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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024, 08/01/2025, 08/28/2025, 12/22/2025, 03/25/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a second covering layer" in Line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 does not introduce a covering layer or first covering layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (WO 2021022130 A1 - US 20220262539 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter "Huang"
In regard to Claims 1, 3-4 and 15, Huang et al. discloses a battery protection sheet comprising: a papermaking sheet layer containing a first inorganic fiber wherein the papermaking sheet layer further contains an inorganic particle and wherein the papermaking sheet layer further contains a binding material; and a cross layer (fabric) made of a second inorganic fiber (Huang, Claim 8).
In regard to Claims 6-7, Huang et al. discloses the battery protection sheet according to claim 1. Huang et al. also discloses a thickness of the papermaking layer in an example as 0.51mm (Huang, Table 1) which falls within the claimed range and discloses a thickness of the cross layer in a range of 0.3 to 3 mm which anticipates the claimed range.
In regard to Claims 8-9, Huang et al. discloses the battery protection sheet according to claim 1. Huang et al. also discloses a first covering layer (second inorganic fiber layer) on an outer side of the papermaking sheet layer wherein the first covering layer and the papermaking sheet layer are bonded to each other via a first bonding layer made of an adhesive or a thermoplastic resin (Huang, Examples 6 and 15-18).
In regard to Claim 10, Huang et al. discloses the battery protection sheet according to claim 1. Huang et al. also discloses multiple cross layers of fabric bonded to the outer side of the papermaking layer and a second covering layer (surface coating) bonded to an outer side of the cross layer (Huang, Claims 4 and 9).
In regard to Claim 12, Huang et al. discloses the battery protection sheet according to claim 1. Huang et al. also discloses a battery pack module comprising: a plurality of battery packs; a case that accommodates the battery packs; and the battery protection sheet according to claim 1, wherein the sheet is attached to an inner side of the case (Huang, [0026, 0065, 0076]).
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.
Claims 2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2021022130 A1 - US 20220262539 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter "Huang" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Turpin et al. (US 20210280336 A1), hereinafter "Turpin". Huang and Turpin are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely thermal barriers.
In regard to Claims 2 and 13-14, Huang et al. discloses the battery protection sheet according to claim 1. While Huang et al. discloses a paper layer comprising inorganic fibers such as glass (Huang, [0023]) wherein the papermaking sheet layer further contains an inorganic particle and contains a binding material (Huang, Claim 8), it is silent a to the fiber length of the first inorganic fiber.
However, the skilled artisan of Huang et al. would be well aware of different fiber lengths and Huang et al. incorporates by reference Turpin et al. (WO2020023357A1 equivalent to US 20210280336 A1)) (Huang, [0054]), which discloses a paper layer comprising inorganic fibers such as glass wherein the fiber length in a specific example is 6mm and the beneficial range of fiber length is 3.175-12.7mm (Huang, [0024, 0042,), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the Turpin as the fiber length of Huang, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2021022130 A1 - US 20220262539 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter "Huang" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Novak et al. (US 2681870 A), hereinafter "Novak". Huang and Novak are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely thermal barriers.
In regard to Claims 5 and 17-18, Huang et al. discloses the battery protection sheet according to claim 1. While Huang et al. discloses a method of attachment of the inorganic fiber papermaking layer with the cross layer made of a second inorganic fiber it is silent as to an interfacial region between the cross layer and the papermaking sheet layer has an intermediate layer in which the first inorganic fiber is inserted into the cross layer.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of different methods for attachment of papermaking layers and cross layers made of inorganic fibers as evidenced by Novak et al. which discloses a papermaking sheet layer (Asbestos mineral papermaking grade fibers) containing a first inorganic fiber (Novak, Col 1-2); and a cross layer (open mesh cloth) made of a second inorganic fiber (Novak, Claim 1), wherein an interfacial region between the cross layer and the papermaking sheet layer has an intermediate layer in which the first inorganic fiber is inserted into the cross layer (Novak, Claims 2-6), wherein the benefit of attaching the papermaking layer and the cross layer in this way is taught as the composite layer having no dividing line between layers and a resistance to separation/delamination (Novak, Cols. 2 & 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the papermaking layer and cross layer of Huang and attach them using the method of Novak as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Novak and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2021022130 A1 - US 20220262539 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter "Huang" as applied to claim 1 and 10 above in view of Russek et al. (US 5744206 A), hereinafter “Russek”. Huang and Russek et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely thermal barriers.
In regard to Claim 11, Huang et al. discloses the battery protection sheet according to claim 10. Huang et al. also discloses multiple cross layers of fabric bonded to the outer side of the papermaking layer and a second covering layer (surface coating) which may comprise vermiculite bonded to an outer side of the cross layer (Huang, Claims 4 and 9), however Huang is silent as to the second covering layer and the cross layer being bonded to each other via a second bonding layer made of an adhesive or a thermoplastic resin. However, the skilled artisan of Huang would be well aware of forming covering layers on the outer side of the cross layers and bonding them with a method comprising the use of adhesive as taught in Russek et al. which discloses a cross layer made of inorganic fibers with a protective covering layer comprising vermiculite adhered to the surface of the cross layer with an adhesive with the benefit of forming a strong bond (Russek, Claims 21-22 and 24, Col 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a vermiculite covering layer on the outer side of the cross layer bonded with adhesive as taught in Russek to the vermiculite covering layer on the outer side of the cross layer disclosed in Huang et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Russek and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2021022130 A1 - US 20220262539 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter "Huang" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Turpin et al. (US 20210280336 A1), hereinafter "Turpin" as applied to claim 2 above and Novak et al. (US 2681870 A), hereinafter "Novak" as applied to claim 5 above. Huang, Turpin and Russek et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely thermal barriers.
In regard to Claim 16, Huang et al. in view of Turpin et al. discloses the battery protection sheet according to claim 2. While Huang et al. discloses a method of attachment of the inorganic fiber papermaking layer with the cross layer made of a second inorganic fiber it is silent as to an interfacial region between the cross layer and the papermaking sheet layer has an intermediate layer in which the first inorganic fiber is inserted into the cross layer.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of different methods for attachment of papermaking layers and cross layers made of inorganic fibers as evidenced by Novak et al. which discloses a papermaking sheet layer (Asbestos mineral papermaking grade fibers) containing a first inorganic fiber (Novak, Col 1-2); and a cross layer (open mesh cloth) made of a second inorganic fiber (Novak, Claim 1), wherein an interfacial region between the cross layer and the papermaking sheet layer has an intermediate layer in which the first inorganic fiber is inserted into the cross layer (Novak, Claims 2-6) wherein the benefit of attaching the papermaking layer and the cross layer in this way is taught as the composite layer having no dividing line between layers and a resistance to separation/delamination (Novak, Cols. 2 & 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the papermaking layer and cross layer of Huang and attach them using the method of Novak as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Novak and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights