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 Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 7, “150 degrees °C” should be “150 degrees Celsius (°C)” for consistency. In claim 8, both instances of “degrees °C” should be “degrees Celsius (°C)” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 is 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 9, the phrase “at least 20% of the heat absorbing material at least partially fills pores” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how much of the heat absorbing material fills the pores. Examiner recommends changing this language to “at least 20% of the heat absorbing material fills pores”.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasi et al. (US 2014/0224465 A1).
Regarding claims 1-10 and 15-20, Andrasi discloses a thermal barrier system for a battery pack, comprising a pouch containing a hydrogel comprising a polymer and water, wherein the system my include a structure to spread out and maintain mechanical integrity such as a porous sponge material, wherein the pouch may be sealed around the perimeter (i.e. an apparatus comprising a pouch, wherein the pouch comprises a seal, a porous support material and a heat-absorbing material, wherein the porous support material and the heat absorbing material are inside the pouch; wherein the heat absorbing material comprises water; wherein the heat absorbing material comprises a boiling temperature between 60 degrees Celsius (°C) and 150 degrees Celsius (°C); wherein the heat absorbing material comprises a melting temperature between -10 degrees °C and 80 degrees °C; wherein the heat absorbing material comprises at least one of water, hydrogel, a polymer additive)(abstract, [0022], [0024]-[0025], [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the porous sponge material in order to spread out and maintain mechanical integrity.
Regarding claim 2, while there is no specific disclosure of the porosity of the sponge material, given that the sponge material spreads out the hydrogel and maintains mechanical integrity, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to make the sponge material having a porosity of at least 80% in order to provide good spreading out of the hydrogel, while maintaining mechanical integrity.
Regarding claim 3, given that the support material may be cotton ([0065]), which is identical to that used in the instant invention (see instant specification at [0041]), it is the examiner’s position that it will intrinsically have a thermal conductivity of at most 5 watts per meter per degree kelvin (W/m-K). Alternatively it would have been obvious to make the thermal conductivity of the support material at most 5 W/M-K in order to have more thermal insulation to provide better thermal barrier properties.
Regarding claims 4-5, Andrasi discloses that the pouch may swell as energy is absorbed and the pouch may enter a vented state and the pouch may be provided with a weak area that is designed to open at a specific pressure inside the pouch (.e. wherein the seal comprises an opening part, and wherein the opening par tis configured to open at a pressure lower than the fixed part; wherein the seal comprises a vent and wherein the vent is configured to open at a pressure lower than the seal)([0063]). It is the examiner’s position that the weak area may be considered a vent given that it is designed to open at a certain pressure.
Regarding claim 9, given that the sponge material spreads out the hydrogel it is the examiner’s position that 100% of the heat absorbing material fills the pores of the porous support material (i.e. wherein at least 20% of the heat absorbing material at least partially fills the pores of the porous support material)([0025]). Alternatively it would have been obvious to have 100% of the heat absorbing material filling the pores to provide good spreading out of the absorbing material.
Regarding claims 15-17, Andrasi discloses that the support structure may comprise cotton (i.e. wherein the porous support material comprises fibers; wherein the porous support material comprises cellulose; wherein the cellulose comprises cotton or plant fiber)([0065]).
Regarding claim 18, given that the porous support material comprises hydrogel comprising polymer or may comprise nylon, and is in the form of a layer, it is the examiner’s position that the porous support material comprises a polymer layer ([0024]-[0026], [0065], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, the hydrogel is embedded within the porous material ([0025]).
Regarding claim 20, it would appear that the polymer layer is substantially flat (Fig. 3).
Claims 3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasi et al. (US 2014/0224465 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Cosyns et al. (US 20120121921 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Andrasi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Andrasi does not disclose that the porous support material comprises one or both of a perforated glass film or a perforated glass sheet or comprises glass foam.
Cosyns discloses glass foam sheets as a known heat insulation material (i.e. perforated glass film, perforated glass sheet; glass foam)([0009]).
Andrasi and Cosyns are analogous art because they both teach about heat insulation materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a glass foam sheet as disclosed by Cosyns as a porous support material in the thermal barrier system of modified Andrasi in order to improve the heat insulation properties and because it is well known for use in heat insulation systems and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 3, given that the support material may be a glass foam sheet, which is identical to that used in the instant invention (see instant specification at [0040]), it is the examiner’s position that it will intrinsically have a thermal conductivity of at most 5 watts per meter per degree kelvin (W/m-K). Alternatively it would have been obvious to make the thermal conductivity of the support material at most 5 W/M-K in order to have more thermal insulation to provide better thermal barrier properties.
Claims 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasi et al. (US 2014/0224465 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sadler et al. (US 20140199553 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Andrasi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Andrasi does not disclose that the porous support material comprises aerated autoclaved concrete.
Sadler discloses that aerated autoclaved concrete is a material that is lightweight and has fire and mold resistant properties (i.e. aerated autoclaved concrete)([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aerated autoclaved concrete as disclosed by Sadler as a porous support material in the thermal barrier system of modified Andrasi in order to improve the heat insulation properties and mold resistance properties and because it is well known for use in heat insulation systems and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 3, given that the support material may be aerated autoclaved concrete, which is identical to that used in the instant invention (see instant specification at [0040]), it is the examiner’s position that it will intrinsically have a thermal conductivity of at most 5 watts per meter per degree kelvin (W/m-K). Alternatively it would have been obvious to make the thermal conductivity of the support material at most 5 W/M-K in order to have more thermal insulation to provide better thermal barrier properties.
Regarding claim 14, given that it is well known that the lower the density of a porous material, the greater the thermal insulation properties, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the density of the concrete less than 150 kilogram per meter cubed (Kg/m3) in order to increase the thermal insulation properties of the barrier system of modified Andrasi.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasi et al. (US 2014/0224465 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kilhenny et al. (Machine Translation of CN 217507459 U).
Regarding claim 2, Andrasi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Andrasi does not disclose that the porous support material comprises a porosity of at least 80%.
Kilhenny discloses a thermal insulation layer for preventing thermal runaway in batteries comprising a material having a porosity of greater than 90% (i.e. overlapping a porosity of at least 80%)(P3/P1-6).
Andrasi and Kilhenny are analogous art because they both teach about porous materials or use in a thermal barrier system for batteries. It would have been obvious to make the porous support material of Andrasi having a porosity of greater than 90% as taught by Kilhenny in order to provide a thermal barrier system having improved thermal barrier properties and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known porosity in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/JAMES C YAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights