as being provided with a “metal oxide surface finish.”
Regarding (C), Miller’s fabric layer is still interpreted as being the same as the instantly claimed carrier layer (see said (A) and (B) remarks). Therefore, Miller’s fabric layer is still interpreted as inherently possessing a tensile strength in accordance with the instant Claims, as described in the rejections below.
Nevertheless, new grounds of rejection are presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims. All previous prior art rejections of record are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 13, 16-18, 20, 22-26, 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US 2019/0207188).
Regarding Claim 13, Miller teaches a composite material (“protective element”) for thermal insulation and/or electrical insulation and/or fire protection of a battery (Abstract, [0002], [0009]-[0010], [0052]). Miller teaches that the composite material is multilayered and, in particular, comprises a support layer (“at least one carrier layer”) having a composition layer (“at least one protective layer”) applied to a surface thereof ([0052]). Miller teaches that the support layer comprises a fabric layer (“carrier layer fabric”), wherein the fabric layer is formed of heat-resistant inorganic fibers, wherein the heat-resistant inorganic fibers are, for example, alumina-silica fibers (i.e. silica with alumina coated on a surface thereof, and therefore, “the carrier layer fabric consisting essentially of silicate fibers provided with a metal oxide finish”) ([0053], [0056], [0058]). Miller teaches that the composition layer comprises an inorganic platelet material (“mineral protective material”), wherein the inorganic platelet material is, for example, phlogopite (“the mineral protective material consisting essentially of phlogopite”) ([0031]). Miller teaches that the composition layer is bonded to the surface of the support layer via an adhesive (“the carrier layer and/or the carrier layer fabric is laminated with the protective layer”) ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 16, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 13), the fabric layer is formed of alumina-silica fibers (“the silicate fibers are finished with Al2O3”).
Regarding Claim 17, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 13), the composition layer and the support layer are bonded to one another via an adhesive (“the carrier layer fabric is laminated to the protective layer”).
Regarding Claim 18, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 13), the fabric layer is formed of heat-resistant inorganic fibers, wherein the heat-resistant inorganic fibers are alumina-silica fibers.
Miller is silent as to the specific tensile strength of the fabric layer.
However, because the fabric layer of Miller is formed out of alumina-silica fibers, the instantly claimed carrier fabric layer consists essentially of the instantly claimed silicate fibers provided with a metal oxide surface finish, and said alumina-silica fibers are silicate fibers surface finished with a metal oxide (i.e. alumina), the fabric layer of Miller would inherently possess at least a tensile strength in accordance with the instantly claimed range (i.e. “more than 900 N/ 5 cm”) (See MPEP 2112.01). It is noted that 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). Further, it is noted that “when the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990). Applicant is welcome to provide explicit data and/or evidence that the fabric layer of Miller does not exhibit a tensile strength in accordance with the instantly claimed range despite being formed of alumina-silica fibers.
Regarding Claim 20, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that a reinforcing scrim (“scrim”) is embedded in the composition layer (i.e. the composition layer comprises a “scrim carrying the mineral protective material” insofar as said reinforcing scrim, by virtue of being embedded in the composition layer, necessarily carries the phlogopite to at least some degree either directly or indirectly) ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 22, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that the fabric layer is, for example, formed as a woven fabric (“the carrier layer fabric is a woven fabric which consists essentially of silicate fibers finished with Al2O3”) of the alumina-silica fibers ([0052]). Miller further teaches that a reinforcing scrim (“scrim”) is embedded in the composition layer (i.e. the composition layer comprises a “scrim carrying the mineral protective material” insofar as said reinforcing scrim, by virtue of being embedded in the composition layer, necessarily carries the phlogopite to at least some degree either directly or indirectly) ([0054]). Finally, Miller teaches that the composition layer is bonded to the surface of the support layer via an adhesive (“the carrier layer and/or the woven fabric is adhesively bonded with the protective layer”) ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 23, Miller teaches a battery pack (“battery”) comprising a plurality of individual electrochemical cells (“plurality of batter cells and optionally an electronic module”) and a housing (“housing”), the housing comprising an interior space in which the electrochemical cells are arranged ([0018]-[0021]). Arranged within said interior space (e.g. applied to an interior surface of the housing), Miller teaches that the battery pack comprises a composite material (“protective element”) for thermal insulation and/or electrical insulation and/or fire protection of the battery pack (Abstract, [0002], [0009]-[0010], [0018]-[0019], [0052]). Miller teaches that the composite material is multilayered and, in particular, comprises a support layer (“at least one carrier layer”) having a composition layer (“at least one protective layer”) applied to a surface thereof ([0052]). Miller teaches that the support layer comprises a fabric layer (“carrier layer fabric”), wherein the fabric layer is formed of heat-resistant inorganic fibers, wherein the heat-resistant inorganic fibers are, for example, alumina-silica fibers (i.e. silica with alumina coated on a surface thereof, and therefore, “the carrier layer fabric consisting essentially of silicate fibers provided with a metal oxide finish”) ([0053], [0056], [0058]). Miller teaches that the composition layer comprises an inorganic platelet material (“mineral protective material”), wherein the inorganic platelet material is, for example, phlogopite (“the mineral protective material consisting essentially of phlogopite”) ([0031]). Miller teaches that the composition layer is bonded to the surface of the support layer via an adhesive (“the carrier layer and/or the carrier layer fabric is laminated with the protective layer”) ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 24, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 23, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that the fabric layer is, for example, formed as a woven fabric (“the carrier layer fabric is a woven fabric which consists essentially of silicate fibers finished with Al2O3”) of the alumina-silica fibers ([0052]). Miller further teaches that a reinforcing scrim (“scrim”) is embedded in the composition layer (i.e. the composition layer comprises a “scrim carrying the mineral protective material” insofar as said reinforcing scrim, by virtue of being embedded in the composition layer, necessarily carries the phlogopite to at least some degree either directly or indirectly) ([0054]). Finally, Miller teaches that the composition layer is bonded to the surface of the support layer via an adhesive (“the carrier layer and/or the woven fabric is adhesively bonded with the protective layer”) ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 25, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 23, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that the battery pack is used as the power source in an electric vehicle (“the battery is a traction battery in an electric vehicle”) ([0016], [0022], [0081]).
Regarding Claim 26, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 23, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that the composite material is a applied to an interior surface of the housing in which the electrochemical cells are arranged (i.e. the composite material is “arranged between the housing on one side and at least one battery cell on another side”) ([0018]-[0019]).
Regarding Claim 28, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 23, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 23), the fabric layer is formed of alumina-silica fibers (“the silicate fibers are finished with Al2O3”).
Regarding Claim 29, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 23, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 23), the composition layer and the support layer are bonded to one another via an adhesive (“the carrier layer fabric is laminated to the protective layer”).
Regarding Claim 30, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 23, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 23), the fabric layer is formed of heat-resistant inorganic fibers, wherein the heat-resistant inorganic fibers are alumina-silica fibers.
Miller is silent as to the specific tensile strength of the fabric layer.
However, because the fabric layer of Miller is formed out of alumina-silica fibers, the instantly claimed carrier fabric layer consists essentially of the instantly claimed silicate fibers provided with a metal oxide surface finish, and said alumina-silica fibers are silicate fibers surface finished with a metal oxide (i.e. alumina), the fabric layer of Miller would inherently possess at least a tensile strength in accordance with the instantly claimed range (i.e. “more than 900 N/ 5 cm”) (See MPEP 2112.01). It is noted that 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). Further, it is noted that “when the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990). Applicant is welcome to provide explicit data and/or evidence that the fabric layer of Miller does not exhibit a tensile strength in accordance with the instantly claimed range despite being formed of alumina-silica fibers.
Regarding Claim 31, Miller teaches a method for thermal and/or electrical insulation, and/or fire protection of a battery pack (“battery”) comprising a plurality of individual electrochemical cells (“plurality of battery cells and optionally an electronic module”) and a housing (“common housing”), the housing comprising an interior space in which the electrochemical cells are arranged ([0015], [0018]-[0021]). Miller teaches that the method comprises applying, to an interior surface of the housing, a composite material (“protective element”) (Abstract, [0002], [0009]-[0010], [0018]-[0019], [0052]). Miller teaches that the composite material is multilayered and, in particular, comprises a support layer (“at least one carrier layer”) having a composition layer (“at least one protective layer”) applied to a surface thereof ([0052]). Miller teaches that the support layer comprises a fabric layer (“carrier layer fabric”), wherein the fabric layer is formed of heat-resistant inorganic fibers, wherein the heat-resistant inorganic fibers are, for example, alumina-silica fibers (i.e. silica with alumina coated on a surface thereof, and therefore, “the carrier layer fabric consisting essentially of silicate fibers provided with a metal oxide finish”) ([0053], [0056], [0058]). Miller teaches that the composition layer comprises an inorganic platelet material (“mineral protective material”), wherein the inorganic platelet material is, for example, phlogopite (“the mineral protective material consisting essentially of phlogopite”) ([0031]). Miller teaches that the composition layer is bonded to the surface of the support layer via an adhesive (“the carrier layer and/or the carrier layer fabric is laminated with the protective layer”) ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 32, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 31, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that the fabric layer is, for example, formed as a woven fabric (“the carrier layer fabric is a woven fabric which consists essentially of silicate fibers finished with Al2O3”) of the alumina-silica fibers ([0052]). Miller further teaches that a reinforcing scrim (“scrim”) is embedded in the composition layer (i.e. the composition layer comprises a “scrim carrying the mineral protective material” insofar as said reinforcing scrim, by virtue of being embedded in the composition layer, necessarily carries the phlogopite to at least some degree either directly or indirectly) ([0054]). Finally, Miller teaches that the composition layer is bonded to the surface of the support layer via an adhesive (“the carrier layer and/or the woven fabric is adhesively bonded with the protective layer”) ([0054]).
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.
Claims 14-15, 21, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2019/0207188).
Regarding Claim 14, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that that the alumina-silica fibers are able to withstand operating temperatures up to about 1540°C (“the carrier layer and/or the carrier layer fabric is heat-resistant above 1100°C) ([0058]). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 15, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
Miller does not explicitly teach that the alumina-silica fibers have a diameter of at least 6 micrometers.
However, Miller teaches that alumina-silica based heat-resistant inorganic fibers used for insulation purposes exhibiting an average fiber diameter of 9 microns, or a diameter between 6 to 13 microns ([0066]-[0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the alumina-silica fibers of Miller such that they exhibit an average fiber diameter of 9 microns or between 6 to 13 microns, as taught by Miller, given not only because Miller teaches that alumina-silica based heat-resistant inorganic fibers may be formed with such average fiber diameters, but also because such fiber diameter further ensures that the alumina-silica fibers are applicable for insulation purposes.
Regarding Claim 21, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that the fabric layer comprises about 45-75 wt% alumina, and about 25-55 wt% silica ([0058]). The fabric layer therefore, and for example, comprises a “silicate content and/or Al2O3 content of more than 85 wt%” given that the fabric layer may comprise about 100 wt% of silica and alumina in total) ([0058]). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 27, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 23, as previously described.
Furthermore, Miller teaches that that the alumina-silica fibers are able to withstand operating temperatures up to about 1540°C (“the carrier layer and/or the carrier layer fabric is heat-resistant above 1100°C) ([0058]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2019/0207188), and further in view of Murase et al (JP 2005227227, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 19, Miller teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
Miller does not explicitly teach that the phlogopite is heat-resistant above 800°C.
However, Murase teaches a sensor comprising a heat insulation member ([0001], [0008], [0010]). Murase teaches that the heat insulation member is formed out of phlogopite having a thermal decomposition temperature between 900-1000°C, thereby allowing the heat insulation member to exhibit excellent heat insulating properties in high temperature environments ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the phlogopite of Miller exhibits a thermal decomposition temperature of 900-1000°C (“heat-resistant above 800°C”), as taught by Murase, given that such thermal properties would help enhance the heat insulating properties of the phlogopite in high temperature environments.
Conclusion
The following reference is noted for its relevance to the instant Claims (but it is not currently relied upon in any prior art rejection):
Du et al. (US 2020/0099029, provided by Applicant in the 02/20/26 IDS) teaches a battery box, wherein the battery box comprises a protecting member (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 2-3, Du teaches that the protecting member (4) comprises a support layer (41) having a refractory protective layer (42) formed on a surface thereof ([0042]). Du teaches that the support layer is a fiber cloth layer formed of glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, or fiberglass ([0049]). Du teaches that the refractory protective layer is a mica layer, and more specifically, that it is a phlogopite layer ([0050]). However, Du neither teaches nor suggests that the fiber cloth layer is structured as a carrier layer fabric consisting essentially of silicate fibers provided with a metal oxide surface finish.
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 MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728