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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-21 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 2-7 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The term microporous is interpreted per para. 0071 of the instant published application (average pore diameter ranging from 10 µm to 700 µm) and the term mesoporous is interpreted per para. 0119 of the instant published application (average pore diameter ranging from 2 nm to 50 nm).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 24. Paragraph [0149] of the instant published application describes the embodiment of Fig. 7 including numeral 24. It appears the refence numeral “14” has been referred to describe the layer of thermally conductive or thermally capacitive material rather than reference numeral “24”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11-13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20180081802 A, Kaye et al. (hereinafter “Kaye”) with US 2019/0140237 A1 used as an English language equivalent.
Regarding claim 1
Kaye teaches a battery module [Fig. 1D and para. 0053] comprising:
a first battery cell (140) and a second battery cell (142) [Fig. 1D and para. 0053];
a heat control member (corresponding to insulators 148 and 156 and metal layer 152) [Fig. 1D and para. 0053] between the first battery cell (140) and the second battery cell (142) [Fig. 1D and para. 0053], the heat control member (148/152/156) comprising;
multiple layers of reinforced aerogel (the insulators 148 and 156 may comprise porous materials such as, for example, a thermally insulating material including aerogels associated with reinforcing fibers) [paras. 0005, 0059-0066, 0099, 0140, 0163 and 0185], including;
a first layer of reinforced aerogel (corresponding to insulator 148 comprising aerogel; paras. 0163 and 0185 disclose the aerogel comprising fibrous materials such as glass fibers) [see also: paras. 0059-0066, 0099 and 0140];
a second layer of reinforced aerogel (corresponding to insulator 156 comprising aerogel; paras. 0163 and 0185 disclose the aerogel comprising fibrous materials such as glass fibers) [see also: paras. 0059-0066, 0099 and 0140]; and
a thermally conductive material layer (corresponding to metal layer 152) between the first layer of reinforced aerogel (148) and the second layer of reinforced aerogel (156) [Fig. 1D and para 0053].
PNG
media_image1.png
266
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1D of Kaye
Regarding claim 8
Kaye teaches a battery module as set forth above, wherein the thermally conductive material layer includes metallic foil [paras. 0054, 0057, 0096, 0098 and 0109].
Regarding claim 11
Kaye teaches a battery module as set forth above, wherein the first layer of reinforced aerogel (148) and the second layer of reinforced aerogel (156) further include a reinforcement fiber comprising glass fiber (the insulator can include a fibrous material such as glass fibers) [paras. 0099, 0140 and 0163].
Regarding claim 12
Kaye teaches a battery module as set forth above, wherein the thermally conductive material layer (152) forms a direct interface with both the first layer of reinforced aerogel (148) and the second layer of reinforced aerogel (156) [Fig. 1D].
Regarding claim 13
Kaye teaches a battery module [Fig. 1D and para. 0053] comprising:
a first battery cell (140) and a second battery cell (142) [Fig. 1D and para. 0053];
a heat control member (corresponding to insulators 148 and 156 and metal layer 152) [Fig. 1D and para. 0053], the heat control member (148/152/156) comprising;
multiple layers of reinforced aerogel (the insulators 148 and 156 may comprise porous materials such as, for example, a thermally insulating material including aerogels associated with reinforcing fiber) between the first battery cell (140) and the second battery cell (142) [Fig. 1D and paras. 0005, 0053 and 0059-0066, 0099, 0140, 0163 and 0185], the multiple layers of reinforced aerogel (148 and 156) including:
a first layer of reinforced aerogel (corresponding to insulator 148 comprising aerogel; paras. 0163 and 0185 disclose the aerogel comprising fibrous materials such as glass fibers) [see also: paras. 0059-0066, 0099 and 0140];
a second layer of reinforced aerogel (corresponding to insulator 156 comprising aerogel; paras. 0163 and 0185 disclose the aerogel comprising fibrous materials such as glass fibers) [see also: paras. 0059-0066, 0099 and 0140]; and
a thermally conductive material layer (corresponding to metal layer 152) between the first layer of reinforced aerogel (148) and the second layer of reinforced aerogel (156) [Fig. 1D and para 0053],
wherein one or more of the multiple layers of reinforced aerogel (148 and 156) include a porous structure [paras. 0059 and 0062-0063].
The limitation “to provide resilience” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of providing the claimed function. Since the structure of the aerogel disclosed in the art is the same as the one claimed i.e., reinforced porous aerogel, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “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).
Regarding claim 15
Kaye teaches a battery module as set forth above, wherein the porous structure includes mesopores (the mean pore diameter is in the range of 500 nm or less) [para. 0063].
Regarding claim 18
Kaye teaches a battery module [Fig. 1D and para. 0053] comprising:
a first battery cell (140) and a second battery cell (142) [Fig. 1D and para. 0053];
a heat control member (corresponding to insulators 148 and 156 and metal layer 152) [Fig. 1D and para. 0053], comprising;
multiple layers of fiber reinforced aerogel (the insulators 148 and 156 may comprise porous materials such as, for example, a thermally insulating material including aerogels associated with reinforcing fiber) between the first battery cell (140) and the second battery cell (142) [Fig. 1D and paras. 0005, 0053 and 0059-0066, 0099, 0140, 0163 and 0185], the multiple layers of reinforced aerogel (148 and 156) including:
a first layer of reinforced aerogel (corresponding to insulator 148 comprising aerogel; paras. 0163 and 0185 disclose the aerogel comprising fibrous materials such as glass fibers) [see also: paras. 0059-0066, 0099 and 0140];
a second layer of reinforced aerogel (corresponding to insulator 156 comprising aerogel; paras. 0163 and 0185 disclose the aerogel comprising fibrous materials such as glass fibers) [see also: paras. 0059-0066, 0099 and 0140]; and
a thermally conductive material layer (corresponding to metal layer 152) between the first layer of reinforced aerogel (148) and the second layer of reinforced aerogel (156) [Fig. 1D and para 0053].
Regarding the limitation “wherein one or more of the multiple layers of reinforced aerogel include a resilient reinforcing material”, because the multiple layers (148 and 156) of reinforced aerogel are identical to the ones claimed (i.e., porous fiber reinforced aerogels), the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “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).
Regarding claim 19
Kaye teaches a battery module as set forth above, wherein the resilient reinforcing material includes pores with both open cell portions and closed cell portions (para. 0185 discloses coated carbon particles distributed in the aerogel particles) [paras. 0059-0066, 0140 and 0185].
Regarding claim 21
Kaye teaches a battery module as set forth above, wherein the pores in the resilient reinforcing material include mesopores (the mean pore diameter is in the range of 500 nm or less) [para. 0063].
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) 2-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye as applied to claims 1, 8, 11-13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of US 2002/0094426 A1, Stepanian et al. (hereinafter “Stepanian”).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5 and 13
Kaye does not disclose the first layer of reinforced aerogel, the second layer of reinforced aerogel, or both provides compressibility of at least 50% of an uncompressed thickness (instant claims 2 and 13), resilient recovery to at least 70% of an uncompressed thickness after compression (instant claim 4) and resilient recovery to at least 80% of an uncompressed thickness after compression (instant claim 5).
Stepanian teaches an insulating fiber reinforced aerogel composition (aerogel composite with fibrous batting) exhibiting improved flexibility, durability, aerogel sintering, x-y thermal and/or electrical conductivity, RFI and EMI attenuation, and burn-through resistance [paras. 0002, 0004 and 0012], said fiber reinforced aerogel composition provides compressibility of at least 50% of an uncompressed thickness and resilient recovery to at least 70% of an uncompressed thickness after compression [para. 0041].
The use of such resilient fiber reinforced aerogel composition further minimizes the volume of unsupported aerogel while avoiding substantial degradation of the thermal performance of the aerogel [para. 0038].
Kaye and Stepanian are analogous inventions in the field of thermal insulating materials comprising aerogels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first layer of reinforced aerogel and/or the second layer of reinforced aerogel disclosed in Kaye with the insulating fiber reinforced aerogel composition of Stepanian, providing compressibility of at least 50% of an uncompressed thickness and a resilient recovery to at least 70% of an uncompressed thickness after compression, in order to minimize the volume of unsupported aerogel while avoiding substantial degradation of the thermal performance of the aerogel thereby providing an insulating material exhibiting improved properties and durability [Stepanian, paras. 0012, 0038 and 0041].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 3
Kaye does not disclose the first layer of reinforced aerogel, the second layer of reinforced aerogel, or both provides compressibility of at least 80% of an uncompressed thickness.
Stepanian teaches an insulating fiber reinforced aerogel composition (aerogel composite with fibrous batting) exhibiting improved flexibility, durability, aerogel sintering, x-y thermal and/or electrical conductivity, RFI and EMI attenuation, and burn-through resistance [paras. 0002, 0004 and 0012], said fiber reinforced aerogel composition provides compressibility of at least 80% of an uncompressed thickness [para. 0041].
The use of such resilient fiber reinforced aerogel composition further minimizes the volume of unsupported aerogel while avoiding substantial degradation of the thermal performance of the aerogel [para. 0038].
Kaye and Stepanian are analogous inventions in the field of thermal insulating materials comprising aerogels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first layer of reinforced aerogel and/or the second layer of reinforced aerogel disclosed in Kaye with the insulating fiber reinforced aerogel composition of Stepanian, providing compressibility of at least 80% of an uncompressed thickness, in order to minimize the volume of unsupported aerogel while avoiding substantial degradation of the thermal performance of the aerogel thereby providing an insulating material exhibiting improved properties and durability [Stepanian, paras. 0012, 0038 and 0041].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye as applied to claims 1, 8, 11-13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of US 2017/0210108 A1, Mihalcik et al. (hereinafter “Mihalcik”).
Regarding claims 4-5
Kaye does not discloses the first layer of reinforced aerogel, the second layer of reinforced aerogel, or both providing resilient recovery to at least 70% of an uncompressed thickness after compression (instant claim 4) and providing resilient recovery to at least 80% of an uncompressed thickness after compression (instant claim 5).
Mihalcik teaches an insulator comprising a reinforced aerogel composite [para. 0003] that provides resilient recovery to at least 70% of an uncompressed thickness after compression (e.g., more than 80%) [paras. 0045 and 0053], said reinforced aerogel composite being flexible, durable, easy to handle, and resistant to dusting, cracking and general structural degradation [paras. 0003, 0032 and 0045].
Kaye and Mihalcik are analogous inventions in the field of thermal insulating materials comprising aerogels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first layer of reinforced aerogel and/or the second layer of reinforced aerogel disclosed in Kaye with the insulating fiber reinforced aerogel composition of Mihalcik, providing resilient recovery to at least 70% of an uncompressed thickness after compression, in order to provide an insulating material that is flexible, durable, easy to handle, and resistant to dusting, cracking and general structural degradation [Mihalcik, paras. 0003, 0032 and 0045].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 6, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye as applied to claims 1, 8, 11-13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of US 2022/0131208 A1, Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 6 and 17
Kaye does not teach the first layer of reinforced aerogel, the second layer of reinforced aerogel, or both provides a thermal conductivity at 10 °C of about 40 mW/mK or less while under compression.
Zhang teaches an aerogel composition having a thermal conductivity of 25 mW/m-K or less such that a desired thermal barrier effect is obtained [Abstract, paras. 0013, 0032-0034, 0037-0038 and 0113].
Kaye and Zhang are analogous inventions in the field of aerogel composite materials for use as insulating layers between battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first layer of reinforced aerogel and/or the second layer of reinforced aerogel disclosed in Kaye to have a thermal conductivity of 25 mW/m-K or less, as disclosed in Zhang, for the purpose of providing a suitable thermal barrier effect.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Furthermore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thermal conductivity of the first and/or second reinforced aerogel layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired thermal barrier effect [Zhang, para. 0037]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 9
Kaye does not teach the thermally conductive material layer including carbon.
Zhang teaches a heat control member comprising a reinforced aerogel layer (101) and thermal conduction material layers (102) [Fig. 1, Abstract, paras. 0051-0052 and 0113], wherein the thermal conduction material layers comprise carbon as an auxiliary component thereby providing a layer having a high thermal conductivity and ensuring the desired in-plane conductive effect [paras. 0013 and 0052-0053].
Kaye and Zhang are analogous inventions in the field of aerogel composite materials for use as insulating layers between battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermally conductive material layer of Kaye to comprise carbon for the purpose of ensuring the desired in-plane conductive effect.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye as applied to claims 1, 8, 11-13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of US 2006/0261304 A1, Muthukumaran et al. (hereinafter “Muthukumaran”).
Regarding claim 10
Kaye does not teach the first layer of reinforced aerogel and the second layer of reinforced aerogel further include a reinforcement fiber comprising oxidized polyacrylonitrile (OPAN).
Muthukumaran teaches that materials reinforcing aerogel composites include silica, quartz, ceramics, wool, boron, aluminum, steel, polyetherimide, polyimides, polyamides, polyether sulphone, leather, polyacrylonitrile, oxidized polyacrylonitrile, etc. [paras. 0008 and 0012].
Kaye and Muthukumaran are analogous inventions in the field of thermal insulating materials comprising aerogels. Because Muthukumaran teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable reinforcing fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Muthukumaran teaches that OPAN leads to the anticipated success, said reinforcement material is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye as applied to claims 1, 8, 11-13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 above, and further in view of US 2009/0029147 A1, Tang et al. (hereinafter “Tang”).
Regarding claim 7
Kaye does not teach the first layer of reinforced aerogel includes a first resilience, the second layer of reinforced aerogel provides a second resilience, and wherein the first resilience and the second resilience are different from one another.
However, Tang teaches that the resilience of such reinforced aerogel compositions can be optimized to allow for the creation of crack free monolithic structures [para. 0016]
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the resilience of the first and second reinforced aerogel layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameters through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired flexibility of the structure thereby avoiding the creation of cracks. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claims 14 and 20
Kaye does not teach the porous structure of the resilient material including macropores.
Tang teaches an aerogel composite having a pore size greater than 50 microns, wherein the large pore size provides a surprisingly flexible aerogel composite with superior properties to other flexible aerogel composites [para. 0015].
Kaye and Tang are analogous inventions in the field of aerogel composite materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the resilient material of Kaye to include macropores, as in Tang, in order to improve the flexibility of the composite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0178434 A1, Sakatani et al. teaches a heat insulating material is a sheet including a fiber and an aerogel [Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721