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.
Claims 13-14 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said flexible multilayer wall" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, does not previously recite a flexible multilayer wall and instead recites a multilayer wall and a flexible multilayer thermal insulator. It is thus unclear as to what said flexible multilayer wall refers to. For purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as instead reciting “said flexible multilayer thermal insulator
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said flexible composite wall" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, does not previously recite a flexible composite wall It is thus unclear as to what said flexible multilayer wall refers to. For purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted as instead reciting “said multilayer wall”.
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, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude (US-20210074960-A1) in view of Kwak et al. (US-20210074979-A1) and Jarrard et al. (US-20230024423-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stude teaches a flexible multilayer thermal insulator for an electric vehicle battery pack comprising a multilayer wall including a flame resistant outer laminate (layers 2/5/6/5/3) and an outer pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (7) (Stude, Abstract, Par. 0001-0004, 0014, 0034, 0067, 0091-0092, and Figs 1A-1C).
Stude is silent regarding a ceramic-based layer sandwiched between the flame resistant outer laminate and the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
Kwak teaches a thermal insulator (insulation spacers) for battery packs comprising a flame resistant layer (flame-retardant sheet) and a ceramic-based layer next to the flame resistant layer (Kwak, Abstract, Par. 0010 and 0095).
Stude and Kwak are analogous art as they both teach thermal insulators for battery packs comprising a flame resistant layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the ceramic-based layer in the thermal insulator of Stude. This would allow for heat insulation of the insulator (Kwak, Par. 0095). Furthermore, when adding the ceramic-based layer in the thermal insulator of Stude, there is a finite number of places for it to go, either next to the outer laminate sandwiched between the outer laminate and the adhesive layer, or on the other side of the laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose, from the finite number of possibilities, to have the ceramic-based layer be sandwiched between the outer laminate and the adhesive with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143.
Modified Stude is silent regarding at least one filament fixing said flame resistant outer laminate, said ceramic-based layer, and said pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to one another.
Jarrard teaches a multilayer thermal insulator for battery packs wherein the layers of the multilayer thermal insulator are stitched together (see stitch bonding) and are thus fixed together by at least one filament (Jarrard, Abstract, Par. 0001-0002, 0009-0010, 0022, and 0057).
Modified Stude and Jarrard are analogous art as they both teach multilayer thermal insulators for battery packs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stitch bonded the layers of the thermal insulator of modified Stude. This would allow for bonding of the layers together.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 20, modified Stude does not teach an adhesive besides the pressure sensitive adhesive layer and the adhesives between the layers of the outer laminate and therefore satisfies the limitation of the outer laminate, ceramic-based layer, and pressure sensitive adhesive not being bonded with adhesive as required by claims 7 and 20 and the limitation of no other adhesive being in the multilayer wall as required by claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, modified Stude teaches the ceramic-based layer is a ceramic paper (Kwak, Par. 0095).
Regarding claim 14, modified Stude teaches the flexible composite wall has a thickness of less than 3 mm (Stude, Par. 0151-0152 and table 2), which overlaps the claimed range of a maximum of 2 mm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 15, Stude teaches an electric vehicle batter pack, comprising a housing, a plurality of cells bounded by said housing, and a flexible multilayer thermal insulator bonded to at least one wall of the housing, the flexible multilayer thermal insulator comprising a multilayer wall including a flame resistant outer laminate (layers 2/5/6/5/3) and an outer pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (7) wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is bonded to at wall of the housing (Stude, Abstract, Par. 0001-0004, 0014, 0034, 0040-0041, 0067, 0091-0092, and Figs 1A-1C).
Stude is silent regarding a ceramic-based layer sandwiched between the flame resistant outer laminate and the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
Kwak teaches a thermal insulator (insulation spacers) for battery packs comprising a flame resistant layer (flame-retardant sheet) and a ceramic-based layer next to the flame resistant layer (Kwak, Abstract, Par. 0010 and 0095).
Stude and Kwak are analogous art as they both teach thermal insulators for battery packs comprising a flame resistant layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the ceramic-based layer in the thermal insulator of Stude. This would allow for heat insulation of the insulator (Kwak, Par. 0095). Furthermore, when adding the ceramic-based layer in the thermal insulator of Stude, there is a finite number of places for it to go, either next to the outer laminate sandwiched between the outer laminate and the adhesive layer, or on the other side of the laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose, from the finite number of possibilities, to have the ceramic-based layer be sandwiched between the outer laminate and the adhesive with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143.
Modified Stude is silent regarding at least one filament fixing said flame resistant outer laminate, said ceramic-based layer, and said pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to one another.
Jarrard teaches a multilayer thermal insulator for battery packs wherein the layers of the multilayer thermal insulator are stitched together (see stitch bonding) and are thus fixed together by at least one filament (Jarrard, Abstract, Par. 0001-0002, 0009-0010, 0022, and 0057).
Modified Stude and Jarrard are analogous art as they both teach multilayer thermal insulators for battery packs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stitch bonded the layers of the thermal insulator of modified Stude. This would allow for bonding of the layers together.
Regarding claim 19, modified Stude teaches the flexible multilayer thermal insulator is bonded between adjacent ones of the cells (Stude, Par. 0040-0041).
Claims 2-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude in view of Kwak et al. and Jarrard et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, further in view of Yang et al. (US-20220251432-A1).
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 16, modified Stude teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 15. Modified Stude is silent regarding the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer being a single-sided pressure sensitive adhesive layer including a film layer and an adhesive material on only one side of said film layer, wherein said film layer faces said ceramic-based layer and said adhesive material is spaced from and faces away from said ceramic-based layer as required by claims 2 and 16. Modified Stude does not teach a release layer that is releasably bonded to the adhesive material for removal from said adhesive material to expose the adhesive material for adhesion as required by claims 4 and 16.
Yang teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive for use in battery packs, wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive is a single-sided pressure sensitive adhesive layer including a film layer and an adhesive material on only one side of said film layer (Yang, Abstract, Par. 0006, 0019). Yang teaches a release layer that is releasably bonded to said adhesive material for removal from said adhesive material to expose said adhesive material for adhesion to a surface of the electric vehicle battery pack (Yang, Par. 0088 and 0097).
Modified Stude and Yang are analogous art as they both teach pressure sensitive adhesives for use in battery packs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the single-sided pressure sensitive adhesive of Yang as the pressure sensitive adhesive of modified Stude, while also including the release layer. This would allow for insulation and an adhesive with good bonding strength (Yang, Par. 0006 and 0019). Furthermore, as the pressure-sensitive adhesive of modified Stude is an outward adhesive for adhering onto something (Stude, Par. 0034), this would result in the film layer facing the ceramic-based layer and the adhesive material spaced away from and facing away from said ceramic-based layer.
Regarding claim 3, modified Stude does not teach an adhesive bonding the film layer and the ceramic-based layer and therefore satisfies the limitation of not being bonded with an adhesive material.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude in view of Kwak et al. and Jarrard et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, further in view of Churchill (US-20210288362-A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Stude teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Stude teaches the flame resistant outer laminate comprises an outermost polymeric layer (cover layer, 3), a flame resistant coating (adhesive) bonded to the outermost polymeric layer, an innermost polymeric layer (cover layer, 2), an adhesive bonded to the innermost polymeric layer, and a textile fire-resistant layer (5 (or, alternatively, intermediate ply 4)) sandwiched between and bonded to the flame resistant coating and the adhesive (Stude, Par. 0070-0072, 0082-0083, 0091, and Figs. 1A-1C).
Modified Stude is silent regarding adhesive being a silicone adhesive.
Churchill teaches a thermal insulator for use in battery packs comprising multiple layers and a silicone adhesive adhering the layers together (Churchill, Abstract, and Par. 0021, 0030-0031, and 0047).
Modified Stude and Churchill are analogous art as they both teach adhesives in between layers of a thermal insulator for use in battery packs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Churchill’s adhesive as the adhesive and flame resistant coating of modified Stude. This would allow for a heat-spreading and thermally insulating material (Churchill, Par. 0030-0031).
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Stude teaches the flame resistant coating is a silicone mica coating (Churchill, Par. 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 13, modified Stude teaches a thermal insulator that is substantially identical as the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01. Modified Stude teaches a thermal insulator comprising the same outer laminate as the instant invention as stated above for claims 9-11. Modified Stude further teaches the same ceramic paper layer as described above for claims 1 and 12. Modified Stude further teaches the same pressure sensitive adhesive layer as stated above for claim 1. Modified Stude further teaches a thickness that overlaps the range of the instant invention as stated above for claim 14. Modified Stude thus teaches a thermal insulator that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed thermal insulator. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, modified Stude’s thermal insulator would have inherently exhibited the same resistance to flame propagation as the instant invention, see MPEP 2112.01.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record does not teach or render obvious each and every element of the instant claims 5 and 17.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be modified Stude as described above.
The differences between the closest prior art of record and the instant claims 5 and 17 are described below.
Modified Stude is silent regarding the filament passing through edge regions of the release layer such that the side edges remain bonded to the adhesive material after removal of the interior region from the adhesive material.
The closest prior art of record does not teach or render obvious each and every element of the instant claims 5 and 17. Therefore, claims 5, 17, and all claims dependent thereof include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
