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 of a polymer foil or a metal foil and alginate in the reply filed on 3/18/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/16/26, 8/3/23 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 6/9/23 has been considered.
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 35 is 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 35 recites the limitation "the mass" and “the cast mass” in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 20, 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al. (CN10519613) as evidence by Corning (CN102007603).
Regarding claims 16 and 24, the Li et a. reference discloses a barrier for preventing propagation of a thermal event within a multi-cell battery module, comprising a heat-absorbing protective layer containing 60.5-85 % by weight hydrogel and 5-40 % by weight freezing point depressants (Example 17). The Li et al. reference does not explicitly disclose 70.0 - 97.5% by weight hydrogel and 2.5 - 30.0% by weight freezing point depressants, however, for the range within the claimed range, the Li et al. reference anticipates the claims. For the range outside of the claimed range, it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
The hydrogel comprises a matrix material (high molecular polymer) and water and the freezing point depressants is mixed in the hydrogel. The Li et al. reference discloses the freezing point depressants comprises calcium carbonate. As evidence by the Corning reference, calcium carbonate is a reinforcing filler.
Regarding claim 20, the Li et al. reference disclose wherein the matrix material is 100% high molecular hydrogel polymer and can be selected from alginate (Example 17, sodium alginate one or more, claim 8).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the Li et al. reference discloses the matrix material have 0% thickener (0% is still within the claimed range of “up to 15%”)
Regarding claim 25, the Li et al. reference disclsoes the hydrogel comprises 0.5-25% high molecular hydrogel and more than 60% water (Example 17) and not specifically, 5-30 wt% matrix material and 70-95% water, however, for the range within the claimed range, the Li et al. reference anticipates the claims. For the range outside of the claimed range, it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
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.
Claim(s) 17-19, 31, 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN10519613) in view of Eaves (US20100028758).
Regarding claim 17, the Li et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Li et al. reference discloses the hydrogel is in a generic battery package system for fire prevention. The Eaves disclose a protective layer of hydrogel enclosed in a foil for fire prevention of battery systems for simple, low cost designs. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a protective layer of hydrogel enclosed in a foil for fire prevention of battery systems disclosed by the Eaves reference for batteries with hydrogel protection in order to prevent thermal runaway of batteries at a low effective cost. The foil is also impermeable to water vapor
Regarding claim 18, the Li et al. in view of the Eaves reference (herein referred to as modified Li et al. reference) discloses the foil impermeable to water vapor comprises a laminate of polymer foil and a metal foil.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Li et al. reference the foil impermeable to water vapor is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (PE), polypropyl-ene (PP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), poly-phenylene sulfide (PPS), ethylene- tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE), polyure-thanes (PU), polyamides (PA), polyesters, and combinations thereof (P42).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Li et al. reference discloses a method for preventing the propagation of a thermal event within a multi-cell battery module comprising:a) providing a multi-cell battery module comprising a barrier of claim 1, wherein the barrier is arranged between a first battery cell and an adjacent second battery cell; b) generating heat in the first battery cell; c) absorbing the generated heat into the barrier thereby thermally shielding the adjacent second battery from the generated heat (Abstract).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Li et al. reference disclose barrier is arranged between two adjacent battery cells.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Li et al. reference disclose the battery cells are lithium-ion cells.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN10519613) in view of Ward et al. (WO93/22360).
Regarding claim 21, the Li et al. reference discloses the hydrogel comprising a alginate high molecular material, or specifically, sodium alginate but is silent in disclosing a calcium alginate. However, the Ward reference discloses hydrogel made of alginates can be calcium alginate or sodium alginate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate calcium alginate for sodium alginate for hydrogels The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN10519613) in view of Okuda et al. (JP2012048905A).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, the Li et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Li et al. reference discloses the hydrogel is in a generic battery package system for fire prevention of battery systems. The Li et al. reference is silent in disclosing the protective layer has a thickness of 0.25-10 mm or more specifically, 1.5-3.0 mm. However, the Okuda et al. reference discloses that the protective layer to prevent thermal runaway of a battery. The protective layer can comprise a thickness is preferably 1 mm or more, and its upper limit is preferably 30 mm or less. When the thickness is in the above range, a sufficient cooling effect can be obtained, and a small and lightweight battery set can be provided. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed value through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the thickness of protective layer to prevent thermal runaway of the battery disclosed by the Okuda et al. reference for the protective battery package system that comprises the hydrogel to prevent thermal runaway for a safe battery system. The range of 1-30mm encapsulates the claimed range of 1.5-3 mm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-30, 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights