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 foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/07/2023 and 03/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 8 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill (US 20210288362 A1), and further in view of Tadokoro (JP 2003197158 A, citation from enclosed machine translation, also provided with the 03/21/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Churchill teaches an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells is connected serially or in parallel ([0003]; multiple electrochemical cells connected in series and parallel arrays). Churchill further teaches that a variety of electrochemical cell types can be used, including prismatic and cylindrical cells ([0022]). Churchill also teaches that each cell includes an electrode assembly [0050]. In the embodiment employing prismatic cells, side outer surfaces of the cells (i.e., left and right surfaces of exemplary cells 103, 104 in Fig. 6) constitute a peripheral surface that is orthogonal to the electrode surface (i.e., surface of 52 shown in Fig. 7). Churchill further teaches arranging adjacent cells with a thermal management multilayer sheet 403 disposed therebetween (multilayer management sheet 403; [0047], Figs. 4 and 6). In the prismatic or cylindrical embodiment, adjacent cells arranged side by side inherently have peripheral surfaces facing one another (see also Churchill [0019, 0051] regarding arrangement of adjacent cells and thermal management multilayer sheet). Accordingly, Churchill teaches the claim limitations that the battery cells each have an electrode surface having an electrode and a peripheral surface orthogonal to the electrode surface and being disposed such that the peripheral surfaces face each other. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the assembled battery comprising the battery cells (battery cells 103 and 104 in Fig. 6), an insulating material covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells (integrity layers 84, 86 within multilayer sheet of Figs. 1-3, made of insulating materials as listed in [0033-0035]). Churchill also teaches a heat dissipation member (heat-spreading layers 61, 63 within multilayer sheet of Figs. 1-3 [0028, 0040]) covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells ([0046]: multilayer sheet may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell) which is covered with the insulating material (Fig. 1, the heat-spreading layers 61 positioned adjacent to the integrity insulating layer 84, which covers cell 100).
Further regarding claim 1, although Churchill teaches the insulating material covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells with one side facing the battery cells and another side facing the heat dissipation member in Fig. 1, Churchill is silent regarding a limitation wherein the insulating material has a plurality of holes piercing the insulating material from a surface thereof facing the battery cells to a surface thereof facing the heat dissipation member. However, Tadokoro teaches this limitation wherein an insulating material (insulating material 11 in Figs. 1-2, [0010]) has a plurality of holes (heat dissipation openings 12 in Figs. 1-2, [0010]). Tadokoro further teaches that this insulating material covers the battery main body 14 ([0017]) and that the provision of the openings enables effective cooling of the battery by allowing airflow such that cooling air reaches the battery main body ([0006]). Further Churchill and Tadokoro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of thermal management of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the insulating material of Churchill, while maintaining the configuration in which the insulating material covers the peripheral surface of the battery cell with one side facing the battery cell and another side facing the heat dissipation member, to include a plurality of through-holes as taught by Tadokoro in order to facilitate effective cooling of the battery via airflow ([0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro , teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the insulating material has a withstand voltage of 500 V or higher. However, Churchill teaches integrity layers 84, 86 (Figs. 1-3 and [0033-0035], as cited above) which are substantially identical or identical to the claimed insulating material. The instant application (at Specification [0020]) describes the insulating material as an elastic material made of rubber or an elastomer. Churchill likewise teaches that integrity layers 84 and 86 can independently include continuous rubber or elastomer fibers ([0033]–[0035]). Thus, Churchill discloses the same type of elastic material as claimed.
Where the prior art discloses a product that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed product, it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art product inherently possesses the same properties, including withstand voltage, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, it would have been expected that Churchill’s integrity layers necessarily exhibit a withstand voltage of 500 V or higher, as claimed. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 4, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the insulating material is formed of an elastic material made of a rubber or an elastomer ([0033]–[0035]), the assembled battery being configured such that the insulating material covers the peripheral surface of the battery cell along a peripheral direction (Fig. 1, [0040]) and presses the battery cell ([0051]). Churchill specifically discloses that integrity layers 84 and 86 can independently include continuous rubber or elastomer fibers ([0033]–[0035]). Churchill also expressly contemplates flexibility in layer ordering ([0040]). Accordingly, Churchill teaches or at least suggests an insulating material covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells ([0040]), even where in figures layers are arranged in different orders (Figs. 1-3). Furthermore, Churchill discloses that assembly pressure of the battery can hold stacked components into place ([0051]). This disclosure suggests that multilayer structure, including insulating material as one of the layers, are configured to press against and secure the battery cell.
Regarding claim 6, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro , teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the assembled battery comprises a flameproof material ([0043]) disposed between the battery cell and the insulating material, the flameproof material covering the peripheral surface of the battery cell ([0040]). Specifically, Churchill discloses a layer comprising an intumescent composition configured to reduce the spread of flames ([0043]). This layer provides flame-resistant protection by forming a char and limiting flame propagation ([0043]). Churchill also teaches that various combinations and subcombinations of layers can be used depending on the desired properties ([0040]). Thus, Churchill expressly contemplates flexibility in layer selection and ordering. Accordingly, in view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to dispose the flameproof material between the battery cell and the insulating material, such that the flameproof material covers the peripheral surface of the battery cell, as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro, teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the assembled battery comprises a flameproof material ([0043]) covering the peripheral surface of the battery cell covered with both the insulating material and the heat dissipation member ([0040]). Specifically, Churchill discloses a layer comprising an intumescent composition configured to reduce the spread of flames ([0043]). This layer provides flame-resistant protection by forming a char and limiting flame propagation ([0043]). Churchill also teaches that various combinations and subcombinations of layers can be used depending on the desired properties ([0040]). Thus, Churchill expressly contemplates flexibility in layer selection and ordering. Accordingly, in view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to have the flameproof material covering the peripheral surface of the battery cell covered with both the insulating material and the heat dissipation member.
Regarding claim 8, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the insulating material is formed of a flameproofing material containing organic fibers and/or inorganic fibers ([0037], [0038]). Specifically, Churchill discloses that integrity layers may comprise polymer fibers and fiberglass ([0037], [0038]), consistent with the definitions provided in the specification (see [0060], [0061], [0065] of instant application).
Regarding claim 10, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro , teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the heat dissipation member ([0028], heat-spreading layers 61, 63) is a sheet-shaped heat dissipation material ([0028]: the heat-spreading layer can be a tape or sheet) wrapped around the peripheral surface of the battery cell ([0022, 0027, 0051]) which is covered with the insulating material (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0046]). Specifically, Fig. 1 of Churchill illustrates the heat-spreading layers 61 positioned adjacent to the integrity insulating layer 84, which covers cell 100. Additionally, paragraph [0046] discloses that the multilayer sheet may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell. Churchill further teaches that the thermal management multilayer sheet may be applied to a cylindrical battery cell ([0022, 0027]). A cylindrical cell necessarily includes a curved side wall extending around the cell and wrapping the cell. Moreover, paragraph [0051] teaches that the thermal management multilayer sheet may be disposed directly on a cell or cell array in any configuration, including the sides of the cells. When placed on the sides of the cells, the sheet conforms to the peripheral surface of the battery cell in a manner consistent with wrapping around the cell body. Accordingly, Churchill discloses a sheet-shaped heat dissipation member wrapped around the peripheral surface of the battery cell which is covered with the insulating material and therefore all limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro , teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein the heat dissipation member is made of at least one material selected from among metals, carbon, and ceramics ([0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Churchill further teaches a limitation wherein a battery pack in which the assembled battery according claim 1 is encased in a battery case (Fig. 8, [0052], housing 800).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim (US 20060251962 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Churchill does not teach a limitation wherein the insulating material has a mesh shape. However, Kim teaches the insulating material (fixing tape 250 with rubber substrate 251 [0036-0037]) has a mesh shape (Fig. 4, [0037]). Specifically, Kim discloses a fixing tape 250 having a substrate 251 made of rubber (Fig. 4, [0035]- [0037]), which is a well-known insulating material. Kim further discloses that substrate 251 has a mesh structure comprising plurality of holes, such that the substrate may be relatively easily expanded when the electrode assembly expands (Fig. 4, [0037], [0014]). Kim also teaches that the fixing tape surrounds and covers the outer surface of the electrode assembly ([0012], [0017]), thereby functioning as an insulating material associated with the electrode assembly. Kim also explains that the mesh structure allows the fixing tape substrate to expand with the electrode assembly during charge and discharge operations, thereby maintaining structural integrity and preventing deformation or gap formation between electrode components ([0013], [0014], [0037]). Further, modified Churchill, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of secondary battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the insulating material of modified Churchill to have a mesh shape as taught by Kim in order to allow the insulating material to expand with the electrode assembly and accommodate expansion during charge and discharge operations, thereby preventing deformation or gap formation between electrode components, as taught by Kim ([0014]).
Claim 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above and further in view of Nishikawa et al. (WO 2020066565 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro , teaches all claim limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Modified Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the insulating material is a tubular body which is open at both ends. However, Churchill teaches that the thermal management multilayer sheet may be applied to cylindrical battery cell ([0027]). A cylindrical cell necessarily includes a curved side wall extending between two open ends. When a sheet-shaped insulating material is wrapped around the peripheral surface of such a cylindrical cell, as taught by Churchill, the resulting structure forms a tubular body surrounding the side wall of the cell. Additionally, paragraph [0046] discloses that the multilayer sheet may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell. Thus, Churchill contemplates configurations in which the insulating material surrounds the cylindrical side wall while remaining open at the top and bottom ends of the cell. Further, Nishikawa explicitly teaches this limitation wherein an insulating material (coating sheet 10, which includes fiber base material, for example rubber [page 8, lines 7-10, and 51], which is similar to insulating rubber material disclosed in modified Churchill) is a tubular body which is open at both ends (a coating sheet 10, that covers the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 20A, except for both end surfaces [page 3, lines 55-59, FIG. 1A. Middle figure]). Such a configuration corresponds to an insulating material with tubular body open at both ends. Nishikawa additionally teaches that the battery cover sheet is used to facilitate efficient arrangement of a plurality of batteries (page 1, lines 12-13). Further, modified Churchill, and Nishikawa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the insulating material of modified Churchill to have a tubular body open at both ends as taught by Nishikawa in order to facilitate efficient arrangement of a plurality of batteries (page 1, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 9, Churchill, as modified by Tadokoro, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Churchill does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the heat dissipation member is a tubular body which is open at both ends. However, Churchill teaches that the thermal management multilayer sheet may be applied to cylindrical battery cell ([0027]). A cylindrical cell necessarily includes a curved side wall extending between two open ends. When a sheet-shaped heat dissipation member is wrapped around the peripheral surface of such a cylindrical cell, as taught by Churchill, the resulting structure forms a tubular body surrounding the side wall of the cell. Additionally, paragraph [0046] discloses that the multilayer sheet may extend past an edge of an electrochemical cell in order to cover at least a portion or all of a surface of the cell. Thus, Churchill contemplates configurations in which the heat dissipation member surrounds the cylindrical side wall while remaining open at the top and bottom ends of the cell. Further, Nishikawa explicitly teaches this limitation wherein the heat dissipation member (a coating sheet 10 includes inorganic filler that can be satisfactorily used for heat dissipation [page 6, lines 20-21]) is a tubular body which is open at both ends (a coating sheet 10, that covers the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical lithium-ion battery 20A, except for both end surfaces [page 3, lines 55-59, FIG. 1A. Middle figure]). Such a configuration corresponds to a heat dissipation member with tubular body open at both ends. Nishikawa additionally teaches that the battery cover sheet is used to facilitate efficient arrangement of a plurality of batteries (page 1, lines 12-13). Further, modified Churchill, and Nishikawa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the heat dissipation member of modified Churchill to have a tubular body open at both ends as taught by Nishikawa in order to facilitate efficient arrangement of a plurality of batteries (page 1, lines 12-13).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/275,098 (reference application, which has common inventors) in view of Tadokoro (JP 2003197158 A, as cited above in the 35 USC § 103 section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Reference claims 8 (encompassing limitations of reference claims 1 and 6) reads on instant claim 6 (and instant claims 1 and 4, from which instant claim 6 depends) because reference claims 8 and instant claim 6 necessitate the following features:
An assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells is connected serially or in parallel, the battery cells each having an electrode surface having an electrode and a peripheral surface orthogonal to the electrode surface and being disposed such that the peripheral surfaces face each other;
an insulating material;
a heat dissipation member;
the insulating material is formed of an elastic material made of a rubber or an elastomer;
a flameproof material.
Reference claim 8 explicitly teaches the order of layers of instant claim 6, wherein the heat dissipation member covers the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the insulating material and the flameproof material disposed between the battery cell and the insulating material, the flameproof material covering the peripheral surface of the battery cell.
Reference claim 8 fails to explicitly teach one of the limitations of instant claim 6, “wherein the insulating material has a plurality of holes piercing the insulating material from a surface thereof facing the battery cells to a surface thereof facing the heat dissipation member.” Although reference claim 8 teaches the insulating material covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells with one side facing the battery cells and another side facing the heat dissipation member, reference claims 8 is silent regarding a limitation wherein the insulating material has a plurality of holes piercing the insulating material from a surface thereof facing the battery cells to a surface thereof facing the heat dissipation member. However, Tadokoro teaches this limitation wherein an insulating material (insulating material 11 in Figs. 1-2, [0010]) has a plurality of holes (heat dissipation openings 12 in Figs. 1-2, [0010]). Tadokoro further teaches that this insulating material covers the battery main body 14 ([0017]) and that the provision of the openings enables effective cooling of the battery by allowing airflow such that cooling air reaches the battery main body ([0006]). Further reference application and Tadokoro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of thermal management of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the insulating material of the reference application, while maintaining the configuration in which the insulating material covers the peripheral surface of the battery cell with one side facing the battery cell and another side facing the heat dissipation member, to include a plurality of through-holes as taught by Tadokoro in order to facilitate effective cooling of the battery via airflow ([0006]).
Claims 1 and 4-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/275,098 (reference application, which has common inventors) in view of Tadokoro (JP 2003197158 A, as cited above in the 35 USC § 103 section) and Churchill (US 20210288362 A1, as cited above in the 35 USC § 103 section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Reference claims 9 (encompassing limitations of reference claims 1 and 6) reads on instant claim 5 (and instant claims 1 and 4, from which instant claim 5 depends), because reference claims 9 and instant claim 5 necessitate the following features:
An assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells is connected serially or in parallel, the battery cells each having an electrode surface having an electrode and a peripheral surface orthogonal to the electrode surface and being disposed such that the peripheral surfaces face each other;
an insulating material (elastic member of the reference application, and it is well known in the art that elastic materials are insulating);
a heat dissipation member;
the insulating material is a tubular body which is open at both ends.
Reference claim 9 explicitly teaches the order of layers of instant claim 5, wherein the heat dissipation member covers the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the insulating material. Reference claim 9 further teaches an additional layer, a flameproof material, which covers the peripheral surface of the battery cells, the heat dissipation member covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells which is covered with the flameproof material and the elastic member disposed between the flameproof material and the heat dissipation member.
Reference claim 9 fails to explicitly teach one of the limitations of instant claim 5, “ wherein the insulating material has a plurality of holes piercing the insulating material from a surface thereof facing the battery cells to a surface thereof facing the heat dissipation member.” Although reference claim 9 teaches the insulating material covering the peripheral surface of the battery cells with one side facing the battery cells and another side facing the heat dissipation member, reference claim 9 is silent regarding a limitation wherein the insulating material has a plurality of holes piercing the insulating material from a surface thereof facing the battery cells to a surface thereof facing the heat dissipation member. However, Tadokoro teaches this limitation wherein an insulating material (insulating material 11 in Figs. 1-2, [0010]) has a plurality of holes (heat dissipation openings 12 in Figs. 1-2, [0010]). Tadokoro further teaches that this insulating material covers the battery main body 14 ([0017]) and that the provision of the openings enables effective cooling of the battery by allowing airflow such that cooling air reaches the battery main body ([0006]). Further reference application and Tadokoro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of thermal management of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the insulating material of the reference application, while maintaining the configuration in which the insulating material covers the peripheral surface of the battery cell with one side facing the battery cell and another side facing the heat dissipation member, to include a plurality of through-holes as taught by Tadokoro in order to facilitate effective cooling of the battery via airflow ([0006]).
Reference claim 9 further fails to explicitly teach another limitation of instant claim 5, “wherein the insulating material is formed of an elastic material made of a rubber or an elastomer”, as cited in claim 4 from which instant claim 5 depends. Although reference claim 9 teaches an elastic member (see claim 6 from which reference claim 9 depends), and elastic materials are generally understood in the art to provide insulating properties, with rubber and elastomers being well-known elastic materials, reference claim 9 does not specifically discloses that the insulating material is formed of an elastic material made of a rubber or an elastomer, as required by instant claim 5. However, Churchill expressly teaches elastomeric and rubber materials as suitable materials for insulating integrity layers 84 and 86 in a thermal management multilayer (Figs. 1-3 and [0033-0035]). Churchill further teaches using elastomer and rubber materials for improving thermal management of battery ([0033-0035]). Further, reference application and Churchill are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of thermal management of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the insulating elastic material of the reference application from rubber or an elastomer, as taught by Churchill in order to improve the thermal management of the battery ([0033-0035]). Such material selection represents the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (see also MPEP 2144.07).
Furthermore, reference claim 9 is broader in scope and encompasses additional embodiments, including embodiments having a flameproof material layer in addition to the insulating material and heat dissipation member. Instant claim 5 is directed to a narrower species of the invention that includes the insulating material and heat dissipation member, but does not require the flameproof material. As such, the reference claim represents a genus, while instant claim 5 represents a species falling within the scope of the genus. Accordingly, the instant claimed subject matter represents an obvious variation and a species within the scope of the genus recited in the reference claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728