DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 12/2/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The transitional term "comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (MPEP § 2111.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al (US 2023/0253673 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8, Taylor teaches a heat-shielding sheet for a battery, the sheet comprising a silicon foam layer (e.g., core) or insulation material (layer); wherein the silicone foam layer may comprise fillers such as flame retardants (i.e., a heat-resistance additive), ceramics such as magnesium hydroxide (i.e., a heat-resistance additive) and alumina (i.e., aluminum oxide), glass fibers (i.e., first fiber filler), carbon fibers (i.e., second fiber filler), expandable graphite (para 41-46, 56, 62-64; claims 43-50).
Regarding the limitation “a functional layer laminated on at least one surface of the silicone foam layer, the functional layer comprising a first flame-retardant layer disposed on the silicone foam layer;” one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have arrived at this embodiment by duplicating the core or insulation layer of Taylor, and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Taylor teaches a graphite layer disposed on the core or insulation material (i.e., a graphite layer disposed on the first-flame retardant layer) (para 42, 60, 63).
Taylor further teaches the core may be the insulation material, and the insulation material layer (i.e., silicone foam with fillers, fibers or additives) may be formed on top of the graphite layer (para 62, 63; fig 4) (i.e., a second flame-retardant layer disposed on the graphite layer and wherein each of the first and second flame-retardant layers comprises a flame-retardant silicone and a first fiber filler).
Regarding the limitation “a barrier layer disposed on the second flame-retardant layer; wherein the barrier layer comprises a heat-resistant silicone, a second fiber filler and a ceramic filler” one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have arrived at this embodiment by duplicating the outer insulation layer of Taylor, and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Therefore, in arriving at the heat-shielding sheet for a battery of the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely combining prior art elements (e.g., the various layers as taught by Taylor) according to known methods (e.g., stacking on or attaching to one another) to yield predictable results (e.g., the heat-shielding sheet for a battery of the instant claims). Furthermore, duplication and rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B C).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor teaches the graphite sheet is attached using an adhesive (e.g., phenolic resin) (i.e., wherein the graphite layer comprises a graphite sheet and a polymer resin) (para 35, 60).
Regarding claim 9, Taylor teaches the graphite sheets thickness may range from about 80 microns to 2 mm; the core thickness (and therein insulation layers) may range from at least 20 microns up to 10 mm (para 40, 43-44, 62); so a total thickness of the shield would range from about 180 microns to 14 mm. This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Taylor, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of a and interpretation and new rejection under the prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights