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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 3-10, 21, 22, and 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to the nonelected coating of group I (claims 1 & 3-10) and nonelected method of making an article of group III (claims 21, 22, and 24-26), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/30/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the battery comprising an article disposed in a gap between battery cells of Group IV (claim 27) in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office incorrectly identified the coating of claim 1 as not a special technical feature in view of Lee (KR-101985315-B1). However, Examiner reaffirms the rationale presented in the Restriction mailed on 06/16/2026. On page 4, the first paragraph (beginning as LEE teaches a coating comprising zirconium silicate…”) clearly details the coating of claim 1 as not being a special technical feature in view of Lee (KR-101985315-B1). Applicant’s argument that the selection of zirconium silicate as one of the silicate metal salts is improper is found to not be persuasive, as making such a selection is at least one embodiment of Lee (KR-101985315-B1).
The traversal is further on the ground(s) that claim 27 includes the limitations of claims 17 and 1. This is not found persuasive because while claim 27 is a proper dependent claim of claim 17 and includes all of the limitations of claim 17, claim 27 does not include all limitations of claim 1 because claim 17 does not include all limitations of claim 1. Claim 17 discloses a hardened coating of claim 1, while claim 1 discloses a coating including an inorganic binder comprising a sol wherein said sol further comprises a liquid.
However, Examiner determines that Claim 27 is a proper dependent claim of Claim 17 and includes all of the limitations of Claim 17. Examiner moves to rejoin Claim 27 with Claims 17-19. Furthermore, Claim 28 is seen to be a proper dependent claim of Claim 17 that includes all of the limitations of Claim 17. Examiner moves to rejoin Claim 28 with Claims 17-19 and 27. The Examiner moves forward to examine claims 17-19, 27, and 28.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US-20230032529-A1) and Vasta (US-3801522-A).
Claim 17: Evans ‘529 teaches a heat control member or battery thermal management member (20) comprising a first layer of heat protection {substrate} (22) [¶ 0159], a layer of thermally conductive or thermally capacitive material (24) [¶ 0159] and a second heat protection layer (23) [¶ 0159], and that the second heat protection layer (23) may be a reinforced aerogel composite [¶ 0159].
It further teaches that the facing layer/layer of thermally conductive or thermally capacitive material (24) may be attached to the base layer – such as the second heat protection layer (23) – at any stage of production of the aerogel composite [¶ 0151]. For the purposes of examination, it is understood that that the facing layer being a layer of thermally conductive or thermally capacitive material (24) is incorporated into the second heat protection layer (23) to form one collective layer serving as a “hardened coating” to the “substrate” of the first layer of heat protection (22).
Evans ‘529 further teaches that the first layer of heat protection (22) has a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface [FIG. 7], and that the layer of thermally conductive or thermally capacitive material (24) and second heat protection layer (23) is/are on at least the first major surface of the first layer of heat protection (22) [¶ 0159; FIG. 7].
Evans ‘529 teaches a facing layer that may be thermally conductive or capacitive [¶ 0042]. It is understood this “facing layer” is another term for the thermally conductive or thermally capacitive material (24). It further teaches the thermally conductive or thermally capacitive material (24) may be attached to an aerogel composite material layer by a sol gel [¶ 0151], that the aerogel composite may include a binder [¶ 0140], that the aerogels are generally formed by hydrolysis-condensation or by gelation [¶ 0108], that the aerogel may include an alkali silicate such as sodium silicate [¶ 0108], and that the aerogel compositions may include an opacifier such as zirconium silicate [¶ 0204].
Evans ‘529 further teaches that the second layer of heat protection (23) may include an aerogel composition [¶ 0159], that the aerogel composite may include an additive that alters or improves desirable properties [¶ 0086], the additive may be added before, during, or after production of the aerogel [¶ 0086], and that the additive may include zirconium silicate [¶ 0024].
Evans ‘529 further teaches that the present disclosure aims to improve thermal management [¶ 0014] and that the thermally capacitive material (14) may be any material with a specific heat capacity of at least 0.3 J/(g*C) [¶ 0023].
While Evans ‘529 is silent on the explicit inclusion of zirconium silicate in the layer of thermally conductive or thermally capacitive material (24), a person of ordinary skill in the Art would understand one embodiment of Evans ‘529 to include zirconium silicate as an additive applied following the creation of the aerogel composite of the second layer of heat protection (23) in order to improve the desired property of thermal management.
Evans ‘529 does not teach the coating having 20-95 wt% zirconium silicate based upon the percentage of solids in the coating.
Vasta ‘522 teaches a coating containing an inorganic hardening agent such as zirconium silicate [Col. 1, ln. 30-31], that the coating has excellent thermal stability and good hardness [Col. 1, ln. 68], and that the inorganic hardening agent is added in a ratio of hardening agent to binder of about 25/100 to about 400/100 [Col. 3, ln. 4-6]. It can be understood that the range of ratio “25/100-400/100” is equivalent to 20-80 wt%
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to modify Evans ‘529 to have the wt% of zirconium silicate from the disclosure of Vasta ‘522 in order to improve the thermal stability, as suggested by Vasta and intended by Evans. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Evans ‘529 to have the wt% of zirconium silicate from the disclosure of Vasta ‘522 because the specific heat capacity of zirconium silicate is 0.54 J/(g*C), which satisfies the minimum specific heat capacity for the material requirement for the thermally capacitive material (14), as taught by Evans.
Claim 18: Evans ‘529 teaches the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above.
Evans ‘529 further teaches that the first layer of heat protection (22) may include an aerogel composition [¶ 0019], that the aerogel composite may include fiber-reinforced aerogel composites or a material that incorporates aerogel particulates with a resin [¶ 0073], and that the fiber-reinforced aerogel composition may include fiberglass [¶ 0077].
While Evans ‘529 does not explicitly teach it, a person of ordinary skill in the Art would recognize glass-fiber aerogel reinforced by resin as an embodiment of Evans ‘529.
Therefore, Evans ‘529 further teaches the first layer of heat protection {substrate} (22) may include glass-fiber reinforced resin.
Claim 19: Evans ‘529 and Vasta ‘522 teach the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above.
Evans ‘529 further teaches that the first heat protection layer (22) can include microporous silica [¶ 0018, 0127, Abstract].
Evans ‘529 further teaches the second heat protection layer (23) comprising an aerogel [¶ 0159]. An aerogel is a colloidal solid.
Claim(s) 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US-20230032529-A1) and Vasta (US-3801522-A) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim (US-20230327254-A1).
Claim 27: Evans ‘529 and Vasta ‘522 teach the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. Evans ‘529 further teaches that the present invention can provide the desired thermal conductivity and/or improve desired physical characteristics like compressibility [¶ 0135], and that embodiments of the present disclosure are beneficial for separating, insulating, and protecting battery components or batteries of any configuration (such as pouch cells) [¶ 0047].
Evans ‘529 does not teach a plurality of battery cells separated from one another by a gap with the article of the disclosure disposed in said gap.
Kim ‘254 teaches a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells (110) separated by a gap filled by at least one flame-retardant pad (400) [Abstract; FIG. 2A-2B]. It further teaches that the battery cell (110) is preferably a pouch-type battery cell [¶ 0056], and that the purpose of the invention is to improve safety by delaying or blocking heat or flame transfer to adjacent battery cells [¶ 0034].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to use the invention of Evans ‘529 in place of the flame-retardant pad of Kim ‘254 in order to separate, insulate, and protect the pouch cell battery components, as suggested by Evans and sought after by Kim.
Claim 28: Evans ‘529 and Vasta ‘522 teach the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. Evans ‘529 further teaches that the present invention can provide the desired thermal conductivity and/or improve desired physical characteristics like compressibility [¶ 0135], and that embodiments of the present disclosure are beneficial for separating, insulating, and protecting battery components or batteries of any configuration (such as pouch cells) [¶ 0047].
Evans ‘529 does not teach a plurality of battery cells, nor does it teach a compartment lid for a battery.
Kim ‘254 teaches a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells (110) with least one flame-retardant pad (400) between the battery cell stack and the housing (120) [Abstract; FIGs. 2A-2B], that the housing (120) has an inner and outer major surface [FIGs. 1-2B], that the flame-retardant pad (400) is on the inner major surface of the housing (120) [FIGs. 2A-2B], and that said flame-retardant pad (400) covers a plurality of battery cells (110) [FIGs. 2A-2B].
It further teaches that the battery cell (110) is preferably a pouch-type battery cell [¶ 0056], and that the purpose of the invention is to improve safety by delaying or blocking heat or flame transfer to adjacent battery cells [¶ 0034]. Kim ‘254 further teaches that the housing (120) may be a coupled pair of upper cover and U-shaped frame [¶ 0054].
Kim ‘254 further teaches that the housing (120) may be a coupled pair of upper cover and U-shaped frame [¶ 0054]. A person of ordinary skill in the Art would recognize a “U-shaped frame” as the compartment lid of the battery module of Kim ‘254.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to use the invention of Evans ‘529 in place of the flame-retardant pad of Kim ‘254 in order to separate, insulate, and protect the pouch cell battery components, as suggested by Evans and sought after by Kim.
Relevant Prior Art
Jang (US-20230187728-A1) is noted as relevant prior Art. Jang ‘728 is an earlier publication by the same assignee as Kim ‘254 (LG Energy Solution). Because Kim ‘254 does not illustrate the “upper cover” and “U-shaped frame” explicitly, the Examiner makes note of Jang ‘728 on the record for Applicant’s consideration, as Jang ‘728 does explicitly discuss both aspects of the housing (300) [¶ 0055-0056, FIGs. 4 & 6], that being the upper cover (310) and a U-shaped frame (320). Examiner notes that Jang ‘728 is not necessary to reject the claims of the present application, but is still provided for the benefit of the Applicant to review when moving forward prior to making revisions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm (ET).
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L GAGNON/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights