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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-25, 27-28 remain pending in the application. Claims 2 and 26 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 13-17 overcome the prior rejection, but further consideration was required, resulting in the new combination
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, 3-11, & 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apeldorn et al. (US 2023/0272177 A1, priority date of 7/31/2020), in view of Onuki et al. (US 2023/0114956 A1, priority date of 3/6/2020) and Wang et al. (CN 210679965 U).
Regarding claim 1, Apeldorn teaches a thermally insulating multilayer sheet (Par. 0019; multilayer structure has excellent thermal insulation properties) comprising: an elastomeric barrier layer (Par. 0162, spacer layer 13 is made of elastomeric materials) having a first and a second opposed surface (spacer layer 13, Fig. 9; spacer layer has a surface facing a cell and one facing a foam layer); a flexible foam layer (foam layer 4; Fig. 5-6) disposed on the first surface of the barrier layer (Fig. 3; foam layer 4 placed in contact with spacer layer 13); a flame retardant component (Par. 0107, lines 1-4), wherein the flame retardant component is distributed within the flexible foam layer, contacts a surface of the flexible foam layer, or both (Par. 0107; flame retardants are included in the foam layer). Apeldorn fails to teach the elastomeric barrier layer being nonporous.
However, Onuki teaches a thermally insulating multilayer sheet (Fig. 1A-B; insulating material 1 is made up of two layers) for preventing thermal runaway in a battery (Abstract), the multilayer sheet comprising a nonporous elastomeric barrier layer (Par. 0125-0127; buffering portion 20 may be “a nonporous elastomer formed body”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastomeric barrier layer of Apeldorn by selecting the material of the elastomer to be nonporous. One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that substitution of the generic elastomeric layer for a specifically nonporous elastomeric barrier layer would have yielded predictable results in reduced flow of liquids between the layers of the sheet.
Apeldorn additionally fails to teach an additional flexible foam layer disposed on the second surface of the nonporous elastomeric barrier layer.
However, Wang teaches an additional flexible foam layer (Page 1, Par. 7; “second foam layer”) disposed on a second surface of a nonporous elastomeric barrier layer (Page 1, Par. 7, lines 1-5; both foam layers contact an opposite surface of the base layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating multilayer sheet taught by Apeldorn by incorporating a second flexible foam layer contacting a nonporous elastomeric barrier layer, as taught by Wang. This would be done to strengthen the main body of the structure and improve compression cushioning, as stated in Wang (Page 1, Par. 8, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein the nonporous elastomeric barrier comprises an elastomer (Par. 0160-1061). Apeldorn fails to teach a permeability coefficient for water or tensile stress of the elastomer.
However, Apeldorn inherently teaches a tensile stress at 100% elongation of 0.5 to 25 megapascals. Apeldorn describes an elastomeric barrier layer having thermal insulation properties (Par. 0001). The barrier must be able to withstand stress under heat to prevent thermal leakage, which inherently requires a tensile stress of 0.5 to 15 mPa. Thus, claim 3 is rejected.
Regarding claim 4, Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein the nonporous elastomeric barrier layer has a thickness of 0.25 to 1 millimeter (Par. 0156; all ranges overlap with the claimed range, as any thickness between 250 and 1000 micrometers is claimed).
Regarding claim 5, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein the nonporous elastomeric barrier layer comprises a polybutadiene (Par. 0161, line 6), polychloroprene (Par. 0161, line 6), polyisoprene (Par. 0161, line 6), silicone rubber (Par. 0161, line 3; “silicone elastomer”), fluorinated silicone rubber (Par. 0161, line 3; “fluorosilicone rubber”), or a combination thereof (Par. 0140, line 8; “and any combination or mixtures thereof”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein the nonporous elastomeric barrier layer comprises polychloroprene (Par. 0161, line 6).
Regarding claim 7, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein each flexible foam layer independently has a density of 5 to 65 pounds per cubic foot (80 to 1,041 kilograms per cubic meter) (Par. 0113; density ranges listed fit in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein each flexible foam layer independently has a thickness of 0.1 to 5 millimeters (Par. 0126; ranges in lines 4-10, excluding 100-6000 micrometers, fit the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein each flexible foam layer independently comprises a silicone (Par. 0031, line 9; “silicone elastomers”), a polyurethane (Par. 0031, line 13), or a combination thereof (Par. 0031; “and any combinations or mixtures thereof”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein each flexible foam layer independently comprises a reinforcing material (Par. 0087, foam layer comprises filler materials; specification defines a reinforcing material as an additive in the foam layer).
Regarding claim 11, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 10, wherein the reinforcing material is a reinforcing fiber material (Par. 0108; filler material is an inorganic fiber), wherein fibers of the reinforcing fiber material comprise carbon (Par. 0108, “carbon fibers”), silica (Par. 0108, “silicate fibers”), fiberglass (Par. 0108, “glass fibers”), ceramic (Par. 0108, “ceramic fibers”), or a combination thereof (Par. 00108; “and any combinations or mixtures”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1, having a thermal conductivity of 0.01 to 0.09 watts per meter kelvin at 23°C (Par. 0166; line 4; a conductivity of 0.05 W/m*K fits in the claimed range); and a thickness of 0.2 to 30 millimeters (Par. 0169; all multilayer structure thickness ranges from 200-30000 micrometers fit the claimed range).
Regarding claim 21, modified Apeldorn teaches an electrochemical cell (battery cell 19; Fig. 9), comprising the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1 disposed on at least a portion of a surface of the electrochemical cell (Fig. 9; each battery is in contact with a section of the multilayer structures).
Regarding claim 22, modified Apeldorn teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 21, wherein the thermally insulating multilayer sheet is disposed on at least two surfaces of the electrochemical cell (Fig. 9, interior batteries are contacted on each side by a multilayer structure).
Regarding claim 23, modified Apeldorn teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 21, wherein the electrochemical cell comprises a prismatic cell (Par. 0260; “prismatic energy storage cells”) or pouch cell (Par. 0260; “pouch energy storage cells”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Apeldorn teaches an unconnected array (Fig. 9, Par. 0261; batteries are lined up in a module, but are separated and not connected), comprising at least two of the electrochemical cells of claim 21 (Par. 0261; “plurality of battery cells”).
Regarding claim 25, modified Apeldorn teaches a battery (battery module 18; Fig. 9), comprising the electrochemical cell of claim 21 (Par. 0257; “battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apeldorn, in view of Onuki and Wang, and further in view of Rabaud et al. (EP 2403050 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Apeldorn teaches the thermally insulating multilayer sheet of claim 1. However, Apeldorn does not teach the flame-retardant component as a particulate within the flexible foam layer.
However, Rabaud teaches a flame-retardant component (Par. 0043; lines 1-2) as a particulate within a pore of a flexible foam layer (Par. 0066, lines 1-2; flame retardant is incorporated into the foam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer sheet taught by Apeldorn by incorporating a flame-retardant component within the foam layer, as taught by Rabaud. This would be done to reduce potential products of battery combustion and flames that may result from combustion, as stated in Rabaud (Page 8, Par. 2, lines 1-2).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apeldorn, in view of Onuki, Yan et al. (CN 111439011 A), and Nishioka et al. (JP 2019035046 A).
Regarding claim 13, Apeldorn teaches a thermally insulating multilayer sheet (Par. 0019; multilayer structure has excellent thermal insulation properties) comprising: an elastomeric barrier layer (Par. 0162, spacer layer 13 is made of elastomeric materials) having a first and a second opposed surface (spacer layer 13, Fig. 9; spacer layer has a surface facing a cell and one facing a foam layer); a flexible foam layer (foam layer 4; Fig. 5-6) disposed on the first surface of the barrier layer (Fig. 3; foam layer 4 placed in contact with spacer layer 13); and a flame retardant component (Par. 0107, lines 1-4). Apeldorn fails to teach the elastomeric barrier layer being nonporous.
However, Onuki teaches a thermally insulating multilayer sheet (Fig. 1A-B; insulating material 1 is made up of two layers) for preventing thermal runaway in a battery (Abstract), the multilayer sheet comprising a nonporous elastomeric barrier layer (Par. 0125-0127; buffering portion 20 may be “a nonporous elastomer formed body”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastomeric barrier layer of Apeldorn by selecting the material of the elastomer to be nonporous. One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that substitution of the generic elastomeric layer for a specifically nonporous elastomeric barrier layer would have yielded predictable results in reduced flow of liquids between the layers of the sheet.
Apeldorn also fails to teach the flame retardant layer contacting a surface of the flexible foam layer.
However, Yan teaches a flame-retardant component (Page 1, Par. 3; “high-strength flame-retardant cover material”) as a flame-retardant layer (Page 1, Par. 7; “includes a flame-retardant layer”), contacting a surface of a flexible foam layer (Page 1, Par. 7; “the first foam layer and the second foam layer are located between the flame retardant layer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer sheet taught by Apeldorn by incorporating a flame retardant which contacts a surface of a flexible foam layer, as taught by Yan. This would be done to improve the bonding force and balance the stress between the foam layer and flame retardant, as stated in Yan (Page 1, Par. 7, lines 9-11).
Apeldorn finally fails to teach the flame retardant layer comprising a polymer binder.
However, Nishioka teaches a flame retardant composition comprising a silicone polymer binder (Pg. 2, Par. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flame retardant layer taught by Apeldorn by incorporating a silicone polymer binder, as taught by Nishioka. This would be done in order to improve the handleability of the flame retardant composition, as stated in Nishioka (Pg. 3, Par. 6). Nishioka is reasonably pertinent to the present application, as it is directed toward a flame retardant composition.
Regarding claim 14, Yan teaches the flame-retardant layer as stated above having a thickness of 0.1 to 2 millimeters (Page 3, Par. 12; “The thickness of the flame-retardant layer . . . are 1 mm, respectively”).
Regarding claim 15, Yan teaches the flame-retardant layer comprising aluminum hydroxide (Page 1, Par. 9; “nano aluminum hydroxide”).
Regarding claim 16, Yan teaches the flame-retardant layer further comprising a char-forming agent (Page 1, Par. 9; “ammonium polyphosphate”).
Regarding claim 17, Yan teaches the flame-retardant layer further comprising a polymer binder (Page 2, Par. 5, line 3; “polyvinyl alcohol” is a polymer binder).
Claims 18 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apeldorn, in view of Onuki, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0166106 A1, priority date of 3/21/2019).
Regarding claim 18, Apeldorn teaches a thermally insulating multilayer sheet (Par. 0019; multilayer structure has excellent thermal insulation properties) comprising: an elastomeric barrier layer (Par. 0162, spacer layer 13 is made of elastomeric materials) having a first and a second opposed surface (spacer layer 13, Fig. 9; spacer layer has a surface facing a cell and one facing a foam layer); a flexible foam layer (foam layer 4; Fig. 5-6) disposed on the first surface of the barrier layer (Fig. 3; foam layer 4 placed in contact with spacer layer 13); a flame retardant component (Par. 0107, lines 1-4), wherein the flame retardant component is distributed within the matrix of the flexible foam layer (Par. 0107; flame retardants are included in the foam layer, thus they are dispersed within). Apeldorn fails to teach the elastomeric barrier layer being nonporous.
However, Onuki teaches a thermally insulating multilayer sheet (Fig. 1A-B; insulating material 1 is made up of two layers) for preventing thermal runaway in a battery (Abstract), the multilayer sheet comprising a nonporous elastomeric barrier layer (Par. 0125-0127; buffering portion 20 may be “a nonporous elastomer formed body”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastomeric barrier layer of Apeldorn by selecting the material of the elastomer to be nonporous. One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that substitution of the generic elastomeric layer for a specifically nonporous elastomeric barrier layer would have yielded predictable results in reduced flow of liquids between the layers of the sheet.
Apeldorn also fails to teach the composition of the flame retardant.
However, Zhang teaches a flame retardant for a multilayer thermal barrier for a battery module, wherein the flame retardant comprises aluminum trihydrate, magnesium hydroxide, and/or zinc borate (all compounds found in Par. 0051). The examiner notes that selection of a known material based on its suitability for intended use supports a prima facia obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flame retardant of Apeldorn by incorporating aluminum trihydrate, magnesium hydroxide, and zinc borate, as taught by Zhang, as these are identified as suitable materials for a flame retardant.
Regarding claim 28, Apeldorn fails to teach the composition of the flame retardant.
However, Zhang teaches a flame retardant for a multilayer thermal barrier for a battery module, wherein the flame retardant comprises aluminum trihydrate and zinc borate (compounds found in Par. 0051). The examiner notes that selection of a known material based on its suitability for intended use supports a prima facia obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flame retardant of Apeldorn by incorporating aluminum trihydrate and zinc borate, as taught by Zhang, as these are identified as suitable materials for a flame retardant.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apeldorn, in view of Onuki and Zhang, and further in view of Rabaud.
Regarding claim 19, Apeldorn fails to teach the flame retardant component distributed within the matrix of the flexible foam layer further comprising an organic flame retardant.
However, Rabaud teaches a flame-retardant component distributed through the matrix of the flexible foam layer (Par. 0066, lines 1-2; flame retardant is incorporated into the foam), further comprising an organic flame retardant (Par. 0066, lines 1-5; all compounds listed before aluminum trihydrate are organic). The examiner notes that selection of a known material based on its suitability for intended use supports a prima facia obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flame retardant of Apeldorn by incorporating organic compounds as taught by Zhang, as these are identified as suitable materials for a flame retardant.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apeldorn, in view of Onuki and Zhang, and further in view of Zhang et al. (EP 1416552 A2; herein referred to as “Zhang (EP)”).
Regarding claim 27, Apeldorn fails to teach the composition of the flame retardant.
However, Zhang (EP) teaches a flame retardant component comprising borax and zinc borate (Par. 0025, “sodium borate and zinc borate”). The examiner notes that selection of a known material based on its suitability for intended use supports a prima facia obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flame retardant of Apeldorn by incorporating borax and zinc borate, as taught by Zhang (EP), as these are identified as suitable materials for a flame retardant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2nd, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Apeldorn does not provide motivation to incorporate a second flexible foam layer on the opposite side of the spacer layer. However, as stated above, Wang provides motivation on Pg. 1, Par. 8 of the provided document, stating that through a second foam layer, “the rigidity and strength of the main body of the spacer can be improved, and it has good compression cushioning.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s amendments, filed June 2nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 overcome the prior rejection, but further consideration was required, resulting in the new combination of Apeldorn, Onuki, Yan, and Nishioka. The Examiner notes that Nishioka teaches a flame retardant comprising a polymer binder which comprises a silicone, meeting the claimed limitations.
Applicant’s amendments, filed June 2nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 overcome the prior rejection, but further consideration was required, resulting in the new combination for claim 18 of Apeldorn, Onuki, and Zhang, and claim 19 of Apeldorn, Onuki, Zhang, and Rabaud. The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches at least two of the claimed flame retardant components, meeting the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights