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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority in view of Provisional Application 63/359,022 with an effective filing date of 07/07/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2023 and 01/08/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: (28) in Figure 4B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference Character 28 is mentioned in the specification as being present in Figure 4B [0038], but is not included in the figure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-9 and 11 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.
Claims 5-9 recite the limitation "the fabric layer of the intermediate layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “The flexible thermal insulator of any one of claim 1”. This is unclear as to the dependency and appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiskiras et al. (US 20090308022 A1), hereinafter "Kiskiras" in view of Hubert et al. (WO 2018011384 A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Hubert". Kiskiras and Hubert et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely multilayered insulation.
In regard to Claims 1-3, Kiskiras et al. discloses a thermal insulator comprising a first heat resistant outer layer (panel 4) and a second heat resistant outer layer (panel 24) and a heat-resistant intermediate layer sandwiched between the first outer layer and the second outer layer (panel 8) (Kiskiras, [0014], Figure 5). Kiskiras et al. also discloses first and second spacers sandwiched between the first and second outer layers and the heat-resistant intermediate layer (Kiskiras, Figure 5 (12)), the first and second spacers having a circumferentially continuous wall with an outer spacer periphery and an inner spacer periphery, the inner spacer periphery bounding a space forming a first and second air pocket between the first and second outer layers and the heat-resistant intermediate layer (Kiskiras, [0019], Figures 2A/2B (13)).
The skilled artisan of Kiskiras must provide a material for the outer layers and intermediate layer (panels) and are aware of many thermally insulating materials available. Kiskiras further discloses the thermal barrier system can include one or more combinations of different types of insulator materials having different thermal conductivities (Kiskiras, [0016]), which can be selected by the skilled artisan based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variation in materials is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hubert et al. discloses a beneficial flexible thermal insulator for an electric vehicle battery pack comprising a first and second laminated outer layer including a first and second impervious, heat-resistant outer coating (mica coating) bonded to a first and second heat-resistant fabric (fiber mat) and a heat-resistant intermediate layer sandwiched between the first laminated outer layer and the second laminated outer layer (Hubert, [15, 34]) where air gaps are provided between layers (Hubert, [34]). Hubert et al. also discloses a specific example comprising the combination of a mica based coating on fiberglass (Hubert, Example 1), which as an insulating layer has beneficial properties such as thermal insulation, electrical insulation, ability to survive higher temperature and flexibility to survive bulging without tearing (Hubert, [75-76]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a mica laminated fiberglass mat layer as taught in Hubert as the first and second heat resistant outer layers of Kiskiras as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hubert and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claims 4 and 10, Kiskiras et al. in view of Hubert et al. discloses the flexible thermal insulator of claim 3. The skilled artisan of Kiskiras must provide an outer heat resistant material (panel) with a predetermined thickness and Kiskiras discloses the thickness dimensions of the panels and spacers can be set to any suitable dimensions to facilitate adequate thermal insulation while a lightweight thermal barrier system is the preferred outcome (Kiskiras, [0018-0019]). Kiskiras further discloses the thermal barrier system can include one or more combinations of different types of insulator materials having different thermal conductivities (Kiskiras, [0016]), which can be selected by the skilled artisan based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variation in materials is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hubert et al. discloses an outer heat resistant layer comprising mica laminated on fiberglass with a thickness in a range of 0.05 to 0.15 mm and an intermediate layer has a thickness between 2-5mm (Hubert, [23, 35]), which overlaps the claimed ranges and would be an obvious choice to try for the skilled artisan of Kiskiras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 5-6, Kiskiras et al. in view of Hubert et al. discloses the flexible thermal insulator of claim 4. Kiskiras et al. also discloses the fabric layer of the intermediate layer is not particularly limited and discloses an example embodiment wherein the fabric layer of the intermediate layer is an impervious silicon sheet material (Kiskiras, [15]).
In regard to Claims 7-9, Kiskiras et al. in view of Hubert et al. discloses the flexible thermal insulator of claim 5. With respect to the limitations of claims 7-9, it is noted that the limitations are directed to non-selected options of parent claim 5. For example, claim 5 explicitly recites that the fabric layer of the intermediate layer is one of an impervious sheet material, a woven fabric, or a nonwoven fabric, i.e. dependent on or more materials selected from the group consisting of…” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the limitations of claims 7-9 are reasonably considered to be optional limitations which depend upon the selection of a woven fabric, or a nonwoven fabric recited in claim 5, and which, in this case have not been selected because Kiskiras et al. discloses the use of an impervious sheet material, as noted above.
In regard to Claims 11-14, Kiskiras et al. in view of Hubert et al. discloses the flexible thermal insulator of claim 1. The skilled artisan of Kiskiras must provide a material for the spacers and are aware of many thermally insulating materials available. Kiskiras further discloses the spacers can be formed from the same insulation material as the panels and that the panels may include one or more combinations of different types of insulator materials having different thermal conductivities (Kiskiras, [0004, 0016]), which can be selected by the skilled artisan based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variation in materials is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hubert et al. discloses a preferred material comprising a nonwoven silica based layer (Hubert, [41]) as well as a list of alternatives such as calcium silicates, calcium magnesium silicates which are an alkaline earth silicate composition (Hubert, [7]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a nonwoven layer comprising silica as taught in Hubert as the spacer material as disclosed in Kiskiras et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiskiras et al. (US 20090308022 A1), hereinafter "Kiskiras" in view of Hubert et al. (WO 2018011384 A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Hubert" as applied to claim 1 and 10 above and further in view of Yoshii et al. (US 20210115622 A1), hereinafter "Yoshii". Kiskiras, Hubert and Yoshii et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely multilayered insulation.
In regard to Claim 15, Kiskiras et al. in view of Hubert et al. discloses the flexible thermal insulator of claim 11. The skilled artisans of Kiskiras must provide the spacers in a predetermined thickness and Kiskiras et al. also discloses the spacers are suitably dimensioned so as to define a gap or space in the form of an air gap between the panels and that the thickness dimensions of the panels and spacers can be set to any suitable dimensions to facilitate adequate thermal insulation (Kiskiras, [0018]). While an embodiment of Kiskiras provides spacers that are 2.54mm thick, this is not particularly limited and as disclosed in Kiskiras, the thickness of the spacer may be the same thickness as the outer layers or intermediate layers. Hubert et al. discloses an intermediate layer that can range in thickness from 2-5mm and a mica laminated fiber layer that can range in thickness from 0.05 to 0.2 mm but is silent as to a layer that is 1.4-1.6 mm thick.
Yoshii et al. discloses a beneficial multilayer insulation material comprising a fiber material which is 1.5mm thick (Yoshii, [0030]), and which may reasonably be selected as the spacer material in Kiskiras, thus anticipating the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a beneficial insulating fiber that is 1.5mm thick as taught in Yoshii et al. as the spacer material provided by the skilled artisans of Kiskiras as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisans of Kiskiras and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiskiras et al. (US 20090308022 A1), hereinafter "Kiskiras" in view of Hubert et al. (WO 2018011384 A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Hubert". Kiskiras and Hubert et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely multilayered insulation.
In regard to Claims 16 and 18, Kiskiras et al. discloses a thermal insulator which may be used in a vehicle comprising a first heat resistant outer layer (panel 4) and a second heat resistant outer layer (panel 24) and a heat-resistant intermediate layer sandwiched between the first outer layer and the second outer layer (panel 8) (Kiskiras, [0014], Figure 5). Kiskiras et al. also discloses first and second spacers sandwiched between the first and second outer layers and the heat-resistant intermediate layer (Kiskiras, Figure 5 (12)), the first and second spacers having a circumferentially continuous wall with an outer spacer periphery and an inner spacer periphery, the inner spacer periphery bounding a space forming a first and second air pocket between the first and second outer layers and the heat-resistant intermediate layer (Kiskiras, [0019], Figures 2A/2B (13)).
The skilled artisan of Kiskiras must provide a material for the outer layers and intermediate layer (panels) and are aware of many thermally insulating materials available. Kiskiras further discloses the thermal barrier system can include one or more combinations of different types of insulator materials having different thermal conductivities (Kiskiras, [0016]), which can be selected by the skilled artisan based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variation in materials is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hubert et al. discloses an electric vehicle battery pack, comprising a housing; a plurality of cells bounded by said housing; and a flexible thermal insulator disposed between adjacent ones of said plurality of cells (Hubert, [2-6]), wherein a beneficial flexible thermal insulator comprises a first and second laminated outer layer including a first and second impervious, heat-resistant outer coating (mica coating) bonded to a first and second heat-resistant fabric (fiber mat) and a heat-resistant intermediate layer sandwiched between the first laminated outer layer and the second laminated outer layer (Hubert, [15, 34]) where air gaps are provided between layers (Hubert, [34]).
Hubert et al. also discloses a specific example comprising the combination of a mica based coating on fiberglass (Hubert, Example 1), which as an insulating layer has beneficial properties such as thermal insulation, electrical insulation, ability to survive higher temperature and flexibility to survive bulging without tearing (Hubert, [75-76]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a mica laminated fiberglass mat layer as taught in Hubert as the first and second heat resistant outer layers of Kiskiras and provide the flexible thermal insulator for use in an electric vehicle battery pack as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hubert and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 19, Kiskiras et al. in view of Hubert et al. discloses the electric vehicle battery pack of claim 16. Kiskiras et al. also discloses the fabric layer of the intermediate layer is not particularly limited and discloses an example embodiment wherein the fabric layer of the intermediate layer is an impervious silicon sheet material (Kiskiras, [15]).
In regard to Claim 20, Kiskiras et al. in view of Hubert et al. discloses the electric vehicle battery pack of claim 16. The skilled artisan of Kiskiras must provide a material for the spacers and are aware of many thermally insulating materials available. Kiskiras further discloses the spacers can be formed from the same insulation material as the panels and that the panels may include one or more combinations of different types of insulator materials having different thermal conductivities (Kiskiras, [0004, 0016]), which can be selected by the skilled artisan based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variation in materials is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hubert et al. discloses a preferred material comprising a nonwoven silica based layer (Hubert, [41]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a nonwoven layer comprising silica as taught in Hubert as the spacer material as disclosed in Kiskiras et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiskiras et al. (US 20090308022 A1), hereinafter "Kiskiras" in view of Hubert et al. (WO 2018011384 A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Hubert" as applied to claim 1 and 10 above and further in view of Yoshii et al. (US 20210115622 A1), hereinafter "Yoshii". Kiskiras, Hubert and Yoshii et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely multilayered insulation.
In regard to Claim 17, Kiskiras et al. in view of Hubert et al. discloses the electric vehicle battery pack of claim 16. The skilled artisan of Kiskiras must provide an outer heat resistant material (panel), an intermediate layer, and spacers with predetermined thicknesses and Kiskiras discloses the thickness dimensions of the panels and spacers can be set to any suitable dimensions to facilitate adequate thermal insulation while a lightweight thermal barrier system is the preferred outcome (Kiskiras, [0018-0019]). Kiskiras further discloses the thermal barrier system can include one or more combinations of different types of insulator materials having different thermal conductivities (Kiskiras, [0016]), which can be selected by the skilled artisan based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variation in materials is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hubert et al. discloses an outer heat resistant layer comprising mica laminated on fiberglass with a thickness in a range of 0.05 to 0.15 mm and an intermediate layer has a thickness between 2-5mm (Hubert, [23, 35]), which overlaps the claimed ranges and would be an obvious choice to try for the skilled artisan of Kiskiras.
Yoshii et al. discloses a beneficial multilayer insulation material comprising a fiber material which is 1.5mm thick (Yoshii, [0030]), and which may reasonably be selected as the spacer material in Kiskiras, thus anticipating the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725