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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 & 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0185797).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a battery module (Par. 0003; Fig. 1-2) comprising: at least one battery cell (battery cell 20; Fig. 6-8); a module case (case 10; Fig. 1) in which the at least one battery cell is accommodated, and including a lower plate (lower plate 10a) and a side plate (sidewall 10b) forming an internal space (Fig. 1); and a thermally conductive coating layer (resin layer 30; Par. 0037, “thermally conductive resin layer”) formed on an internal surface of the lower plate (Par. 0030-0032, resin layer is in thermal contact with the lower plate. Figs 6-7 show the resin layer on the lower plate, which is mislabeled as 10c, when it should be 10a) or an internal surface of the lower plate and an internal surface of the side plate (Fig. 7; lower plate 10a is mislabeled as 10c), wherein the thermally conductive coating layer includes a polymeric binder resin (Par. 0038; acrylic-, urethane-, epoxy-, and olefin-based resins are all polymeric) and an inorganic filler (Par. 0056; filler may be a particle of a ceramic).
Park teaches a thickness range encompassing the claimed range of 70 μm to 130 μm (Par. 0034; 100 μm-5 mm and 200 μm-5 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to narrow the thickness range of the resin layer from 5-100 or 5-200 μm to 70-130 μm. Decreasing the upper limit to 130 μm would allow for improved heat dissipation, while increasing the lower limit to 70 μm would allow for improved heat insulation, as stated in Park (Par. 0034).
Regarding claim 4, Park fails to explicitly teach a thermally conductive coating layer with a withstand voltage intensity of 2.5 to 4.0 kV.
However, Park inherently teaches a thermally conductive coating layer with a withstand voltage intensity of 2.5 to 4.0 kV. Park teaches the same polymeric binders and inorganic fillers as claimed, with the inorganic fillers at the same weight percentages, thus the thermally conductive and electrically insulating coating has an identical composition as claimed. Therefore, the withstand voltage of the coating must be in the range of 2.5 to 4.0 kV. Thus, claim 4 is rejected.
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein adhesive strength between the thermally conductive coating layer and the battery cell is 500 to 2000 gf/10mm (Par. 0040l (1000 gf/10mm - 600 gf/mm fit the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the polymeric binder resin comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an acrylic resin (Par. 0038), a urethane-based resin (Par. 0038), a silicone-based resin (Par. 0038), an epoxy-based resin (Par. 0038), and an olefin-based resin (Par. 0038).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the inorganic filler comprises at least one ceramic particle selected from the group consisting of alumina, aluminum nitride, boron nitride, silicon nitride, SiC, silica, ZnO, and BeO (Par. 0056, lines 16-18; all claimed ceramics are stated).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the thermally conductive coating layer further comprises a carbon-based filler (Par. 0056; “use of a carbon filler such as graphite may be considered).
Regarding claim 9, Park fails to explicitly teach the battery module of claim 1, wherein the thermally conductive coating layer has a surface roughness of 0.7 μm or more and 50 μm or less.
However, Park inherently teaches a surface roughness of 0.7 μm or more and 50 μm or less. The present application’s specification states that this surface roughness range is controlled by inorganic filler particle diameters between 30 and 50 μm. Park provides particle diameters in the claimed range (Par. 0056; approximately 75 μm or less to approximately 30 μm or less) directed towards the thermally conductive filler. Thus, claim 9 is rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches a method of preparing a battery module (Par. 0068), comprising: applying a coating composition to an internal surface of a module case including a lower plate and a side plate forming an internal space (Par. 0072 describes methods of applying the thermal coating resin; Claim 4 states that the resin is in contact with the lower and side plates); curing the coating composition to form a coating layer (Par. 0069) having a thickness of 70 to 130 μm (Par. 0034; 100 μm-5 mm and 200 μm-5 mm both envelop the claimed range); and accommodating at least one battery cell in the module case on which the coating layer is formed (Par. 0079-80; battery cells are accommodated in the module case).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0185797 A1), further in view of Ma et al. (US 2023/0115050 A1, priority to 02/26/2020). While Ma’s invention is directed towards a thermally conductive powder coating composition, it is reasonably pertinent to the present application, as Ma describes using the coating for batteries and battery components (Par. 0125).
Regarding claim 2, Park fails to teach the thermally conductive coating layer comprising 20 to 50% by weight of the inorganic filler, based on a total weight of the thermally conductive coating layer.
However, Ma teaches the thermally conductive coating layer comprising 20 to 50% by weight of the inorganic filler, based on a total weight of the thermally conductive coating layer (Par. 0057, lines 1-8; “such as 20% to 50% by weight”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermally conductive coating layer taught by Park by incorporating a filler at a weight percentage between 20 and 50%, as taught by Ma. One of ordinary skill in the art could have determined that this would yield predictable results of improved structural stability and thermal insulation, as the resin would still be able to bind with the battery module case without breaking down.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Podkaminer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,115,737 B2). Podkaminer is reasonably pertinent to the present application, as their thermally conductive article is intended for use in a battery module.
Regarding claim 3, Park fails to explicitly teach a thermal conductivity of the thermal conductive coating layer between 200 and 230 W/mK.
However, Podkaminer teaches a thermally conductive coating layer comprised of a polymeric binder resin (Column 1, lines 14-16; organic matrices made of acrylics, silicones, and epoxies are same as claimed), an inorganic filler particle (Column 1, lines 16-17; “particles of ceramic”), and a carbon-based filler (Column 1, lines 16-17; particles of carbon). Thus, Podkaminer teaches the same composition as claimed. Podkaminer teaches the thermally conductive coating layer having a thermal conductivity of 200 W/mK or more and 230 W/mK or less (Column 12, lines 29-34; bulk thermal conductivities between 150 W/mK and 350 W/mK envelop the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermally conductive coating layer as taught by Park by assigning it a thermal conductivity value of 200 W/mK to 230 W/mK, as taught by Podkaminer. This would be done in order to achieve effective heat dissipation from the battery module, as stated in Podkaminer (Column 2, lines 22-28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728