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 1-30 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.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The parameters in-plane thermal conductivity and the deflection temperature under load of 1.8 MPa have been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The parameter melt viscosity has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The parameter melting temperature has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount of repeating units has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The parameter cross-plane thermal conductivity has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The parameter in-plane thermal conductivity has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The parameter dielectric strength has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The median diameter and/or moisture content has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
The term “about” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The comparative tracking index has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
Further, dependent claims 2-30 have been rendered indefinite due to their dependency on any of the indefinite claims as set forth above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0161599A1) in view of Terada et al. (JP2018080242A, refer to English machine translation by EPO).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a battery module (battery case, see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-2) comprising an electrochemical cell (electrode assembly [0093]), wherein the battery module includes a polymer composition that comprises a polymer matrix that includes a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050])
However, Choi does not disclose a thermally conductive filler distributed within the polymer matrix, further wherein the polymer composition exhibits an in-plane thermal conductivity of about 3 W/m-K or more as determined in accordance with ASTM E1461-13 (2022) and a deflection temperature under load of about 230° C. or more as determined in accordance with ISO 75:2013 at a load of 1.8 MPa.
Terada discloses a liquid crystal polymer composition including a filler (see Title, Abstract), which is useful as a molding material for electrical and electronic parts (see p.5) having improved fracture resistance, anisotropy in molding shrinkage, and improved thermal conductivity (see p.1). Table 1-2 of Terada further discloses various embodiments exhibiting thermal conductivity of up to 2.5 W/m*K which is “about 3 W/m-K or more” and a deflection temperature of 225 to 280 °C which is “about 230° C. or more”.
Choi and Terada are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely molded housing structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi by incorporating the liquid crystal polymer composition including filler, as taught by Terada, because Terada teaches improved fracture resistance, anisotropy in molding shrinkage, and improved thermal conductivity.
Regarding claim 2, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the polymer composition exhibits a melt viscosity of about 150 Pa-s or less as determined in accordance with ISO 11443:2021 at a shear rate of 1,000 s−1 and temperature of about 15° C. above the melting temperature of the composition (see Table 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the polymer composition exhibits a melting temperature of about 250° C. to about 440° C (270-360 degrees C, see p.18).
Regarding claim 4, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer contains repeating units derived from one or more aromatic dicarboxylic acids, one or more aromatic hydroxycarboxylic acids, or a combination thereof (aromatic oxycarbonyl, aromatic dicarbonyl, see p.5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the aromatic hydroxycarboxylic acids include 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid, or a combination thereof (4-hydroxybenzoic acid, 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid, see p.5).
Regarding claim 6, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the aromatic dicarboxylic acids include terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid, 2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylic acid, or a combination thereof (terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid, 2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylic acid, see p.5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the liquid crystalline polymer further contains repeating units derived from one or more aromatic diols (aromatic diol, see p.5).
Regarding claim 8, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the aromatic diols include hydroquinone, 4,4′-biphenol, or a combination thereof (hydroquinone, 4,4′-biphenol, see p.5).
Regarding claim 9, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer is wholly aromatic (see p.5).
Regarding claim 10, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer includes repeating units derived from naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic and/or dicarboxylic acids in an amount of about 10 mol. % or more (amount of other monomers is 10 mol% or less, see p.6).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the polymer composition exhibits a cross-plane thermal conductivity of about 1 W/m-K or more as determined in accordance with ASTM E 1461-13 (2022) (see Table 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the polymer composition exhibits an in-plane thermal conductivity of from about 4 to about 10 W/m-K, as determined in accordance with ASTM E 1461-13 (2022) (see Table 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the thermally conductive filler includes mineral particles (talc, see p.19).
Regarding claim 15, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the mineral particles include talc (talc, see p.19).
Regarding claim 16, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the mineral particles constitute from about 70 to about 250 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polymer matrix (60 to 150 parts by weight, see p.19).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the mineral particles have a median diameter of from about 1 to about 25 micrometers, specific surface area of from about 1 to about 50 m2/g as determined in accordance with DIN 66131:1993, and/or moisture content of about 5% or less as determined in accordance with ISO 787-2:1981 at a temperature of 105° C (1 to 8 µm, see p.19).
Regarding claim 18, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the polymer composition is free of fillers having an intrinsic thermal conductivity of 100 W/m-K or more (talc, see p.19).
Regarding claim 19, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terada further discloses the polymer composition exhibits a comparative tracking index of about 170 volts or more as determined in accordance with IEC 60112:2003 at a thickness of 3 millimeters (see Table 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the battery module includes a module housing within which the electrochemical cell is contained, wherein the module housing includes the polymer composition (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the module housing includes a first side bracket and a second side bracket secured to a first end cap and second end cap, wherein the first side bracket, second side bracket, first end cap, second end, or a combination thereof include the polymer composition (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050], see Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 22, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the module housing includes a lid that includes the polymer composition (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050], lid 4 [0091], see Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 23, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the module housing includes a sealing assembly that includes the polymer composition (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050], sealed [0087], [0091], [0095]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the module housing includes a base that includes the polymer composition (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050], container 1 [0091], see Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 25, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the module housing contains an a partition for isolating individual electrochemical cells, wherein the partition contains the polymer composition (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050]; partition walls 6 [0093], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the electrochemical cell is contained within a battery cell housing (container provides space for accommodating electrode assembly [0091], Fig. 1-2), wherein the battery cell housing includes the polymer composition (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the battery cell housing contains a sealing assembly that includes the polymer composition (battery case includes a container including a liquid crystal aromatic polymer [0050], sealed [0087], [0091], [0095]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the battery module contains multiple electrochemical cells (multiple electrode assemblies [0093]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses the electrochemical cell is a lithium-ion battery ([0097]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Choi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses an electric vehicle comprising a powertrain that includes the battery module of claim 1 (electric vehicle [004]-[0045]; see rejection of claim 1 above) and a transmission that is connected to the battery module via at least one power electronics module (battery module for electric vehicle [0044]-[0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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 Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights