DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3, and 5-22 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 16 are currently amended; plus, claims 21-22 are newly added. Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled.
The NSDP rejection of claims 1-4 over copending Application No. 18/952170 is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments to claim 1, from which claims 3-4 depend, and cancellation of claim 2. The NSDP rejection of claims 11 and 13-15 is maintained.
The NSDP rejection of claims 9-10 over copending Application No. 18/952170 in view of Turpin is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments to claim 1, from which said claims depend. The NSDP rejection of claims 19-20 is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-10 is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments to claim 1, from which the other claims depend, and cancellation of claims 2 and 6.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11 and 13-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13 of copending Application No. 18/952170 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the reference application incorporates the scope of the instantly claimed invention, noting the limitation “blanket” is interpreted to be a “covering;” and, regarding claims 11 and 13-15, while the reference application claims “a first battery cell” and a “second battery cell,” but not an “array” in a “first battery array” and a “second battery array,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate each of said battery cells, so that they are adjacent to one another, in order to increase the energy associated with said power supply device, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); and, it would have been obvious to electrically connect—either in series or parallel—said duplicated batteries under the respective thermal barrier panels, in order to increase the energy associated with said power supply device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11-13 of copending Application No. 18/952170 (reference application) in view of Turpin et al (US2021280336).
The reference application claims the covering section is part of a “thermal barrier,” but does not expressly claim “the first thermal barrier panel and the second thermal barrier panel each include a flame resistant and heat insulation material” (claims 9 and 19) or “the flame resistant and heat insulation material includes mica, aerogel materials, and/or refractory ceramic fibers” (claims 10 and 20).
However, Turpin teaches a flame resistant electrical insulating material that forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing, wherein said flame resistant electrical insulating material comprises glass fibers; a particulate filler mixture, such as mica; and, an inorganic binder (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 06-14, 16-21, and 26-27).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the flame resistant electrical insulating material of Turpin, which may include mica for that of the thermal barrier of the reference application, since Turpin teaches it’s flame resistant electrical insulating material forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, wherein said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-15, and 19-20 plus newly added claim 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al (US 2021/0288363) in view of Turpin et al (US 2021/0280336).
Regarding independent claim 11, Okada teaches a power supply device (e.g. item 100) mounted on a vehicle, said power supply device supplying power to a motor of said vehicle, wherein said power supply device comprising a battery assembly (e.g. item 9) comprising:
(i) a plurality of battery cells (e.g. items 1, annotated as 1A, 1B, and 1C in Annotated Figure 2), each cell having a rectangular outer shape and stacked so that main surfaces (e.g. items 1X) thereof face each other;
(ii) a plurality of separators (e.g. items 2, annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) sandwiched between adjacent battery cells so as to insulate said battery cells, such that each of said battery cells is sandwiched between adjacent separators,
wherein each of said separators is composed of an insulating material, such as thermoplastic, ceramics, or paper,
wherein each of said separators comprises:
(ii.a) a body plate part (e.g. item 20) sandwiched between said main surfaces 1X of adjacent said battery cells, and
(ii.b) a pair of insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21, annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2), each integrally connected to lower edges of said body plate part, such so that said pair of insulating rib parts laterally protrudes from both surfaces of said body plate part so as to be disposed on bottom surfaces (e.g. items 1T) of battery cells stacked on both sides of separator, wherein each of said insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21) comprises:
(ii.b.1) an insertion groove (e.g. item 22) on one side of said separator and
(ii.b.2) an insertion rib (e.g. item 23) on an opposite side of said separator,
said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A in Annotated Figure 2) of one separator (e.g. annotated as 2A in Annotated Figure 2) is inserted into said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B in Annotated Figure 2) of an adjacent separator (e.g. annotated as 2B in Annotated Figure 2) so that two insulating rib parts (e.g. annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2) of two adjacent separators (e.g. annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) are stacked in a three-layer structure¶
(iii) a pair of end plates (e.g. items 4) disposed on opposite respective ends of said battery assembly; and,
(iv) a pair of bind bars (e.g. items 5) that connect said end plates at said respective ends of said battery assembly
(e.g. ¶¶ 0008-11, 13-14, 21, 38, 42-48 plus e.g. Figures 1-7; and, for illustrative purposes, see Annotated Figure 2, infra), reading on “traction battery pack;” alternatively, the preamble limitation “traction” is interpreted as merely intended use and does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2111.02, said power supply device comprising:
(1) said plurality of battery cells (e.g. items 1, annotated as 1A, 1B, and 1C in Annotated Figure 2), each cell having said rectangular outer shape and stacked so that main surfaces (e.g. items 1X) thereof face each other,
(2) said plurality of separators (e.g. items 2, annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) sandwiched between adjacent battery cells so as to insulate said battery cells, such that each of said battery cells is sandwiched between adjacent separators,
wherein each of said separators is composed of said insulating material, such as thermoplastic, ceramics, or paper,
wherein each of said separators comprises:
said pair of insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21, annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2), each integrally connected to lower edges of said body plate part, such so that said pair of insulating rib parts laterally protrudes from both surfaces of said body plate part so as to be disposed on bottom surfaces (e.g. items 1T) of battery cells stacked on both sides of separator;
said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A in Annotated Figure 2) of one separator (e.g. annotated as 2A in Annotated Figure 2) is inserted into said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B in Annotated Figure 2) of said adjacent separator (e.g. annotated as 2B in Annotated Figure 2) so that two insulating rib parts (e.g. annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2) of two adjacent separators (e.g. annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) are stacked in said three-layer structure, such that a first layer of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) is above said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A) and a second layer of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) is below said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A)
(e.g. supra), noting the claimed “blanket” is interpreted as a covering; and, said separator insulating rib covers said bottom surfaces of adjacent battery cells, so is a “barrier panel” and a “barrier blanket.”
Okada teaches individual battery cells are between adjacent separators, but does not expressly teach said sandwiched battery cell is an “array” in “battery array.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate each of said battery cells, so that they are adjacent to one another along a side surface perpendicular to said main surfaces (items 1X) and bottom surface (item 1B), in order to increase the energy associated with said power supply device, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); and,
it would have been obvious to electrically connect—either in series or parallel—said duplicated batteries between said adjacent separators, in order to increase the energy associated with said power supply device, referenced herein as “duplicated battery cell” and reading on “battery array,”
said taught duplicated battery cells (e.g. items 1) corresponding with the claimed “battery array;”
one or both of said insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21) of said separators (e.g. items 2) corresponding with the claimed “…barrier panel;” and,
said taught battery assembly (e.g. item 9) corresponding with the claimed “…barrier blanket system,”
wherein for illustrative purposes, components as numbered in Annotated Figure 2 are further provided, merely to add clarity to the record:
e.g. duplicated battery cell 1A corresponding with the claimed “first battery array;”
e.g. duplicated battery cell 1B corresponding with the claimed “second battery array;”
e.g. separator item 2A corresponding with the claimed “first…barrier panel; and,
e.g. separator item 2B corresponding with the claimed “second…barrier panel,
e.g. one or both of said taught insulating rib part item 21A of said separator item 2A—merely for illustrative purposes— corresponding with the claimed “first lateral edge flange; and,
e.g. one or both of said taught insulating rib part item 21B of said separator item 2B—merely for illustrative purposes— corresponding with the claimed “second lateral edge flange,”
reading on “a first battery array covered by a first…barrier panel of a …barrier blanket system;” “a second battery array covered by a second…barrier panel of the …barrier blanket system;” “each of the first…barrier panel and the second…barrier panel includes a first lateral edge flange and a second lateral edge flange;” and, “the second lateral edge flange of the first…barrier panel at least partially overlaps the first lateral edge flange of the second…barrier panel.”
Okada teaches said separator insulating rib covers said bottom surfaces of adjacent battery cells; and, each of said separators is composed of said insulating material, such as thermoplastic, ceramics, or paper, such that said separator insulating rib is a blanket and a barrier (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach it is “thermal” insulating.
However, Turpin teaches a flame resistant electrical insulating material that forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing, wherein said flame resistant electrical insulating material comprises glass fibers; a particulate filler mixture, which may be mica; and, an inorganic binder (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 06-14, 16-21, and 26-27).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the flame resistant electrical insulating material of Turpin, which may include mica for the insulating material of the Okada separator, including each part thereof, since Turpin teaches it’s electrical insulating material is electrically insulating and also forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, wherein said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing.
Okada as modified reading on “a first battery array covered by a first thermal barrier panel of a thermal barrier blanket system;” “a second battery array covered by a second thermal barrier panel of the thermal barrier blanket system;” “each of the first thermal barrier panel and the second thermal barrier panel includes a first lateral edge flange and a second lateral edge flange;” and, “the second lateral edge flange of the first thermal barrier panel at least partially overlaps the first lateral edge flange of the second thermal barrier panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
1062
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Okada as modified teaches the power supply device of claim 11, wherein Okada teaches each of said separators comprises said body plate part (e.g. item 20) sandwiched between said main surfaces 1X of adjacent said battery cells (e.g. supra),
said body plate part (e.g. item 20) corresponding with the claimed “crossbeam member,”
reading on “a crossmember beam located between the first battery array and the second battery array.”
Regarding claims 13-15, Okada as modified teaches the power supply device of claim 12, wherein Okada teaches each of said separators comprises said pair of insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21, annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2), each integrally connected to lower edges of said body plate part, such so that said pair of insulating rib parts laterally protrudes from both surfaces of said body plate part so as to be disposed on bottom surfaces (e.g. items 1T) of battery cells stacked on both sides of separator,
said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A in Annotated Figure 2) of one separator (e.g. annotated as 2A in Annotated Figure 2) is inserted into said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B in Annotated Figure 2) of said adjacent separator (e.g. annotated as 2B in Annotated Figure 2) so that two insulating rib parts (e.g. annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2) of two adjacent separators (e.g. annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) are stacked in said three-layer structure, such that a first layer of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) is above said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A) and a second layer of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) is below said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A) (e.g. supra),
said body plate part (e.g. item 20) corresponding with the claimed “crossbeam member,”
one of said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A) of said separator (e.g. annotated as 2A) corresponding with the claimed “stanchion;” and,
one of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) of said separator (e.g. annotated as 2A) corresponding with the claimed “cupped portion” (claim 14) and “fastener” (claim 15).
(e.g. supra), reading on “a stanchion attached to the crossmember beam” (claim 13); “the first lateral edge flange of the second thermal barrier panel includes a cupped portion that is configured to engage the stanchion” (claim 14); and, “the first thermal barrier panel is secured to the stanchion by a fastener” (claim 15).
Regarding claims 19-20, Okada as modified teaches the power supply device of claim 11, wherein said separators including said insulating rib part of said separator may be composed of said mica (e.g. supra), reading on “the first thermal barrier panel and the second thermal barrier panel each include a flame resistant and heat insulation material” (claim 19) and “the flame resistant and heat insulation material includes mica, aerogel materials, and/or refractory ceramic fibers” (claim 20).
Regarding newly added claim 22, Okada as modified teaches the power supply device of claim 11, wherein Okada teaches said pair of bind bars (e.g. items 5) that connect said end plates at said respective ends of said battery assembly (e.g. supra), and further teaches said bind bars each have lower edges of side surface plate parts (e.g. items 5X) are bent inward so as to constitute horizontal plate parts (e.g. items 5A) that indirectly support both ends of battery cell bottom surface (e.g. item 1T) of each of said battery cells (e.g. items 1), wherein each horizontal plate part (e.g. items 5A), made of a metal, is insulated from each of said battery cells by insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21) of said separators (items 2), said insulating rib parts interposed between said horizontal plate part (e.g. items 5A) and each of said battery cells bottom surface (e.g. items 1T) (e.g. ¶¶ 0008, 10, 145-21, and 57-62 plus e.g. Figures 2-3, 6, and 8), reading on “the first thermal barrier panel and the second thermal barrier panel are each disposed between the first battery array and the second battery array, respectively, and an enclosure cover of the traction battery pack.”
Art of Record
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 16-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed traction battery pack of claims 1 or 16, wherein said traction battery pack comprises the claimed first and second thermal barrier panels, wherein the first thermal barrier panel at least partially overlaps the second thermal barrier panel of claims 1 and 10 and further includes the specifically claimed components in the specifically claimed arrangements of said claims.
Newly added claim 21 is 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: none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed traction battery pack of claim 11, wherein said traction battery pack comprises the claimed first and second thermal barrier panels, wherein the second lateral edge flange of the first thermal barrier panel at least partially overlaps first lateral edge flange of the second thermal barrier panel of claim 11 and further includes the specifically claimed components in the specifically claimed arrangements of newly added claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant alleges the following regarding the NSDP rejections of claims 11, 13-15 and 19-20.
The Examiner’s rejection rests primarily on the premise that the word “blanket” in the claimed “thermal barrier blanket system” is equivalent to the “covering section” of the T-shaped thermal barriers claimed in Application No. 18/952,170. This construction is incorrect. The instant application’s thermal barrier panels are flat, array-level structures having “a blanket-like design that is arranged to cover one of the battery arrays” (¶[0046]). The blankets function as independent, self-contained panels covering entire battery arrays in a shingled, overlapping configuration. By contrast, the “covering section” of the reference application is merely the horizontal arm of a T-shaped component whose defining feature is a vertical stem (divider section) that is sandwiched between individual battery cells along the cell stack axis. Equating the instant application’s flat, array-level blanket panel with the horizontal arm of a T-shaped cell-level barrier conflates two categorically different structural architectures, and a claim construction of “blanket” that reads on a T-bar arm is overbroad, contextually unsupported, and contrary to the specification of record.
Further, with respect to the rejection of claims 9-10 and 19-20 under Paragraph 6, the addition of Turpin to supply a flame-resistant material does not remedy the fundamental structural disconnect identified above. Reference claims 11-13, even when considered in view of Turpin’s material disclosures, still define a T-shaped, cell-level fold-retaining barrier rather than the flat, array-level shingled blanket panel system of the instant claims. A material property teaching from a secondary reference cannot bridge the categorical structural and functional gap between the two inventions.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of both provisional double patenting rejections.
(Remarks, at 6:5-7:2.)
In response, the examiner respectfully notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as claimed. The applicant appears to be alleging that a “blanket” covers an entire battery array thereunder.
However, there does not appear to be a definition for such a scope provided in the initial filing and further a plain meaning of the term does not provide that a blanket be interpreted in such a manner. See also e.g. the newly added limitations of claim 1, noting that limitations “the first thermal barrier panel arranged to cover the first battery array” and “the second thermal barrier panel arranged to cover the second battery array” do not define the scope of coverage. For example, coverage might be 1%, 5%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of an upper surface of a respective battery array.
While there appears to be support in the initial disclosure (see e.g. Figures 4-5) to claim the instant invention as the applicant alleges, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as claimed.
Second, the applicant alleges the following.
Claim 11 requires, among other things, first and second battery arrays, each covered by a respective thermal barrier panel of a thermal barrier blanket system. Neither Okada nor Turpin teaches or suggests these features.
Okada only discloses individual prismatic cells separated one by one by thermoplastic separators whose sole purpose is preventing electrical leakage from dew condensation water. There are no battery arrays in Okada, and the Examiner’s rationale that a person of ordinary skill would duplicate individual cells into arrays does not produce the claimed architecture, which requires entire arrays covered by panels with a specific edge flange geometry. That concept simply does not emerge from adding more cells to Okada’s individual-cell separator assembly.
(Remarks, at 10:4-5, underlining added.)
In response, the examiner respectfully notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as claimed.
The applicant alleges that the claimed “thermal barrier blanket” entirely covers the battery array thereunder. However, the scope of the coverage is not claimed, nor does there appear to be such a definition of “cover” provided in the initial filing, and finally a plain meaning of the term does not provide that a blanket be interpreted in such a manner.
While there appears to be support in the initial disclosure (see e.g. Figures 4-5) to claim the instant invention as the applicant alleges, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as claimed.
Third, the applicant alleges the following.
Claim 11 further requires that each thermal barrier panel includes first and second lateral edge flanges, and that the second lateral edge flange of the first panel at least partially overlaps the first lateral edge flange of the second panel. The Examiner maps Okada’s insulating rib parts (items 21A and 21B) to the lateral edge flanges, and the insertion rib and groove structure (items 23A and 22B) to the overlap relationship. Respectfully, both mappings are incorrect. Okada’s insulating rib parts are downward projecting protrusions at the lower edge of a vertical separator wall, oriented toward cell bottom surfaces to extend electrical creepage distance. They bear no structural or functional resemblance whatsoever to the lateral edge flanges of claim 11, which are the side edges of horizontal panels positioned to cover battery arrays and that overlap laterally in a shingled configuration to direct vent gases during a thermal event. Similarly, Okada’s insertion rib and groove are a bottom-of-assembly mechanical interlock between thermoplastic separator ribs creating a U-curved creepage path, which is entirely different from the claimed planar lateral overlap between adjacent panel edge flanges for gas path management.
(Remarks, at 11:1.)
In response, the examiner respectfully notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as claimed.
While a claim is read in light of its specification, the specification is not read into the claim, see e.g. MPEP § 2111. Here, the teachings of the art do not contravene the scope of the claims, as claimed.
Fourth, the applicant alleges the following.
Turpin is directed solely to the material composition of flame-resistant insulating papers and boards. It therefore provides no teaching regarding panel structures, flange geometry, and array-level covering architecture and does nothing to remedy the above deficiencies in Okada.
Finally, there is no genuine motivation to combine these references. Okada addresses electrical leakage from dew condensation water on cell bottom surfaces, while Turpin addresses lightweight flame-resistant materials for battery thermal protection. These references solve different problems using different approaches, and the Examiner has not identified any reason why a person of ordinary skill addressing Okada's electrical leakage problem would look to Turpin and arrive at a shingled thermal barrier panel system covering battery arrays for vent gas management.
The mere fact that both references relate generally to electric vehicle batteries is insufficient to establish motivation to combine under KSR.
(Remarks, at 10:4.)
In response, the examiner respectfully notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the art.
As noted in the prior and instant Office actions, Okada teaches said each of said separators is composed of said insulating material, such as thermoplastic, ceramics, or paper, such that said separator insulating rib is a blanket and a barrier.
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have properly considered Turpin, since as provided in the prior and instant Office actions, Turpin provides a flame resistant electrical insulating material that forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, said flame resistant electrical insulating material may be e.g. mica. The prior and instant Office actions providing:
However, Turpin teaches a flame resistant electrical insulating material that forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing, wherein said flame resistant electrical insulating material comprises glass fibers; a particulate filler mixture, which may be mica; and, an inorganic binder (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 06-14, 16-21, and 26-27).
(March 9, 2026 non-final Office action, at p.9.)
Finally, as provided in the prior and instant Office actions, a proper motivation to combine was provided.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the flame resistant electrical insulating material of Turpin, which may include mica for the insulating material of the Okada separator, including each part thereof, since Turpin teaches it’s electrical insulating material is electrically insulating and also forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, wherein said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing.
(Id, at p.10.)
Fifth, the applicant alleges the following.
For at least these reasons, claims 11-20 would not have been obvious. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 and each claim depending therefrom should be withdrawn.
…
New claims 21-22 have been added and recite features neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record. These new claims should therefore also be allowable.
(Remarks, at 12:4 and 4.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baseri et al (US 2023/0016266);
Hehne et al (US 2023/0017567);
Wang et al (US 2019/0305277);
Fees et al (US 2018/0105062);
Kwon et al (US 2017/0025645);
Subramanian et al (US 2016/0118701);
Rawlinson et al (US 2016/0093931); and,
Biskup et al (US 2016/0093930).
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 YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights