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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Throughout the specification, including the abstract, the phrase “silicon rubber” is objected to as silicon is not a rubber. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “silicone rubber” at every place it appears in the specification. At [0021] and [0070], the phrase that the silicone rubber includes “one or more of silicone rubber” does not make sense. Since silicon rubber is being interpreted as silicone rubber for the reasons noted above, then saying silicone rubber comprises silicone rubber does not make sense. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim s 2, 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, the lowercase “c” for Celsius is objected to. The objection can be overcome by changing the letter to a capital “C”. In claim 5, the phrase “5 from MPa” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “from 5 MPa” which is how the claim will be interpreted. In claim 7, the phrase “the aero gel” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the aerogel” which is how the claim will be interpreted. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim s 1-14 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. In claims 1 and 9-12, the phrase “silicon rubber” renders the claim indefinite as silicon is not a rubber. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “silicone rubber” which is how the claims will be interpreted. In claim 1 on line 2 and claim 12, line 1, the phrase “the silicone rubber” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. This rejection can be overcome by amending the phrase “a silicon rubber” to “a silicone rubber” in claim 1 for the reasons described above. In claim 1 on line 4, the phrase “on the other side opposite to the one side” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. The rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “on another side of the heat insulation pad opposite to the one side” which is how the claims will be interpreted. In claims 9 and 10, the phrases “condensation-type” and “addition-type” render the claims indefinite. It has been held that “[t]he addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver , 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955); likewise, the phrase “ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites” was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what “type” was intended to convey Ex parte Attig , 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). ” It is unclear what other reactions would be considered type s of condensation or addition reaction s . This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrases to “condensation polymerization” and “addition polymerization” which is how the claim will be interpreted. In claim 14, the limitation “the battery assembly” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by changing the dependency of claim 14 to be off of claim 13, which is how the claim will be interpreted. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 11, the limitations that the “silicon rubber comprises one or more of silicone rubber” means claim 11 fails to limit the claim from which it depends. These limitations are indefinite for the reasons noted above as silicon is not a rubber. Since silicon rubber is being interpreted as silicone rubber for the reasons noted above, then saying silicone rubber comprises silicone rubber means this embodiment does not further limit the claim from which it depends. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim s 1 - 5, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Knapp et al. (WO 2020/247956) as evidenced by “KE-1100” ( https://www.shinetsusilicones.com/rtv_print.aspx?ID=KE-1100%20A%2FB ) and “Silica aerogel” (h ttps://www.americanelements.com/silica-aerogel-7631-86-9 ) . With regard to claims 1 -5 , 7 and 9-11, Knapp et al. teach examples of silicone rubber mixed with silica aerogels, including an example having 200g of KE1100 silicone and 30 g of silica aerogel, which reads on applicants’ inorganic oxide aerogel dispersed in silicone rubber (pgs. 10-11). The composition is then formed into a sheet, which reads on applicants’ heat insulation pad (pg. 10, lines 13-15). As evidenced by “KE-1100”, this silicone is a two-component addition polymerization silicone polymer. B ased on the mass and density of the silicone, i.e. 1 g/cm 3 , and the aerogel, i.e. 0.1 g/cm 3 as evidenced by “Silica aerogel”, in this example, the aerogel will be approximately 60 volume % of the composition (= (300)/(200+300) where the silica aerogel volume is = 30/0.1). Given the fact that the composition has the same materials in the same volume percentage as preferentially disclosed in applicants’ specification, the sheet of the prior art will inherently possess the temperature difference between the opposing surfaces, the thermal conductivity, the compressive strength and the compressive elastic modulus claimed. With regard to claim 12, the silicone rubber may be foamed ( pg. 4, lines 27-29). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim s 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp et al. (WO 2020/247956) in view of Nickerson (2,870,108) . Knapp et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above; however, they do not specifically teach the surface-modified aerogel claimed. Nickerson teaches that it is known to surface-modified silica aerogels with silanol compounds that then react with each other to form a polymerizes organic silicate on the aerogel (col. 3, lines 40-70 and col. 4, lines 38-45). This modification leads to superior properties for the aerogel as fillers in silicone rubbers, including less weight loss at high temperatures relative to untreated aerogels (col. 1, lines 55 to col. 2, line 7). The treated materials can be used for insulation (col. 7, lines 46-47). Since Knapp et al. and Nickerson are both drawn to silica aerogels in silicone rubbers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the silica aerogels of Knapp et al. with the surface-modified aerogels of Nickerson. The results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, there is the benefit of less weight loss at high temperatures relative to untreated aerogels. Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp et al. (WO 2020/247956) in view of Takeda et al. (WO 2020/054229) of which US 2021/0305640 is the US national stage application that will be used for a translation . Knapp et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above. They also teach that the composites can be used for insulating panels, such as for battery firestopping (pg. 8, lines 19-21 and pg. 9, lines 6-9); however, they do not specifically teach a battery assembly with this insulating panel in between adjacent battery cells. Takeda et al. discloses that it is known in the art to include separators between adjacent battery cells for insulating the heat and preventing heat transfer between the adjacent battery cells of a power supply device 100 , which reads on applicants’ battery assembly [0007] and [0025]. Power supply devices are known for use in electric vehicles, which reads on applicants’ electrical device [0002]. Since Knapp et al. and Takeda et al. are both drawn to insulating layers for batteries, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the insulating panels of Knapp et al. into the power supply device of Takeda et al. as the separator in the device. The results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill as the composite insulating panel of Knapp et al. is known for the same use with batteries. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Examiner notes that CN 111180641 and KR 20070022004 taught in the cited Chinese Office action s cannot teach or suggest the limitations that the “aerogel is surface-modified with a polymer” because there is no rationale save improper hindsight to have broken up the PMMA modified aerogel layer into particles and then mix these particles with a silicone rubber binder to disperse them. The Examiner notes that the Micro and Macro Mats , 2015 , Vol. 214 , pgs 70-79 presented in the EPO Office action cannot teach or suggest the limitations that the “aerogel is surface-modified with a polymer” because there is no rationale save improper hindsight to have broken up the PMMA modified aerogel layer into particles and then mix these particles with a silicone rubber binder to disperse them. The grafted composite is a single layer in this reference and there is no rationale to have dispersed th is material in silicone rubber. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3467 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30-6pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1291 . 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. /Gerard Higgins/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785