DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7-9 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 claims 7 and 8, it is not clear if the “thermal diffusion layers” are inclusive of the thermal diffusion layer recited in claim 1. Similarly, it is not clear if the “insulating fire-resistant layers” are inclusive of the insulating fire-resistant layer recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “insulating fire-resistant layer” is recited twice. Are these layers associated with the “insulating fire-resistant layer” recited in claim 1. Additionally, claim 9 recites “a thermal diffusion layer”. Is this layer the same or different than the “thermal diffusion layer” recited in claim 1.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kilhenny et al. (US 20210257690 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kilhenny discloses a battery module (para 76, "assembly 1003 for a battery"; fig 9) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (fig 9); and an insulating pad having a multi-layer structure (para 76, "thermal management multilayer sheet 401/402/403”) disposed between the battery cells (para 76), wherein the insulating pad includes a swelling pressure absorption layer ("thermally-insulating layer 62/83"), an insulating fire-resistant layer (“integrity layer 84 is disposed on adhesive layer 85”), and a thermal diffusion layer ("heat-spreading layer 61") (para 67; fig. 6-7).
Regarding claim 2, Kilhenny discloses the swelling pressure absorption layer 62/83 includes heat-resistant fiber (para 66) and mica (para 43), the insulating fire-resistant layer (84 and 85) includes the mica (para 70), and the thermal diffusion layer 61 includes a carbon-based material (para 40).
Regarding claim 4, Kilhenny discloses the carbon-based material is one or more selected from among graphene, carbon nanotubes, and graphite (para 40).
Regarding claim 8, Kilhenny discloses the insulating pad includes insulating fire-resistant layers stacked on both surfaces of the swelling pressure absorption layer and thermal diffusion layers stacked on the insulating fire-resistant layers (claim 19; fig 7).
Regarding claim 9, Kilhenny discloses insulating pad includes an insulating fire-resistant layer and a thermal diffusion layer sequentially stacked (84/61, fig 7) on one surface of the swelling pressure absorption layer, and an insulating fire-resistant layer 86 stacked on the other surface of the swelling pressure absorption layer (para 72).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilhenny et al. (US 20210257690 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Browning et al. (US 20210376405 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kilhenny does not disclose heat-resistant fiber is one or more selected from among ceramic fiber and aramid fiber.
Browning, also drawn to thermal barrier material, discloses ceramic fiber insulation materials are exemplary nonwoven materials suitable for use in thermal barrier material (para 29). Browning also teaches that thermal barrier material can further include aramid fibers (para 32). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the thermal management multilayer sheet of Kilhenny such that heat-resistant fiber is one or more selected from among ceramic fiber and aramid fiber as taught by Browning as doing such “improves the thermal insulating properties” (para 28).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilhenny et al. (US 20210257690 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kilhenny does not explicitly disclose thickness of the swelling pressure absorption layer is in a range of 10 to 35% of a total thickness of the insulating pad, a thickness of the insulating fire-resistant layer is in a range of 35 to 45% of the total thickness of the insulating pad, and a thickness of the thermal diffusion layer is in a range of 25 to 35% of the total thickness of the insulating pad.
Kilhenny does disclose the thickness of swelling pressure absorption layer is selected to provide the desired pressure management (para 58); the thickness of insulating fire-resistant layer depends on desired reinforcement and effective adhesion (para 69-70); and the thickness of thermal diffusion layer depends upon the desired degree of thermal conductivity (para 41). Accordingly, layer thicknesses are recognized result-effective variables.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select relative layer thickness including proportions corresponding to the claimed percentages of the total insulation pad thickness, through routine experimentation to achieve a desired balance among pressure management, thermal insulation and heat diffusion. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Kilhenny does not explicitly disclose the total thickness of the insulating pad ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 mm.
As stated in rejection of claim 5, Kilhenny teaches the thickness of the insulation pad depends on desired balance among pressure management, thermal insulation and heat diffusion (para 41, 58, 69-70). The total thickness of the insulating pad is a result effective variable. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select total thickness of the insulating pad ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 mm through routine experimentation to achieve a desired balance among pressure management, thermal insulation and heat diffusion. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Kilhenny does not explicitly disclose insulating pad includes thermal diffusion layers stacked on both surfaces of the swelling pressure absorption layer and insulating fire-resistant layers stacked on the thermal diffusion layers.
Kilhenny does disclose various combinations and subcombination of the layers can be used depending on the desired properties (para 72). Kilhenny further teaches that “first, second, or both heat-spreading layers and the thermally-insulating layer can be disposed directly on each other, or disposed on each other” (para 54).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select an insulating pad with thermal diffusion layers stacked on both surfaces of the swelling pressure absorption layer and insulating fire-resistant layers stacked on the thermal diffusion layer as such a configuration is a design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by the above cited sections of Kilhenny.
Regarding claim 10, the examiner notes that “performing heat fusing” is a method limitation in a product claim. The “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. Only the “structure implied by the process steps should be considered”. See MPEP 2113.
The claim implies the layers of the insulating pad are joined together to form a multilayer insulation pad. Kilhenny discloses the thermal management multilayer can be manufactured by stacking layers individually and laminating with or without adhesive (para 71).
The claim does not recite any structural characteristic resulting from the heat fusing process that would distinguish the claimed insulation pad from the thermal management multilayer disclosed by Kilhenny. Therefore, the heat fusing limitation is not given patentable weight beyond the structure it produces. Accordingly, Kilhenny teaches the insulating pad made by performing heat fusing on the swelling pressure absorption layer, the insulating fire-resistant layer, and the thermal diffusion layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights