Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 7/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 4 are amended, Claims 12-20 are canceled, and Claims 21-29 are new.
Support for the amendments can be found in original Claims 1 and 4 and Figs. 3 and 4A-4B.
Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 and 10, filed 7/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 USC 102 over Fowler and 35 USC 103 over Honda in view of Choi have been fully considered and are persuasive: the materials taught by Fowler are not fiberless. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Fowler in view of Nasa Spinoff (Aerogel Insulation Makes Thinner, Warmer Outerwear).
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 over Honda in view of Choi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
On page 7, Applicant argues that Honda requires a porous insulation that fills the internal space while Choi requires an aperture ratio of 70% and incorporating Choi into Honda would therefore displace the essential insulation of Honda. However. Choi is cited only for the benefits of the reinforcement ribs in reducing deformation from external impacts. These mechanical benefits are from the reinforcement ribs themselves and would not depend on an aperture ratio. Furthermore, the aperture appears to be a property of the construction of the plates and ribs (0121) rather than an indication of anything inside the plate: Choi teaches that the plates may be filled with heat absorption material or phase change material (0143-0149). Finally, even assuming that the aperture ratio is essential to the function reinforcement ribs, Choi only teaches the aperture ratio of 70% to 90% as a preferred embodiment (0071) and does not teach that an aperture ratio outside the range would render the plate unfunctional.
On page 8, Applicant argues that the benefits provided by the ribs of Choi are not applicable to Honda: Honda teaches a sealed film pouch that presents no hollow-plate deformation problem. However, Hon da indicates compressive deformation as a problem that reduces heat resistance and that maintaining the shape of the partition member is desired (0032-0033). Furthermore, although the package of Honda is preferably flexible, Honda teaches that it can also be rigid (0046) and formed of a metal (0043). Thus, the benefits of the reinforcement ribs of Choi (mechanical reinforcement) would still be applicable to the partition member of Honda.
On page 8, Applicant argues that the ribs of modified Honda would not restrict movement of the insulative material as Choi does not teach that the ribs would restrict movement and the insulative material of Honda does not migrate. However, the ribs of modified Honda take up space within the insulation cavity and would therefore necessarily restrict movement due to their presence.
On pages 8 and 9, Applicant argues that element 22c is a partition part rather than a reinforcement rib and that the reinforcement ribs therefore do not contact. The reinforcement ribs of Choi are denoted as part 22 (0056) and the partition parts 22c can therefore be viewed as a subset of the reinforcement ribs 22.
On page 9, Applicant argues that the edges of the first and second shells of Honda are not overlapping as the shells are the same size and face to face rather than different sizes such that one fits over the other (See Fig. 4A of the present invention). Applicant appears to define overlap as “to extend over or past and cover a part of”; however, overlap is also defined as “to have something in common with” (Merriam-Webster: “Overlap”). Thus, using the broadest reasonable interpretation of overlap, the two shells of Honda overlap each other as they are fused at a common area (Honda: Fig. 2 – part 120a). Applicant’s argument with respect to Claims 6 and 7 are unpersuasive for the same reason: the broadest reasonable interpretation of overlapping would mean that the edges of Honda overlap each other (Honda: Figs. 1 and 2 – part 120a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fowler (US 20090155543 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Furthermore, it has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Thus, in claim 1, the intended use of the “thermal barrier assembly” for a “traction battery pack” (preamble) and “thermal barrier” for a “battery pack” (lines 2, 3, and 5) are not given patentable weight and, as currently written, any thermal barrier assembly comprising the claimed structural limitations would read on Claim 1.
Fowler teaches a thermal barrier assembly, comprising: a first outer shell (first layer 120), a second outer shell (second layer 122) adjacent the first outer shell to define an insulation cavity, an insulative material (insulation 200) sandwiched between the first outer shell and the second outer shell within the insulation cavity, and a plurality of baffles (baffles 130, 132, and 134) that extend into the insulation cavity and restrict movement of the insulative material within the insulation cavity (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Fowler teaches the thermal barrier assembly of Claim 1. The first outer shell, the second outer shell, and the insulative material provide a thermal barrier assembly that would be capable of separating two groups of battery cells within a cell stack.
Regarding Claim 3, Fowler teaches the thermal barrier assembly of Claim 1. The plurality of baffles comprise a plurality of ribs of the first outer shell, a plurality of ribs of the second outer shell, or both (Abstract – the plurality of baffles are between and coupled to the first and second outer shell. Thus, they can be viewed as being part of either or both shells).
Regarding Claim 11, Fowler teaches the thermal barrier assembly of Claim 1. The first outer shell and the second outer shell can be polymer-based materials (0044).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Fowler teaches the thermal barrier assembly of Claim 1. It has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Claims 21 and 22 do not further limit the structure of the thermal barrier assembly itself and would therefore be anticipated by Fowler.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler (US 20090155543 A1) in view of Nasa Spinoff (Aerogel Insulation Makes Thinner, Warmer Outerwear).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Fowler teaches the assembly of Claim 1. Fowler does not teach that the insulative material is an aerogel (Claim 9) or fiberless (Claim 10).
Nasa Spinoff teaches that aerogel can be used as insulation in outerwear (Title). Aerogels are good insulators and extremely lightweight (Page 2).
Fowler and Nasa Spinoff are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely insulation materials.
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 insulation of Fowler to be the aerogel taught by Nasa Spinoff in order to provide an insulation material that is a good insulator and extremely lightweight.
The aerogel would be an aerogel (Claim 9) and fiberless (claim 10).
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 23, and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 20200290933 A1) in view of Choi (US 20170222283 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Honda teaches a thermal barrier assembly (Title – partition member) comprising a first outer shell and a second outer shell that is adjacent to the first outer shell to define an insulation cavity (0046, Figs. 1 and 2 – the barrier/partition is formed by joining the edges of two outer package bodies; 0047, Fig. 2 – the insulation material 110 is accommodated in an internal space 111 between the two outer package bodies). An insulative material is sandwiched between the first outer shell and the second outer shell within the insulation cavity (0047, Fig. 2 – the insulation material 110 is accommodated in an internal space 111 between the two outer package bodies).
Honda does not teach a plurality of baffles that extend into the insulation cavity and restrict movement of the insulative material within the insulation cavity.
Choi teaches a cooling plate used to space apart adjacent batteries (Fig. 5). The plate is hollow and comprises opposing reinforcement ribs (Fig. 2 – parts 22b and 22c). The reinforcing ribs help reduce deformation of the plate due to external impact (Abstract; 0035).
Honda and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely spacer plates/barriers between battery cells.
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 thermal barrier assembly of Honda to include the reinforcement ribs of Choi in order to help reduce deformation from external impacts.
The reinforcement ribs can be viewed as a plurality of baffles that extend into the insulation cavity and restrict movement of the insulative material within the insulation cavity.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 1. The first outer shell, the second outer shell, and the insulative material provide a thermal barrier assembly configured to separate a first group of battery cells within a cell stack from a second group of battery cells witin the cell stack (Fig. 6 – the partition members 1 would be capable of separating a first and second group of battery cells in a cell stack).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 1. The plurality of baffles comprises a plurality of ribs of both the first and second outer shells (Choi: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Honda teaches a thermal barrier assembly (Title – partition member) comprising a first outer shell and a second outer shell that is adjacent to the first outer shell to define an insulation cavity (0046, Figs. 1 and 2 – the barrier/partition is formed by joining the edges of two outer package bodies; 0047, Fig. 2 – the insulation material 110 is accommodated in an internal space 111 between the two outer package bodies). An insulative material is sandwiched between the first outer shell and the second outer shell within the insulation cavity (0047, Fig. 2 – the insulation material 110 is accommodated in an internal space 111 between the two outer package bodies).
Honda does not teach a plurality of baffles that extend into the insulation cavity and restrict movement of the insulative material within the insulation cavity.
Choi teaches a cooling plate used to space apart adjacent batteries (Fig. 5). The plate is hollow and comprises opposing reinforcement ribs (Fig. 2 – parts 22b and 22c). The reinforcing ribs help reduce deformation of the plate due to external impact (Abstract; 0035).
Honda and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely spacer plates/barriers between battery cells.
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 thermal barrier assembly of Honda to include the reinforcement ribs of Choi in order to help reduce deformation from external impacts.
The reinforcement ribs can be viewed as a plurality of baffles that extend into the insulation cavity and restrict movement of the insulative material within the insulation cavity. The plurality of baffles comprises a plurality of first ribs extending from the underside of the first outer shell, and a plurality of second ribs extending from an underside of the second outer shell, the plurality of first ribs contacting the plurality of second ribs to provide a plurality of subcavities (Choi: Fig. 2 – opposing ribs 22c contact each other to form subcavities 21).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 1. The first outer shell comprises a first outer rim, the second outer shell comprises a second outer rim, and the first outer rim overlaps with the second outer rim (Fig. 2 – the two outer package bodies 120 comprise opposing rims that are sealed together).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Honda the assembly of Claim 5. The first outer rim extends at least partially about a circumferential periphery of the first outer shell and the second outer rim extends at least partially about a circumferential periphery of the second outer shell (Honda: Figs. 1 and 2 – the rims of the first and second outer package bodies extend at least partially about a circumferential periphery of the bodies).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 5. The first outer rim overlaps with the second outer rim along three peripheral sides of the first outer rim (0046, 0047, Figs. 1 and 2 – the partition is formed by sealing two outer package bodies, which are rectangular in shape, together. Thus, the first outer rim would necessarily overlap with the second outer rim along four peripheral sides of the first outer rim).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 1. The insulative material can be a particulate substance (Honda: 0031 – the thermal insulation material 110 includes a powdered inorganic material; 0036 – the powdered material includes particles).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 1. The insulative material can be an aerogel (Honda: 0036).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 1. The first and second outer shells can be polymer-based materials (Honda: 0043, 0044).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 4. It has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Claim 23 does not further limit the structure of the thermal barrier assembly and would therefore be obvious over modified Honda.
Regarding Claim 25, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 7. The first outer rim abuts the second outer rib along a fourth peripheral side of the first outer rim (Honda: Figs. 1 and 2 – part 120a).
Regarding Claim 26, Honda teaches a battery pack assembly comprising a cell stack including a first group of battery cells and a second group of battery cells (Figs. 6 and 7 – any pair of battery cells 200 can be viewed as a group of battery cells, meaning that there would be at least a first and a second group of battery cells). A thermal barrier assembly is disposed within the cell stack between the first group of battery cells and the second group of battery cells (Figs. 6 and 7 – a partition member 1 is disposed between adjacent pairs of battery cells). The thermal barrier (Title – partition member) comprises a first outer shell and a second outer shell that is adjacent to the first outer shell to define an insulation cavity (0046, Figs. 1 and 2 – the barrier/partition is formed by joining the edges of two outer package bodies; 0047, Fig. 2 – the insulation material 110 is accommodated in an internal space 111 between the two outer package bodies). An insulative material is sandwiched between the first outer shell and the second outer shell within the insulation cavity (0047, Fig. 2 – the insulation material 110 is accommodated in an internal space 111 between the two outer package bodies).
Honda does not teach a plurality of baffles that extend into the insulation cavity and restrict movement of the insulative material within the insulation cavity.
Choi teaches a cooling plate used to space apart adjacent batteries (Fig. 5). The plate is hollow and comprises opposing reinforcement ribs (Fig. 2 – parts 22b and 22c). The reinforcing ribs help reduce deformation of the plate due to external impact (Abstract; 0035).
Honda and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely spacer plates/barriers between battery cells.
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 thermal barrier assembly of Honda to include the reinforcement ribs of Choi in order to help reduce deformation from external impacts.
The reinforcement ribs can be viewed as a plurality of baffles that extend into the insulation cavity and restrict movement of the insulative material within the insulation cavity.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 26. The first shell comprises a first outer rim, the second shell comprises a second outer rim (Honda: Figs. 1 and 2 – the shells are sealed 120a along the outer rims of the first and second shells), where at least a portion of the first outer rim overlaps with a portion of the second outer rim (Honda: Figs. 1 and 2 – part 120a).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 26. The plurality of baffles extend perpendicularly from an underside of the first outer shell, an underside of the second outer shell, or both, into the insulation cavity (Choi: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 28. The plurality of baffles span a width of the thermal barrier from the first outer shell on one side to the first outer shell on an opposing side (Choi: Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda and Choi as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ahn (US 20110143193 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Honda teaches the assembly of Claim 5. Modified Honda does not teach that the first outer shell is narrower and shorter than the second outer shell such that the first outer rim nests within the second outer rim.
Ahn teaches a case for a battery where a first shell is narrower and shorter than a second shell such that the outer rim of the first shell nests within the outer rim of the second shell (Fig. 3). Forming the case/shell in this coupling shape allows for reduced manufacturing time (0068).
Although Ahn is directed to a case for a battery rather than for insulation material, both the shells of Ahn and modified Honda are used to enclose a material (insulation and a battery, respectively) and Ahn teaches that the shape of the shells allows for reduced manufacturing time. As the improvement comes from the shape of the shells, and the resulting coupling structure, the benefits of Ahn would be applicable to shells for materials other than batteries. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the shells of modified Honda to have the shape of the shells taught by Ahn, where the first outer shell is narrower and shorter than the second outer shell such that the first outer rim nests within the second outer rim in order to reduce manufacturing time as it has been held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is likely to be obvious (See MPEP 2143 C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
