DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/269,366, filed 6/23/2023, which is a national stage entry of PCT/IB2021/062271, filed 12/23/2021, which claims priority to provisional application 63/131,126, field 12/28/2020.
Claims 1-20 are pending; Claims 1-17 are considered herein.
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 the invention of Group I, Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 3/18/2026 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)).
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0043924 A1: This reference teaches batteries enclosed in oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers (Fig. 1, paragraph [0022])
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0068278 A1: This reference teaches a battery casing comprising a fibrous insulator (Fig. 1, paragraph [0023])
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 Ryu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0297684 A1), in view of Ke (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0148455 A1) and Wu, et al. (WO2019/090659 A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0263336 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Ryu teaches a battery assembly (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs [0035]-[0062]).
The assembly of Ryu comprises an electrically-conductive (i.e. metallic) housing 200 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0058]).
The assembly of Ryu comprises one or more battery modules 100 electrically coupled to a busbar 700, the one or more battery modules and busbar being received in the housing 200 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0052]).
The assembly of Ryu comprises an insulator disposed between the busbar 700 and the electrically-conductive housing 200 (paragraph [0054]).
Ryu is silent regarding the material of the insulator of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that this insulator is the non-woven core layer of Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing an electrical insulator, Ke teaches that oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers are excellent electrical insulators (paragraph [0009]).
To solve the same problem of providing an insulating material for use in a battery, Wu teaches a non-woven layer comprising 90 wt% oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers (Example 1, paragraphs [0138]-[0140]). Wu further teaches that the insulator material of his invention provides the benefits of having low thermal conductivity, high tensile strength, and good flame resistance (Abstract).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the insulator material between the busbar 700 and the electrically conductive housing 200 of the battery system of Ryu from the material of Wu, because (1) Ke teaches that oxidized polyacrylonitrile is a good electrical insulator, and (2) Wu teaches that the oxidized polyacrylonitrile insulator material of his invention provides the benefits of having low thermal conductivity, high tensile strength, and good flame resistance (Abstract).
Forming the insulator material between the busbar 700 and the electrically conductive housing 200 of the battery system of Ryu from the material of Wu teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the battery comprises a non-woven core layer disposed between the busbar and electrically-conductive housing, wherein the non-woven core layer comprises a plurality of fibers, the plurality of fibers comprising 60-100 wt% (i.e. 90%) of oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers.
In reference to Claim 4, modified Ryu teaches that the insulator/ non- woven core layer is disposed between the bus bar layer 700 and the conductive housing 200, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Figs. 3-4 teach that a portion of the interface between conductive layer 700 and conductive housing 200 is curved (i.e. at the folded perimeter). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that modified Ryu teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the non- woven core layer compressibly conforms to a curved surface along either the busbar or electrically-conductive housing, i.e. at the curved interface between layers 700 and 200.
In reference to Claim 5, Wu teaches that the plurality of fibers are substantially entangled along directions perpendicular to a major surface of the non- woven core layer (Abstract).
In reference to Claim 6, Wu teaches that the TREVIRA T270 reinforcing fibers of the instant invention melt when placed in a 228-230 °C oven (paragraph [0139]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the TREVIRA T270 in the composition of Example 1 of modified Ryu teaches that the (Example 1, paragraphs [0138]-[0140]) meets the limitations of a “reinforcing fiber having an outer surface comprised of a polymer with a melting temperature of 100-300 °C.”
In reference to Claim 7, Wu teaches that the oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers represent over 85 vol% of the plurality of fibers that are not reinforcing fibers (i.e. 100% of the fibers that are not reinforcing fibers, paragraph [0138]).
In reference to Claim 8, Wu teaches that the fibers of the insulators of his invention are needle tacked (paragraph [0138]).
In reference to Claim 9, Wu teaches that the oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers have a median fiber diameter of 12 micrometers (paragraph [0138]).
In reference to Claim 10, Wu teaches that the oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers have a median fiber diameter of 12 micrometers and a median fiber length of 50 millimeters (paragraph [0138]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers have a median fiber diameter of from 5 micrometers to 20 micrometers (i.e. 12 micrometers) and a median fiber length of from 25 millimeters to 75 millimeters (i.e. 50 mm).
In reference to Claim 11, Wu teaches that a 5.1 mm thick non-woven core is compressed to a thickness of 1.9 mm (i.e. a compression to 37% under ambient conditions) recovers to a thickness of 3.6 mm (i.e. 70%) after 5 minutes (paragraph [0140]).
Therefore, Wu teaches that the non- woven core layer recovers to at least 70% of its original thickness 5 minutes after being compressed to 37% of its original thickness at ambient conditions.
In reference to Claim 12, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the fibers in the material of modified Ryu are randomly oriented, because they appear to be the same materials as those in the instant specification, and appear to have been processed in a manner either identical to or substantially similarly to the processing method of the instant invention (see paragraph [0126] of the instant specification).
In reference to Claim 13, Table 5 of Wu teaches that the non- woven core layer has a tensile strength of more than 28 kPa along any transverse direction (i.e. 324 kPa).
In reference to Claim 14, Table 3 of Wu teaches that the non- woven core layer passes the UL-94V0 flame test.
In reference to Claims 1-10 and 12-14, an alternate rejection is applied.
In reference to Claim 1, Ryu teaches a battery assembly (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs [0035]-[0062]).
The assembly of Ryu comprises an electrically-conductive (i.e. metallic) housing 200 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0058]).
The assembly of Ryu comprises one or more battery modules 100 electrically coupled to a busbar 700, the one or more battery modules and busbar being received in the housing 200 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0052]).
The assembly of Ryu comprises an insulator disposed between the busbar 700 and the electrically-conductive housing 200 (paragraph [0054]).
Ryu is silent regarding the material of the insulator of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that this insulator is the non-woven core layer of Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing an electrical insulator, Ke teaches that oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers are excellent electrical insulators (paragraph [0009]).
To solve the same problem of providing an insulating material for use in a battery, Wu teaches a non-woven layer comprising 80 wt% oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers (Example 2, paragraphs [0138]-[0140] and [0142]). Wu further teaches that the insulator material of his invention provides the benefits of having low thermal conductivity, high tensile strength, and good flame resistance (Abstract).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the insulator material between the busbar 700 and the electrically conductive housing 200 of the battery system of Ryu from the material of Wu, because (1) Ke teaches that oxidized polyacrylonitrile is a good electrical insulator, and (2) Wu teaches that the oxidized polyacrylonitrile insulator material of his invention provides the benefits of having low thermal conductivity, high tensile strength, and good flame resistance (Abstract).
Forming the insulator material between the busbar 700 and the electrically conductive housing 200 of the battery system of Ryu from the material of Wu teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the battery comprises a non-woven core layer disposed between the busbar and electrically-conductive housing, wherein the non-woven core layer comprises a plurality of fibers, the plurality of fibers comprising 60-100 wt% (i.e. 80%) of oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers.
In reference to Claim 2, the non-woven core material of Example 2 of Wu appears to have the same composition as the non-woven core material of Example 1 of the instant specification (see paragraph [0126] of the instant specification).
Therefore, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the non-woven core layer of modified Ryu/Wu exhibits a breakdown voltage of at least 0.9 kV at ambient conditions after exposure to 500°C for 5 minutes, because Table 1 of the instant specification teaches that a non-woven core material of this composition has this property.
In reference to Claim 3, the non-woven core material of Example 2 of Wu appears to have the same composition as the non-woven core material of Example 1 of the instant specification (see paragraph [0126] of the instant specification).
Therefore, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the non-woven core layer of modified Ryu/Wu exhibits the thermal behavior of Claim 3, because Table 3 of the instant specification teaches that a non-woven core material of this composition has this property.
In reference to Claim 4, modified Ryu teaches that the insulator/ non-woven core layer is disposed between the bus bar layer 700 and the conductive housing 200, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Figs. 3-4 teach that a portion of the interface between conductive layer 700 and conductive housing 200 is curved (i.e. at the folded perimeter). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that modified Ryu teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the non- woven core layer compressibly conforms to a curved surface along either the busbar or electrically-conductive housing, i.e. at the curved interface between layers 700 and 200.
In reference to Claim 5, Wu teaches that the plurality of fibers are substantially entangled along directions perpendicular to a major surface of the non- woven core layer (Abstract).
In reference to Claim 6, Wu teaches that the TREVIRA T270 reinforcing fibers of the instant invention melt when placed in a 228-230 °C oven (paragraph [0139]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the TREVIRA T270 in the composition of Example 2 of modified Ryu teaches that the (Example 1, paragraphs [0138]-[0140] and [0142]) meets the limitations of a “reinforcing fiber having an outer surface comprised of a polymer with a melting temperature of 100-300 °C.”
In reference to Claim 7, Wu teaches that the oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers represent over 85 vol% of the plurality of fibers that are not reinforcing fibers (i.e. 100% of the fibers that are not reinforcing fibers, paragraphs [0142] and [0138]).
In reference to Claim 8, Wu teaches that the fibers of the insulators of his invention are needle tacked (paragraph [0138]).
In reference to Claim 9, Wu teaches that the oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers have a median fiber diameter of 12 micrometers (paragraph [0138]).
In reference to Claim 10, Wu teaches that the oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers have a median fiber diameter of 12 micrometers and a median fiber length of 50 millimeters (paragraph [0138]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers have a median fiber diameter of from 5 micrometers to 20 micrometers (i.e. 12 micrometers) and a median fiber length of from 25 millimeters to 75 millimeters (i.e. 50 mm).
In reference to Claim 12, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the fibers in the material of modified Ryu are randomly oriented, because they appear to be the same materials as those in the instant specification, and appear to have been processed in a manner either identical to or substantially similarly to the processing method of the instant invention (see paragraph [0126] of the instant specification).
In reference to Claim 13, Table 5 of Wu teaches that the non- woven core layer of Example 2 has a tensile strength of more than 28 kPa along any transverse direction (i.e. 870.8 kPa).
In reference to Claim 14, Table 3 of Wu teaches that the non-woven core layer of Example 2 passes the UL-94V0 flame test.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0297684 A1), in view of Ke (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0178455 A1) and Wu, et al. (WO2019/090659 A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0263336 A1), and further in view of Tompkins, et al. (U.S. Patent 6,670,291 B1).
In reference to Claim 15, Modified Ryu does not teach that the non-woven core layer comprises the scrim of Claims 15-16.
To solve the same problem of providing an insulating material comprising a non-woven (column 7, lines 15-16) layer of oxidized polyacrylonitrile (column 7, lines 19-42), Tompkins teaches that placing a polyester scrim layer on either side of a core layer provides the benefit of imparting tear resistance to the laminate (column 6, lines 38-45).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed a polyester scrim layer on either side of the non-woven core layer of modified Ryu, to achieve the taught benefits of imparting tear resistance.
Forming a polyester scrim layer on either side of the non-woven core layer of modified Ryu teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the assembly comprises one or more scrims disposed on opposing major surfaces of the non-woven core layer, wherein a peripheral edge of the one or more scrims is edge sealed to substantially encapsulate the non- woven core layer within the one or more scrims.
This “seal” is shown as the extension of the outer scrim layers to the edge of the laminate in Fig. 2 of Tompkins.
Forming a polyester scrim layer on either side of the non-woven core layer of modified Ryu teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein each scrim comprises flame-resistant polyester fibers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0297684 A1), in view of Ke (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0178455 A1) and Wu, et al. (WO2019/090659 A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/263336 A1), and further in view of Meehan, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0236732 A1).
In reference to Claim 17, modified Ryu does not teach that at least some portion of the non-woven core layer is ultrasonically welded to facilitate bending of the non-woven core layer along a bent section of the busbar or electrically-conductive housing.
However, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, modified Ryu teaches that the non-woven insulating layer of Wu is disposed between the top bus/lid 700 and case 200.
To solve the same problem of providing a battery with sealed top and bottom portions, Meehan teaches that ultrasonic welding is a suitable method for sealing top and bottom portions of battery casing structures together (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the connection between layers 200 and 700 of the device of modified Ryu (between which the insulating layer of modified Ryu is disposed, as described above) by ultrasonic welding, based on the disclosure of Meehan.
Forming the connection between layers 200 and 700 of the device of modified Ryu (between which the insulating layer of modified Ryu is disposed, as described above) by ultrasonic welding teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein at least some portion of the non-woven core layer is ultrasonically welded to facilitate bending of the non-woven core layer along a bent section of the busbar or electrically-conductive housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights