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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on March 10th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1-2, 10-12 are amended, claim 9 is cancelled, and claim 21 is new, resulting in claims 1-8, 10-21 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments submitted on March 10th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 2 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 with respect to antecedent basis previously set forth in the Non Final Rejection mailed March 10th, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to incorporate the limitation of claim 9 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1-2, 5, as being anticipated by Rhee. However, additional grounds of rejection facilitated by the amendment are presented in the subsequent office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a first foam block positioned within and sized to fill the void space.” The instant disclosure recites that battery thermal barrier foam systems may include one or more foam blocks “arranged to fill void spaces within a battery array” (Paragraph 0037) and further the foam blocks “may be strategically positioned within void spaces found within the battery array” (Paragraph 0049). Therefore, with respect to the amended limitation of the foam block “positioned within and sized to fill the void space”, the specification lacks support for the amendment as filed.
Regarding claims 2-8, 11, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the claim recites “a first foam block positioned within and sized to fill a space…” The instant disclosure recites that battery thermal barrier foam systems may include one or more foam blocks “arranged to fill void spaces within a battery array” (Paragraph 0037) and further the foam blocks “may be strategically positioned within void spaces found within the battery array” (Paragraph 0049). Therefore, with respect to the amended limitation of the foam block “positioned within and sized to fill a space”, the specification lacks support for the amendment as filed.
Regarding claims 13-20, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the claim recites “a first foam block positioned within and sized to fill the void space.” The instant disclosure recites that battery thermal barrier foam systems may include one or more foam blocks “arranged to fill void spaces within a battery array” (Paragraph 0037) and further the foam blocks “may be strategically positioned within void spaces found within the battery array” (Paragraph 0049). Therefore, with respect to the amended limitation of the foam block “positioned within and sized to fill the void space”, the specification lacks support for the amendment as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8, 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a first foam block positioned within and sized to fill the void space.” It is unclear what is meant by the foam block being “positioned within and sized to fill the void space,” particularly if the foam block is actually filling the void space or only sized in a way to fill the void space. Further, it is also unclear from the limitation the size requirements of the foam block to meet the claimed limitations of being sized to fill the void space. For the purposed of examination, the foam block being “positioned within and sized to fill the void space” is interpreted by the Examiner as the foam block having a size such that at least some portion of the foam block occupies the void space. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-8, 11, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the claim recites “a first foam block positioned within and sized to fill a space…” It is unclear what is meant by the foam block being “positioned within and sized to fill a space,” particularly if the foam block is actually filling the space or only sized in a way to fill the space. Further, it is also unclear from the limitation the size requirements of the foam block to meet the claimed limitations of being sized to fill the space. For the purposed of examination, the foam block being “positioned within and sized to fill a space” is interpreted by the Examiner as the foam block having a size such that at least some portion of the foam block occupies a space. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 13-20, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the claim recites “a first foam block positioned within and sized to fill the void space.” It is unclear what is meant by the foam block being “positioned within and sized to fill the void space,” particularly if the foam block is actually filling the void space or only sized in a way to fill the void space. Further, it is also unclear from the limitation the size requirements of the foam block to meet the claimed limitations of being sized to fill the void space. For the purposed of examination, the foam block being “positioned within and sized to fill the void space” is interpreted by the Examiner as the foam block having a size such that at least some portion of the foam block occupies the void space. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Rhee (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220069377 A1) as evidenced by the Brittanica definition of “traction battery” .
Regarding claim 12, Rhee teaches a battery pack (Paragraph 0010). Rhee teaches a suitable installation of the battery module of the invention into an electric vehicle (Paragraph 0004). According to Britannica, the definition of a traction battery is a battery employed in a vehicle. Thus, the battery pack of Rhee is considered a traction battery pack, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Rhee teaches the traction battery pack comprising a first battery cell including a first cell tab terminal; a second battery cell including a second cell tab terminal; and a first foam block arranged between the first cell tab terminal and the second cell tab terminal (Paragraph 0069), as shown in the annotated Figure below.
The areas of the battery module occupied by the foam block are considered spaces within the battery array which are filled by the foam block, meeting the instant claimed limitation. The foam blocks of Rhee which are positioned in a variety of locations of the battery module have a predetermined size. At least a portion of the foam block is considered to fill the void spaces which exist in the battery module in order to accommodate the foam blocks (see above 112b interpretation), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the first foam block positioned within and sized to fill a space between the first cell tab terminal and the second cell tab terminal
PNG
media_image1.png
532
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Rhee
Regarding claim 17, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 12, comprising a second foam block arranged to extend between the first battery cell or the second battery cell and a cover of an array housing of a battery array that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell (Paragraph 0070) (Figure 7), as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
738
1299
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 2 and 7 of Rhee
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, 5, 10-11, 13-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220069377 A1) as applied to claims 12 and 17 above, further in view of Kristy (W.O. 2022155056 A1), as evidenced by the Brittanica definition of “traction battery” .
Regarding claim 1, Rhee teaches a battery pack (Paragraph 0010). Rhee teaches a suitable installation of the battery module of the invention into an electric vehicle (Paragraph 0004). According to Britannica, the definition of a traction battery is a battery employed in a vehicle. Thus, the battery pack of Rhee is considered a traction battery pack, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Rhee teaches the traction battery pack comprising a battery array (cell assembly stacked with a plurality of secondary battery cells) (Paragraph 0011).
Rhee teaches a thermal barrier which is placed in the battery housing (Paragraph 0011) comprising a rigid mechanical layer disposed between two heat resistant layers (Paragraph 0015). Rhee teaches the rigid mechanical layer of the thermal barrier may be foam (Paragraph 0016). Thus, the thermal barrier of Rhee is equated with the instant first foam block.
Rhee teaches the foam block (thermal barrier) arranged in a variety of locations within the battery module (Paragraph 0024). The areas of the battery module occupied by the foam block are considered void spaces within the battery array which are filled by the foam block, meeting the instant claimed limitation. Further, the foam blocks of Rhee which are positioned in a variety of locations of the battery module have a predetermined size. At least a portion of the foam block is considered to fill the void spaces which exist in the battery module in order to accommodate the foam blocks (see above 112b interpretation), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the first foam block positioned within and sized to fill the void space.
Rhee teaches the first foam block includes a foam portion (rigid mechanical layer) (Paragraphs 0015-0016).
Rhee is silent as to the first foam block includes an endothermic aerogel system.
However, Kristy discloses a thermally insulating multilayer sheet including a foam layer for use in batteries to prevent thermal runaway (Paragraph 0002). Kristy teaches a flexible foam layer being an aerogel (Paragraph 0035), meeting the instant claimed limitation of an aerogel system. Kristy teaches the flexible foam layer of the invention being beneficial to providing pressure management allowing for expansion of the cell while possessing characteristics of low density, good compression resistance, and minimal stress relaxation (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Kristy in which the foam block comprises the flexible foam aerogel system disclosed by Kristy. Doing so would advantageously result in a low density material with good compression resistance and minimal stress relaxation, while maintaining the ability to maintain pressure during cell expansion, as recognized by Kristy.
The aerogel system of Rhee in view of Kristy is equated with the instant endothermic aerogel system, as the aerogel system of Kristy comprises inorganic flame retardant components being a compound such as aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Paragraph 0070), which the instant disclosure characterizes as endothermic (Instant specification Paragraph 00061). Thus, the aerogel system of Rhee in view of Kristy comprises endothermic additives and is considered an endothermic aerogel system.
Regarding claim 2, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the first foam block is arranged to extend between a first tab terminal of a first battery cell and a second tab terminal of an adjacent second battery cell of the battery array (Paragraph 0037, 0069) (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the first foam block is arranged to extend between a battery cell and a cover of an array housing of the battery array (Paragraph 0070) (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, wherein the foam portion (rigid mechanical layer) includes a polyurethane (Paragraph 0053) foam (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 11, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1.
Rhee is silent as to the endothermic aerogel system includes an aerogel additive, an intumescent additive, a melamine powder, and an endothermic additive.
However, as discussed above, the foam block of Rhee was modified to incorporate the flexible foam aerogel system of Kristy. Kristy teaches the aerogel may comprise an additive which is a reinforcing material, such as silica and metal oxide (Paragraph 0047), meeting the instant limitations of the aerogel system comprising additives.
Kristy teaches a flame retardant in particulate form dispersed within the pores of the flexible foam layer (Paragraph 0062).
Kristy teaches the flame retardant component including an intumescent material (Paragraph 0057), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the aerogel system including an intumescent additive.
Kristy teaches the flame retardant including both an organic and inorganic flame retardment component (Paragraph 0071).
Kristy teaches the organic flame retardant component being a compound such as melamine (Paragraph 0070), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the aerogel system comprising melamine powder.
Kristy teaches the inorganic flame retardant component being a compound such as aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Paragraph 0070). As the instant disclosure provides examples of endothermic additives including aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Instant specification Paragraph 00061), the inorganic flame retardant compounds included in the foam layer of Kristy are considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of the aerogel system comprising endothermic additives.
Regarding claim 13, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 12, wherein the first foam block includes a foam portion, as discussed above.
However, Kristy discloses a thermally insulating multilayer sheet including a foam layer for use in batteries to prevent thermal runaway (Paragraph 0002). Kristy teaches a flexible foam layer being an aerogel (Paragraph 0035), meeting the instant claimed limitation of an aerogel system. Kristy teaches the flexible foam layer of the invention being beneficial to providing pressure management allowing for expansion of the cell while possessing characteristics of low density, good compression resistance, and minimal stress relaxation (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Kristy in which the foam block comprises the flexible foam aerogel system disclosed by Kristy. Doing so would advantageously result in a low density material with good compression resistance and minimal stress relaxation, while maintaining the ability to maintain pressure during cell expansion, as recognized by Kristy.
The aerogel system of Rhee in view of Kristy is equated with the instant endothermic aerogel system, as the aerogel system of Kristy comprises inorganic flame retardant components being a compound such as aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Paragraph 0070), which the instant disclosure characterizes as endothermic (Instant specification Paragraph 00061). Thus, the aerogel system of Rhee in view of Kristy comprises endothermic additives and is considered an endothermic aerogel system.
Regarding claim 14, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 13, wherein the foam portion (rigid mechanical layer) includes a polyurethane (Paragraph 0053) foam (Paragraph 0054).
Rhee is silent as to the endothermic aerogel system includes an aerogel additive, an intumescent additive, a melamine powder, and an endothermic additive.
However, as discussed above, the foam block of Rhee was modified to incorporate the flexible foam aerogel system of Kristy. Kristy teaches the aerogel may comprise an additive which is a reinforcing material, such as silica and metal oxide (Paragraph 0047), meeting the instant limitations of the aerogel system comprising additives.
Kristy teaches a flame retardant in particulate form dispersed within the pores of the flexible foam layer (Paragraph 0062).
Kristy teaches the flame retardant component including an intumescent material (Paragraph 0057), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the aerogel system including an intumescent additive.
Kristy teaches the flame retardant including both an organic and inorganic flame retardment component (Paragraph 0071).
Kristy teaches the organic flame retardant component being a compound such as melamine (Paragraph 0070), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the aerogel system comprising melamine powder.
Kristy teaches the inorganic flame retardant component being a compound such as aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Paragraph 0070). As the instant disclosure provides examples of endothermic additives including aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Instant specification Paragraph 00061), the inorganic flame retardant compounds included in the foam layer of Kristy are considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of the aerogel system comprising endothermic additives.
Regarding claim 21, Rhee teaches a traction battery pack. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Rhee teaches a battery pack (Paragraph 0010) that may be suitably used in an electric vehicle (Paragraph 0004). According to Britannica, the definition of a traction battery is a battery employed in a vehicle. Thus, the battery pack of Rhee is considered a traction battery pack, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Rhee teaches the traction battery pack comprising a battery array (cell assembly stacked with a plurality of secondary battery cells) (Paragraph 0011).
Rhee teaches a thermal barrier which is placed in the battery housing (Paragraph 0011) comprising a rigid mechanical layer disposed between two heat resistant layers (Paragraph 0015). Rhee teaches the rigid mechanical layer of the thermal barrier may be foam (Paragraph 0016). Thus, the thermal barrier of Rhee is equated with the instant first foam block.
Rhee teaches the battery array including a first array structural component (a first tab terminal of a first battery cell) and a second array structural component (a second tab terminal of an adjacent second battery cell) (Figure 6).
Rhee teaches the foam block (thermal barrier) arranged in a variety of locations within the battery module (Paragraph 0024). The areas of the battery module occupied by the foam block are considered void spaces within the battery array which are filled by the foam block, meeting the instant claimed limitation. The foam blocks of Rhee which are positioned in a variety of locations of the battery module have a predetermined size. At least a portion of the foam block is considered to fill the void spaces which exist in the battery module in order to accommodate the foam blocks (see above 112b interpretation), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the foam block positioned within and sized to fill the void space.
Rhee teaches the foam block is arranged to extend between a first tab terminal of a first battery cell and a second tab terminal of an adjacent second battery cell of the battery array (Paragraph 0037, 0069) (Figure 6), meeting the instant claimed limitation of a void space extending three-dimensionally between the first array structural component and the second array structural component; a foam block positioned within and sized to fill the void space.
Rhee teaches the foam block including a foam portion (rigid mechanical layer).
Rhee is silent as to the foam portion impregnated with an endothermic aerogel system.
However, Kristy discloses a thermally insulating multilayer sheet including a foam layer for use in batteries to prevent thermal runaway (Paragraph 0002). Kristy teaches a flexible foam layer being an aerogel (Paragraph 0035), meeting the instant claimed limitation of an aerogel system. Kristy teaches the aerogel of the disclosure is an open-celled solid matrix including a network of interconnected nanostructures with a porosity. Kristy teaches the flame retardant component of the aerogel system can be impregnated into the pores of the foam (Paragraph 0061).
Kristy teaches the flexible foam layer of the invention being beneficial to providing pressure management allowing for expansion of the cell while possessing characteristics of low density, good compression resistance, and minimal stress relaxation (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam portion of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Kristy in which the foam block is impregnated with the aerogel system as disclosed by Kristy. Doing so would advantageously result in a low density material with good compression resistance and minimal stress relaxation, while maintaining the ability to maintain pressure during cell expansion, as recognized by Kristy.
The aerogel system of Rhee in view of Kristy is equated with the instant endothermic aerogel system, as the aerogel system of Kristy comprises inorganic flame retardant components being a compound such as aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Paragraph 0070), which the instant disclosure characterizes as endothermic (Instant specification Paragraph 00061). Thus, the aerogel system of Rhee in view of Kristy comprises endothermic additives and is considered an endothermic aerogel system.
Rhee is silent as to the endothermic aerogel system includes an aerogel additive, an intumescent additive, and an endothermic additive.
However, as discussed above, the foam portion of Rhee was modified to incorporate the aerogel system of Kristy. Kristy teaches the aerogel system may comprise an additive which is a reinforcing material, such as silica and metal oxide (Paragraph 0047), meeting the instant limitations of the aerogel system comprising additives.
Kristy teaches the flame retardant component within the pores of the flexible foam includes an intumescent material (Paragraph 0057), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the aerogel system including an intumescent additive.
Kristy teaches the inorganic flame retardant component being a compound such as aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Paragraph 0070). As the instant disclosure provides examples of endothermic additives including aluminum trihydrate and sodium silicate (Instant specification Paragraph 00061), the inorganic flame retardant compounds included in the foam layer of Kristy are considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of the aerogel system comprising endothermic additives.
Kristy teaches the endothermic aerogel system which modified Rhee includes an intumescent additive, as discussed above, which reduces the spread of flames within a battery by two energy absorbing mechanisms, including forming a char and then swelling the char as the temperature increases (Paragraph 0063). Further, Kristy teaches the flame retardant material reduces the spread of flame by a similar energy-absorbing mechanism, particularly by forming and then swelling a char (Paragraph 0069).
Thus, the endothermic aerogel system of Rhee in view of Kristy includes additives which fight the propagation of flames in a battery fire by swelling a char as the temperature increases. The limitation of “the endothermic aerogel system configured to expand to absorb heat when a temperature within the battery array exceeds a predefined temperature threshold” defines the aerogel system by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was evaluated in conjunction with the remainder of the claim See MPEP 2173.05(g). Rhee in view of teaches the claimed structure (swelling of a char during a temperature increase in the event of battery fire) as stated in the above rejection, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Claims 3-4, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 10-14, 17, and 21 above, further in view of Buck (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070259258 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, including foam blocks (rigid mechanical layer of thermal barrier) positioned in a variety of locations in the case (Paragraphs 0024, 0071). Rhee teaches the battery pack including cell tab terminals (Figures 5-8; Element 11) of the cell assembly (Figure 2, Element 20) and side plates (front and rear covers) (Figure 2, Elements 112 and 113, respectively).
Rhee is silent as to the first foam block is arranged to extend between a cell tab terminal of a battery cell and a side plate of an array housing of the battery array.
However, Buck discloses a plurality of battery packs for electric and hybrid vehicles (Paragraph 0002). Buck teaches each battery pack including a housing and multiple cells disposed in the housing (Abstract). Buck teaches a foam solution injected into the case of each battery pack so that the foam extends around the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell (Paragraph 0010). Buck teaches the foam is a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0032), which is a material shared by the instant invention (Paragraph 00059).
Buck teaches the advantage of the foam surrounding the entirety of cells in the pack to be the elimination of air gaps between the cells and the case (Paragraph 0011) which promotes the absorption and transfer of heat inside the pack (Paragraph 0016) and the reduction of potential permeation of liquids into the battery pack, or leakage from inside the battery pack to the outside of the battery pack thereby preventing reduced product life or premature failures of the battery pack (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Buck in which foam blocks are provided to surround the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell. Doing so would advantageously result in the reduction of air gaps within the pack that interrupt heat transfer and the minimization of premature failure of the pack due to liquid leakage and permeation, as recognized by Buck. The ordinary artisan would recognize that in completely surrounding each individual cell of a battery pack according to the teachings of Buck in order to obtain the aforementioned benefits, the result would be the first foam block extending between a cell tab terminal of a battery cell and a side plate of an array housing of the battery array, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, including foam blocks (rigid mechanical layer of thermal barrier) positioned in a variety of locations in the case (Paragraphs 0024, 0071). Rhee teaches the battery pack including cell tab terminals (Figures 5-8; Element 11) of the cell assembly (Figure 2, Element 20) and end plates (vertical walls of cooling plate) (Figure 2, Element 114).
Rhee is silent as to the first foam block is arranged to extend between a cell tab terminal of a battery cell and an end plate of an array housing of the battery array.
However, as discussed above, Buck teaches a foam solution injected into the case of each battery pack so that the foam extends around the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell (Paragraph 0010). Buck teaches the foam is a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0032), which is a material shared by the instant invention (Paragraph 00059).
Buck teaches the advantage of the foam surrounding the entirety of cells in the pack to be the elimination of air gaps between the cells and the case (Paragraph 0011) which promotes the absorption and transfer of heat inside the pack (Paragraph 0016) and the reduction of potential permeation of liquids into the battery pack, or leakage from inside the battery pack to the outside of the battery pack thereby preventing reduced product life or premature failures of the battery pack (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Buck in which foam blocks are provided to surround the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell. Doing so would advantageously result in the reduction of air gaps within the pack that interrupt heat transfer and the minimization of premature failure of the pack due to liquid leakage and permeation, as recognized by Buck. The ordinary artisan would recognize that in completely surrounding each individual cell of a battery pack according to the teachings of Buck in order to obtain the aforementioned benefits, the result would be the first foam block extending between a cell tab terminal of a battery cell and an end plate of an array housing of the battery array, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 12, including an array housing (Figure 2, Element 110) of a battery array (Figure 2, Element 20) that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell (Paragraph 0043). Rhee teaches the housing also comprising foam blocks (rigid mechanical layer of thermal barrier) positioned in a variety of locations in the case (Paragraphs 0024, 0071). Rhee teaches the battery pack including side plates (front and rear covers) (Figure 2, Elements 112 and 113, respectively).
Rhee teaches the traction battery pack comprising a first battery cell including a first cell tab terminal; a second battery cell including a second cell tab terminal; and a first foam block arranged to fill a space between the first cell tab terminal and the second cell tab terminal (Paragraph 0069), as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Rhee
Rhee is silent as to a second foam block arranged to fill a space between the first cell tab terminal or the second cell tab terminal and a side plate of an array housing of a battery array that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell.
However, as discussed above, Buck teaches a foam solution injected into the case of each battery pack so that the foam extends around the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell (Paragraph 0010). Buck teaches the foam is a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0032), which is a material shared by the instant invention (Paragraph 00059).
Buck teaches the advantage of the foam surrounding the entirety of cells in the pack to be the elimination of air gaps between the cells and the case (Paragraph 0011) which promotes the absorption and transfer of heat inside the pack (Paragraph 0016) and the reduction of potential permeation of liquids into the battery pack, or leakage from inside the battery pack to the outside of the battery pack thereby preventing reduced product life or premature failures of the battery pack (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Buck in which foam blocks are provided to surround the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell. Doing so would advantageously result in the reduction of air gaps within the pack that interrupt heat transfer and the minimization of premature failure of the pack due to liquid leakage and permeation, as recognized by Buck. The ordinary artisan would recognize that in completely surrounding each individual cell of a battery pack according to the teachings of Buck in order to obtain the aforementioned benefits, the result would be the second foam block filling a space between the first cell tab terminal and a side plate of an array housing and filling a space between the second cell tab terminal and a side plate of an array housing, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 12, including an array housing (Figure 2, Element 110) of a battery array (Figure 2, Element 20) that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell (Paragraph 0043). Rhee teaches the housing also comprising foam blocks (rigid mechanical layer of thermal barrier) positioned in a variety of locations in the case (Paragraphs 0024, 0071). Rhee teaches the battery pack including end plates (vertical walls of cooling plate) (Figure 2, Element 114).
Rhee teaches the traction battery pack comprising a first battery cell including a first cell tab terminal; a second battery cell including a second cell tab terminal; and a first foam block arranged to fill a space between the first cell tab terminal and the second cell tab terminal (Paragraph 0069), as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Rhee
Rhee is silent as to a second foam block arranged to fill a space between the first cell tab terminal or the second cell tab terminal and an end plate of an array housing of a battery array that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell.
However, as discussed above, Buck teaches a foam solution injected into the case of each battery pack so that the foam extends around the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell (Paragraph 0010). Buck teaches the foam is a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0032), which is a material shared by the instant invention (Paragraph 00059).
Buck teaches the advantage of the foam surrounding the entirety of cells in the pack to be the elimination of air gaps between the cells and the case (Paragraph 0011) which promotes the absorption and transfer of heat inside the pack (Paragraph 0016) and the reduction of potential permeation of liquids into the battery pack, or leakage from inside the battery pack to the outside of the battery pack thereby preventing reduced product life or premature failures of the battery pack (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Buck in which foam blocks are provided to surround the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell. Doing so would advantageously result in the reduction of air gaps within the pack that interrupt heat transfer and the minimization of premature failure of the pack due to liquid leakage and permeation, as recognized by Buck. The ordinary artisan would recognize that in completely surrounding each individual cell of a battery pack according to the teachings of Buck in order to obtain the aforementioned benefits, the result would be the second foam block filling a space between the first cell tab terminal and an end plate of an array housing and filling a space between the second cell tab terminal and an end plate of an array housing, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 12, including an array housing (Figure 2, Element 110) of a battery array (Figure 2, Element 20) that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell (Paragraph 0043). Rhee teaches the housing also comprising foam blocks (rigid mechanical layer of thermal barrier) positioned in a variety of locations in the case (Paragraphs 0024, 0071).
Rhee teaches a third foam block arranged to extend between the first battery cell or the second battery cell and a cover of an array housing of a battery array (Paragraph 0070) (Figure 7), as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
738
1299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 2 and 7 of Rhee
Rhee is silent as to a second foam block arranged to fill a space between the first cell tab terminal or the second cell tab terminal and a side plate of an array housing of a battery array that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell.
However, as discussed above, Buck teaches a foam solution injected into the case of each battery pack so that the foam extends around the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell (Paragraph 0010). Buck teaches the foam is a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0032), which is a material shared by the instant invention (Paragraph 00059).
Buck teaches the advantage of the foam surrounding the entirety of cells in the pack to be the elimination of air gaps between the cells and the case (Paragraph 0011) which promotes the absorption and transfer of heat inside the pack (Paragraph 0016) and the reduction of potential permeation of liquids into the battery pack, or leakage from inside the battery pack to the outside of the battery pack thereby preventing reduced product life or premature failures of the battery pack (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Buck in which foam blocks are provided to surround the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell. Doing so would advantageously result in the reduction of air gaps within the pack that interrupt heat transfer and the minimization of premature failure of the pack due to liquid leakage and permeation, as recognized by Buck. The ordinary artisan would recognize that in completely surrounding each individual cell of a battery pack according to the teachings of Buck in order to obtain the aforementioned benefits, the result would be the second foam block filling a space between the first cell tab terminal and a side plate of an array housing and filling a space between the second cell tab terminal and a side plate of an array housing, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee in view of Buck as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 10-14, 17, and 21 above, further in view of Jung (U.S. Patent Publication Number 20210265707 A1) .
Regarding claim 6, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1.
Rhee teaches the array housing of the battery array comprising a cover (Figure 2, Element 111) (Paragraph 0043).
Rhee is silent as to the traction battery pack comprising a flexible printed circuit board.
However, Jung discloses a battery module including a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked, a flexible printed circuit board, and first and second busbar frames (Abstract). Jung teaches an embodiment in which busbar frames (Figure 3, Element 300) are formed on both sides of the battery cell stack (Figure 3, Element 100) and a flexible printed circuit board (Figure 3, Element 300) connects the busbar frames. As shown in Figure 3 and taught by Jung, the flexible printed circuit board is disposed along a longitudinal direction of the battery cell on an upper side of the battery cell stack (Paragraph 0045). Jung teaches the flexible printed circuit board of Jung positioned in this manner in order to connect to the first and second busbar frames and sense information regarding the battery cells and transmit it to a battery management system which manages and controls the plurality of battery cells (Paragraph 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the traction battery pack of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Jung in which a flexible printed circuit board is included in the traction battery pack and disposed on the upper side the battery array. Doing so would advantageously result in the collection of information regarding the battery cells and its transmission to the battery management system for cell managing.
The result of the modification of Rhee by Jung is a flexible circuit board disposed on the upper side of the battery array which is comprised in the housing of Rhee.
Modified Rhee is silent as to the first foam block is arranged to extend between a flexible printed circuit board and a cover of an array housing of the battery array.
As discussed above, Buck teaches a foam solution injected into the case of each battery pack so that the foam extends around the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell (Paragraph 0010). Buck teaches the foam is a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0032), which is a material shared by the instant invention (Paragraph 00059).
Buck teaches the advantage of the foam surrounding the entirety of cells in the pack to be the elimination of air gaps between the cells and the case (Paragraph 0011) which promotes the absorption and transfer of heat inside the pack (Paragraph 0016) and the reduction of potential permeation of liquids into the battery pack, or leakage from inside the battery pack to the outside of the battery pack thereby preventing reduced product life or premature failures of the battery pack (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Buck in which foam blocks are provided to surround the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell. Doing so would advantageously result in the reduction of air gaps within the pack that interrupt heat transfer and the minimization of premature failure of the pack due to liquid leakage and permeation, as recognized by Buck. The ordinary artisan would recognize that in injecting a foam solution into the battery pack according to the teachings of Buck in order to obtain the aforementioned benefits, the result would be the first foam block extending between the flexible printed circuit board (modification of Rhee by Jung discussed above) and a cover of an array housing (Figure 2, Element 111 of Rhee) of the battery array, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 12, including an array housing (Figure 2, Element 110) of a battery array (Figure 2, Element 20) that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell (Paragraph 0043). Rhee teaches the housing also comprising foam blocks (rigid mechanical layer of thermal barrier) positioned in a variety of locations in the case (Paragraphs 0024, 0071). Rhee teaches the battery pack comprising a cover (Figure 2, Element 111) (Paragraph 0043).
Rhee is silent as to the traction battery pack comprising a flexible printed circuit board.
However, Jung discloses a battery module including a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked, a flexible printed circuit board, and first and second busbar frames (Abstract). Jung teaches an embodiment in which busbar frames (Figure 3, Element 300) are formed on both sides of the battery cell stack (Figure 3, Element 100) and a flexible printed circuit board (Figure 3, Element 300) connects the busbar frames. As shown in Figure 3 and taught by Jung, the flexible printed circuit board is disposed along a longitudinal direction of the battery cell on an upper side of the battery cell stack (Paragraph 0045). Jung teaches the flexible printed circuit board of Jung positioned in this manner in order to connect to the first and second busbar frames and sense information regarding the battery cells and transmit it to a battery management system which manages and controls the plurality of battery cells (Paragraph 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the traction battery pack of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Jung in which a flexible printed circuit board is included in the traction battery pack and disposed on the upper side the battery array. Doing so would advantageously result in the collection of information regarding the battery cells and its transmission to the battery management system for cell managing.
The result of the modification of Rhee by Jung is a flexible circuit board disposed on the upper side of the battery array which is comprised in the housing of Rhee.
Modified Rhee is silent as to a second foam block arranged to extend between a flexible printed circuit board and a cover of an array housing of a battery array that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell.
As discussed above, Buck teaches a foam solution injected into the case of each battery pack so that the foam extends around the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell (Paragraph 0010). Buck teaches the foam is a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0032), which is a material shared by the instant invention (Paragraph 00059).
Buck teaches the advantage of the foam surrounding the entirety of cells in the pack to be the elimination of air gaps between the cells and the case (Paragraph 0011) which promotes the absorption and transfer of heat inside the pack (Paragraph 0016) and the reduction of potential permeation of liquids into the battery pack, or leakage from inside the battery pack to the outside of the battery pack thereby preventing reduced product life or premature failures of the battery pack (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam block of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Buck in which foam blocks are provided to surround the perimeter of each cell’s sealed edges and the case to encapsulate each cell. Doing so would advantageously result in the reduction of air gaps within the pack that interrupt heat transfer and the minimization of premature failure of the pack due to liquid leakage and permeation, as recognized by Buck. The ordinary artisan would recognize that in injecting a foam solution into the battery pack according to the teachings of Buck in order to obtain the aforementioned benefits, the result would be the second foam block extending between a flexible printed circuit board and a cover of an array housing (Figure 2, Element 111 of Rhee) of a battery array that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Claims 7-8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee in view of Buck as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 10-14, 17, and 21 above, further in view of Dawley (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220263207 A1) and Park (European Patent Publication No. 4095994).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 1, including a housing comprising foam blocks (rigid mechanical layer of thermal barrier) positioned in a variety of locations in the case (Paragraphs 0024, 0071).
Rhee is silent as to the traction battery pack comprising a bus bar module wherein the bus bar module is mounted to a side plate of an array housing of the battery array.
However, Dawley discloses a battery assembly including one or more electrochemical battery cells, the battery cells stored in a battery housing. Dawley discloses the battery assembly implemented in electric-drive vehicles (Paragraph 0005). Dawley teaches the battery module housing comprising a pair of sidewalls (end plates) (Figures 2-3, Element 114) which sandwich the stacked battery cells (Figures 2-3, Element 102) supported on the housing base (Figures 2-3, Element 112) (Paragraph 0038). Dawley teaches an integrated interconnect board (ICB) assembly to electrically connect the battery cells, the ICB comprising a pair of endwalls (side plates) (Figure 3, Element 124) (Paragraph 0040).
Dawley teaches electrical busbar connectors (Figure 3, Element 134) which are attached to the side plates (ICB endwalls 124). Dawley teaches the busbar connector is an electrically conductive busbar plate that is mounted on an exterior surface of the side plates (ICB endwalls 124) (Paragraph 0043). Dawley teaches the advantage of the disclosed busbar connector to provide electrical connection among the electrical tabs of the battery cells (Paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the traction battery pack of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Dawley in which a bus bar module is included in the pack and mounted to a side plate of an array housing of a battery array. Doing so would provide electrical connection among the battery cells of the battery array, as recognized by Dawley.
Rhee is silent as to the bus bar module comprising a base and a cover.
However, Park discloses a battery module comprising a battery cell stack, a module frame to house the battery cell stack, and a busbar frame (base) to cover the front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack (Paragraph 0013). Park teaches an end plate (cover) (Figure 2, Element 900) formed on the outside of the bus bar frame (base) (Figure 2, Element 300) in order to provide protection from external impact (Paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the busbar module of Rhee in view of Dawley to incorporate the teachings of Park in which the busbar module comprises a base (bus bar frame) and a cover (end plate). Doing so would advantageously result in the covering of the front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack as well as provide protection from external impacts, as recognized by Park.
Rhee is silent as to the first foam block is arranged to extend between a base and a cover of a bus bar module of the battery array.
Park further teaches an insulating cover (foam block) (Figure 2, Element 800) inserted between the base (bus bar frame) and a cover (end plate). Park recognizes that insulating cover functioning to cut off the electrical connection between the busbar frame and the outside to ensure insulation performance of the battery module (Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the busbar module of Rhee in view of Dawley and Park to further incorporate the teachings of Park in which a foam block is arranged to extend between a base and a cover of the bus bar module. Park teaches it is known in the art to arrange insulating materials in between walls of bus bar module in order to insulate the battery module. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to arrange an insulating material, such as a foam block, between the base and the cover to achieve the insulative benefits described by Park.
Regarding claim 19, Rhee teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 12, including an array housing (Figure 2, Element 110) of a battery array (Figure 2, Element 20) that includes the first battery cell and the second battery cell (Paragraph 0043). Rhee teaches the housing also comprising foam blocks (rigid mechanical layer of thermal barrier) positioned in a variety of locations in the case (Paragraphs 0024, 0071). Rhee teaches the battery pack comprising a cover (Figure 2, Element 111) (Paragraph 0043).
Rhee is silent as to the traction battery pack comprising a bus bar module.
However, as discussed above, Dawley discloses a battery assembly including one or more electrochemical battery cells, the battery cells stored in a battery housing. Dawley teaches electrical busbar connectors (Figure 3, Element 134) which are attached to the side plates (ICB endwalls 124). Dawley teaches the advantage of the disclosed busbar connector to provide electrical connection among the electrical tabs of the battery cells (Paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the traction battery pack of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Dawley in which a bus bar module is included in the pack. Doing so would provide electrical connection among the battery cells of the battery array, as recognized by Dawley.
Rhee is silent as to the bus bar module comprising a base and a cover.
However, as discussed above, Park discloses a battery module comprising a battery cell stack, a module frame to house the battery cell stack, and a busbar frame (base) to cover the front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack (Paragraph 0013). Park teaches an end plate (cover) (Figure 2, Element 900) formed on the outside of the bus bar frame (base) (Figure 2, Element 300) in order to provide protection from external impact (Paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the busbar module of Rhee in view of Dawley to incorporate the teachings of Park in which the busbar module comprises a base (bus bar frame) and a cover (end plate). Doing so would advantageously result in the covering of the front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack as well as provide protection from external impacts, as recognized by Park.
Rhee is silent as to the first foam block is arranged to extend between a base and a cover of a bus bar module of the battery array.
Park further teaches an insulating cover (foam block) (Figure 2, Element 800) inserted between the base (bus bar frame) and a cover (end plate). Park recognizes that insulating cover functioning to cut off the electrical connection between the busbar frame and the outside to ensure insulation performance of the battery module (Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the busbar module of Rhee in view of Dawley and Park to further incorporate the teachings of Park in which a foam block is arranged to extend between a base and a cover of the bus bar module. Park teaches it is known in the art to arrange insulating materials in between walls of bus bar module in order to insulate the battery module. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to arrange an insulating material, such as a second foam block, between the base and the cover to achieve the insulative benefits described by Park.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed March 10th, 2026, applicant argues the Rhee fails to disclose a foam block structure. Applicant argues that the rigid mechanical layer of Rhee cannot be considered to meet the instant claimed limitation of the first foam block, as the thermal barrier is a thin, laminated sheet including layers which are sheets, not volumetric blocks. Applicant further argues that the thin laminated sheets of Rhee do not fill a void spaces, as the rigid mechanical layer is a thin laminated sheet placed between flat surfaces.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents, as articulated in the above rejection and also set forth in the Non Final Rejection mailed December 11th, 2025, the thermal barrier taught by Rhee comprises a rigid mechanical layer comprised of foam. As such, Rhee teaches at least a portion of the thermal barrier which is constituted by foam.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that the thermal barrier is a thin sheet as opposed to a volumetric block, the Examiner presents that the thermal barrier of Rhee is taught to be of some thickness, and further the ordinary artisan would recognize it would also have some dimension in the length and width direction. As such, the thermal barrier of Rhee is a three dimensional structure, and may be considered a volumetric block, as it has some volume. Additionally, the claim as written and the instant disclosure do not define or provide any dimension requirements for what constitutes a “foam block” that would preclude the thermal barrier of Rhee from being mapped to this limitation. Thus, the foam block is given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as a three dimensional structure which comprises foam.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the thermal barrier of is a thin sheet that does not fill void space, the Examiner presents the teachings of Rhee in which the thermal barrier is disposed in a variety of locations in the battery module, including:
between one secondary battery cell among the plurality of secondary battery cells accommodated in the housing and a neighboring secondary battery cell adjacent thereto;
between a cell tab of the one secondary battery cell and a cell tab of the neighboring secondary battery cell; and
in an upper space of the housing above the plurality of secondary battery cells accommodated in the housing
The Examiner presents that in order for the “thin laminated sheet” of Rhee to be accommodated in any of the plurality of these locations, there must be a void space that is subsequently at least partially occupied by the foam block (thermal barrier) of Rhee.
In the remarks filed March 10th, 2026, applicant argues the Rhee fails to disclose an endothermic aerogel system and these deficiencies are not cured by Kristy. Applicant argues that Kristy discloses a thermally insulating multilayer sheet, wherein the foam is strictly a layer within a laminate sheet, not a discrete foam block designed to occupy and fill a three-dimensional void within the battery array. Applicant argues that the specification describes an endothermic aerogel system including aerogel additives, intumescent additives, melamine, and endothermic additives configured to mitigate thermal propagation, none of which appears in Rhee and none of which is taught in Kristy as part of a void-filling block.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that Kristy discloses the foam in a multilayer sheet, as disclosed by applicant. As Rhee discloses the foam of the rigid mechanical layer within a multilayered structure (additionally including one or more heat resistant layers) of the thermal barrier, Rhee and Kristy are even more compatible in the modification of Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Kristy, as the flexible foam aerogel system of Kristy, when incorporated as a teaching to modify the foam block of Rhee, would also result in its implementation in a multilayered structure.
With respect to applicant’s arguments of a discrete foam block, the Examiner presents that as written, the claim does not require the foam block to be discrete, and therefore there is nothing in the claims as written to preclude the foam block to comprise additional elements/layers or to be sandwiched by additional layers. Additionally, as mentioned above, the claims do not require a particular size or dimension of the foam block to characterize it as a discrete component.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Kristy does not teach an endothermic aerogel system including aerogel additives, intumescent additives, melamine, and endothermic additives configured to mitigate thermal propagation, the Examiner presents the teachings of Kristy highlighted above and in the Non Final Rejection mailed December 11th, 2025. The foam block of Rhee was modified to incorporate the flexible foam aerogel system of Kristy, where Kristy disclosed that the aerogel made up a flexible foam layer (Paragraph 0044), which included a reinforcing additive material (Paragraph 0062), intumescent additive (Paragraph 0057), melamine (Paragraph 0070), and endothermic additives (Paragraph 0070).
In the remarks filed March 10th, 2026, applicant argues that neither Rhee nor Kristy articulates any reason a person of ordinary skill would modify two thin laminated sheet structures to create a void-filled foam block with an endothermic aerogel system. Applicant argues that the proposed combination relies on hindsight reconstruction.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed December 11th, 2025. As described above and in the Non-Final rejection, the flexible foam layer of Kristy is an aerogel (Paragraph 0035), and has the advantageous properties of pressure management, low density, good compression resistance, and minimal stress relaxation (Paragraph 0035). These benefits are what motivated the modification of Rhee to incorporate such an aerogel system of Kristy in the foam layer of Rhee so as to obtain similar desirable effects. Therefore, the rejection of record properly provides a teaching, suggestion, and or motivation for the aforementioned modification that does not rely on improper hindsight reconstruction.
In the remarks filed March 10th, 2026, applicant argues that Rhee and Kristy both rely on thin laminated sheet constructions, and that converting their sheet-based barriers into a block configured to fill a three-dimensional void would alter the operation of both references.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that no such conversion is required in establishing that Rhee and Kristy both teach the instant claimed limitations. As described above, the thermal barrier of Rhee is taught to be of some thickness and the flexible foam layer of Kristy is also taught to have some thickness (Paragraph 0037). Further the ordinary artisan would recognize these foams would also have some dimension in the length and width direction. As such, the thermal barrier of Rhee in view of Kristy is a three dimensional structure, and may be considered a block, as it has some volume. Additionally, the claim as written and the instant disclosure do not define or provide any dimension requirements for what constitutes a “block” that would preclude the thermal barrier of Rhee from being mapped to this limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights