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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui CN_112976704_A (see machine English translation) in view of Yan WO_2020131985_A1 and Evans WO_2021142169_A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, Cui discloses: an article (e.g. battery module) comprising a multilayer laminate (surface layer / insulating layer / core layer) (corresponds to claimed limitation of instant Claim 10) that comprises:
(a) a first surface layer comprising a crosslinked polysiloxane matrix (e.g. vinyl polydimethylsiloxane reacted with methyl phenyl silicone etc.);
(b) a central layer selected from aerogel sheet; wherein said central layer defines one or more than one void such that the total volume of voids defined in the central layer is in a range of 5 to 95 volume- percent of volume defined by the central layer (aerogel foam layer), and
(c) a second surface layer.
(para. [0020] - para. [0022]; examples 1-2; claims 1; 5-7).
However, Cui does not disclose the claimed use of flame retardant additives in its surface layers nor does it disclose the use of endothermic agents occupying said voids of said central layer.
Yan discloses a bonded multilayer article comprising a polydiorganosiloxane layer (Page 6, Lines 29-34; Page 12, Lines 1-6) that can comprise flame retardant additives in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 30 wt% (Page 13, Lines 20-33).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the polydimethylsiloxane layer, of Cui, by using flame retardants, as disclosed by Yan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain flame retardancy in its polydimethylsiloxane layer.
Evans discloses a battery thermal management member comprising an aerogel layer having voids (Page 19, Lines 13-27) with endothermic fire-class additives (Page 68, Lines 23-25), such as sodium bicarbonate (corresponds to limitation of instant Claim 7) (Page 69, Line 31 – Page 70, Lines 14) in a percent that would overlap with Applicants’ claimed range of instant Claim 6 (Page 70, Line 29 – Page 72, Line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the aerogel layer, of Cui, by using endothermic agents, as disclosed by Evans so as to manage battery thermal and heat control (Page 44, Lines 14-19).
Regarding Claim 2, Cui in view of Yan and Evans doesn’t suggest the modulus but it would be expected for it to inherently possess the same physical properties on account of teaching the claimed composition and structure.
Regarding Claim 3, Cui in view of Yan and Evans suggests a total batter module thickness ranging from 2mm to 10 mm (Evans), which would be expected to meet the wide range for its surface layers.
Regarding Claim 4, Cui in view of Yan and Evans suggests a central aerogel layer thickness ranging from 0.3 mm to 15 mm (Evans Page 65, Lines 5-8).
Regarding Claim 5, although Cui in view of Yan and Evans only discloses using up to 30 wt% as mentioned above, it would nevertheless be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to vary the flame retardant concentration based on desired flame retardancy.
Regarding Claims 8, 9, Cui in view of Yan and Evans suggests using an adhesive (Cui paragraph 0006) such as those made of silicone (Evans: Page 48, Lines 19-23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights