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 4, 5, 7, 17 and 19-21 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 4 recites the limitation "the flammability plastic flammability standard" in lines 1-2. The antecedent basis is unclear since the claim recites “at least one plastic flammability standard”.
Claim 5 is indefinite since it is unclear if the flame-retardant layer is required in order to meet “at least one plastic flammability standard” and UL94 5VA or if the at least one standard is UL94 5VA.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the silicate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the graphite" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the rear surface" in lines3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the rear surface” is the same as “the back surface” recited in claim 1.
Claims 20 and 21 are indefinite due to dependency on claim 19.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0166106 (Zhang et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a laminate (100) comprising a flame-retardant layer (120) (see Figure 1, paragraph 0048); and
An aerogel layer (110) (see Figure 1, paragraph 0048);
Wherein the laminate has opposing front and back surfaces (see Figure 1);
The flame-retardant layer defines a majority of the front surface (see Figure 1); and
The thickness of the aerogel layer is preferably 0.3 to 2 mm (300 to 2000 micrometers) (see paragraph 0034), and each flame retardant layer is 0.1 mm to 1 mm (100 to 1000 micrometers) (see paragraph 0056), yielding a laminate having a thickness of at most 2 mm + 1 mm + 1 mm = 4 mm, which is within the claimed range of less than or equal to 25.4 mm.
Though not recited, a flame-retardant layer would inherently have a flammability rating compliant with at least one plastic flammability standard.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang also discloses that the thickness of the flame-retardant layer is 0.1 mm (100 micrometers) to 0.8 mm (800 micrometers) (see paragraph 0056), which is within the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.8 mm.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang also discloses that the flame-retardant layer comprises metal oxide or inorganic fillers (see paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang also discloses an apparatus comprising one or more laminates of claim 1, wherein a first one of the laminates is coupled to the apparatus such that the front surface of the first laminate is disposed further from the apparatus than is the rear surface of the first laminate (see paragraph 0119 and Figure 2). In the described configuration where a laminate is interposed between neighboring battery cells, for every laminate one of the laminate front surfaces would be further from one of the cells than the rear surface of the laminate.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang also discloses that the apparatus is a battery cell (see paragraph 0119).
Regarding claim 22, the laminate disclosed by Zhang also comprises the flame-retardant layer comprising a first flame-retardant layer (120) and a second flame-retardant layer (120), and the first and second flame-retardant layers are disposed on opposing sides of the aerogel layer (110) (see Figure 1).
Claims 1, 2 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0288362 (Churchill) as evidenced by WO 2020/251825 (Wang et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Churchill discloses a laminate comprising:
A flame-retardant layer (intumescent layer on heat-spreading layer) (see paragraph 0043) having a flammability rating compliant with at least one plastic flammability standard (see paragraph 0043 and Wang paragraph 0063), and
An aerogel layer (85) (see paragraphs 0023 and 0031);
Wherein:
The laminate has opposing front and back surfaces (see Figure 1);
The flame-retardant layer defines at least a majority of the front surface (see paragraph 0043 which states that the intumescent layer is disposed on the heat-spreading layer (61)); and
A thickness of the heat spreading layer is from 0.0254-0.127 mm (25.4-127 micrometer) (see paragraph 0029), a thickness of the aerogel layer is from 0.006-0.254 mm (6-254 micrometer) (see paragraph 0030), a thickness of the integrity layer is 0.02-0.6 mm (20-600 micrometer) (see paragraph 0033), and a thickness of the flame-retardant layer is 1 mm (see Wang paragraph 0005), yielding a laminate having a thickness of at most 0.127 mm + 0.254 mm + 0.6 mm + 1 mm = 1.981 mm, which is within the claimed range of less than or equal to 25.4 mm.
Regarding claim 2, Churchill discloses that a thickness of the heat spreading layer is from 0.0254-0.127 mm (25.4-127 micrometer) (see paragraph 0029), a thickness of the aerogel layer is from 0.006-0.254 mm (6-254 micrometer) (see paragraph 0030), a thickness of the integrity layer is 0.02-0.6 mm (20-600 micrometer) (see paragraph 0033), and a thickness of the flame-retardant layer is 1 mm (see Wang paragraph 0005), yielding a laminate having a thickness of at most 0.127 mm + 0.254 mm + 0.6 mm + 1 mm = 1.981 mm, which is within the claimed range of 0.3 mm to 2 mm.
Regarding claim 6, Churchill as evidenced by Wang also discloses that the flame-retardant layer comprises metal oxides (see Wang paragraph 0031).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Churchill as evidenced by Wang also discloses that the flame-retardant layer comprises a silicate (see Wang paragraph 0031). Wang states that the synergistic compound is at least one of an aluminosilicate or others, therefore an embodiment using only aluminosilicate (ceramic) is envisaged, thus 100% by weight, which is within the claimed range of at least 90% by weight of silicate/ceramic.
Regarding claim 9, Churchill also discloses that the aerogel layer may comprise polyimide or a list of others (see paragraph 0032), therefore an embodiment using only polyimide is envisaged, thus 100% by weight of the aerogel, which is within the claimed range of at least 50 % by weight.
Regarding claim 10, Churchill also discloses that the first adhesive layer (aerogel layer) may be a multilayer adhesive (see paragraphs 0024, 0031), therefore an embodiment is envisaged where an adhesive layer containing the aerogel has an additional adhesive layer disposed between the flame-retardant layer and the aerogel layer.
Regarding claim 11, Churchill also discloses that the adhesive may be DW 407 plasma tape (see paragraph 0023), which is a pressure-sensitive adhesive.
Regarding claim 12, while Churchill does not state that the laminate is capable of maintaining the temperature of the substrate at 500 degrees C or less when the front of the laminate is exposed to a temperature greater than 700 to 1200 degrees C for at least 5 minutes, Churchill discloses all the claimed structural features. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01)
Regarding claim 13, Churchill also discloses that the laminate further comprises a heat-dispersing layer (61) (see paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 14, Churchill also discloses that the heat-dispersing layer comprises a metal having a thermal conductivity of 100 to 1,000 W/m*K (see paragraph 0028), which is within the claimed range of 15 to 2,500 W/m*K.
Regarding claim 15, Churchill also discloses that the metal comprises copper or aluminum (see paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 16, Churchill also discloses that the heat-dispersing layer may be only copper or aluminum or an alloy of copper or aluminum (see paragraph 0028), therefore an embodiment where the metal is 100% copper or 100% aluminum is envisaged, which is within the claimed range of at least 90% by weight of the metal.
Regarding claim 17, Churchill also discloses that the heat-dispersing layer may comprise graphite or a combination of others (see paragraph 0028), therefore an embodiment where the heat-dispersing layer is 100% graphite is envisaged, which is within the claimed range of at least 90% by weight graphite.
Regarding claim 18, Churchill also discloses that the flame-retardant layer (intumescent layer) is positioned on the heat-spreading (heat-dispersing) layer (see paragraph 0043). In such a configuration, the heat-dispersing layer would be disposed between the flame-retardant layer and the aerogel layer.
Regarding claim 19, Churchill also discloses an apparatus comprising one or more laminates of claim 1, wherein a first one of the laminates is coupled to the apparatus (100) such that the front surface (flame retardant layer, on outer side of heat-dispersing layer (61)) of the first laminate is disposed further from the apparatus than is the rear surface of the laminate (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Churchill also discloses that the apparatus is a battery cell (see paragraphs 0021-0023).
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0058396 (Dietz et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Dietz discloses a laminate comprising:
A flame-retardant layer (supplementary layer 108) having a flammability rating compliant with at least one plastic flammability standard (see paragraph 0089, Table 3); and
An aerogel layer (see paragraph 0097, where an aerogel-based insulator positioned between the core layer and the external surface is discussed);
Wherein:
The laminate has opposing front and back surfaces (see Figure 3);
The flame-retardant layer defines at least a majority of the front surface (see Figure 3, paragraph 0099); and
A thickness of the laminate is between 0.5 and 23 mm (see paragraph 0059), which is within the claimed range of less than or equal to 25.4 mm.
Regarding claim 6, Dietz also discloses that the flame-retardant layer (supplementary layer 108) comprises alumina hydroxide, or inorganic filler particles (see paragraphs 0089-0092), as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Dietz also discloses one or more adhesive layers coupling the surface of one functional layer to the next functional layer (see paragraph 0063), therefore an adhesive coupled to the aerogel layer, including a first adhesive disposed between the flame-retardant layer (supplementary layer 108) and the aerogel insulating layer discussed at paragraph 0097 is envisaged.
Regarding claim 11, Dietz also discloses that the adhesive may be a pressure-sensitive adhesive (see paragraphs 0061-0063).
Regarding claim 13, Dietz also discloses that the laminate is fixed to an aluminum plate or a steel sheet (see paragraphs 0125 and 0166), which would act as a heat-dispersing layer.
Regarding claim 19, Dietz also discloses an apparatus comprising one or more laminates of claim 1, wherein a first one of the laminates is coupled to the apparatus (200) such that the front surface (flame retardant layer 108) of the first laminate is disposed further from the apparatus than is the rear surface of the first laminate (see Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 20, Dietz also discloses that the apparatus is a battery cell or a battery pack (see paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 21, Dietz also discloses that the apparatus is an electrically-conductive cable (see paragraph 0073).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0058396 (Dietz et al.) as evidenced by US 2021/0143448 (Blackburn et al.).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, as discussed above, Dietz discloses that the laminate may be fixed to an aluminum plate or steel sheet (see paragraphs 0125 and 0166). While Dietz does not state the thermal conductivity of these metals, Blackburn teaches that aluminum has a thermal conductivity of around 237 W/m-k and steel has a thermal conductivity of around 16-25 W/m-K (see paragraph 0009), which is within the claimed range of 15 to 2,500 W/m-K.
Regarding claim 16, Dietz also discloses embodiments where the laminate is fixed to either an aluminum plate or a stainless steel sheet (see paragraphs 0125 and 0166). The layer would therefore be fully aluminum or fully stainless steel, thus comprising at least 90% of the metal.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0166106 (Zhang et al.).
Zhang discloses a laminate as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang also discloses that the thickness of the aerogel layer is preferably 0.5 to 1.2 mm (500 to 1200 micrometers) (see paragraph 0034), and each flame retardant layer is preferably 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm (200 to 800 micrometers) (see paragraph 0056), yielding a laminate having a thickness of at least 0.5 mm + 0.2 mm + 0.2 mm = 0.9 mm and at most 1.2 mm + 0.8 mm + 0.8 mm = 2.8 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 2 mm. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0288362 (Churchill) as evidenced by WO 2020/0251825 (Wang et al.).
Churchill as evidenced by Wang discloses a laminate as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Churchill as evidenced by Wang discloses that the thickness of the flame-retardant layer is 1 mm (see Wang paragraph 0005), which is just outside the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.8 mm. it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosed values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have expected the same properties. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 21, Churchill does not state that the apparatus is an electrically-conductive cable; however, Churchill teaches that the laminate is useful to prevent or delay the spread of heat, energy or both in batteries and surrounding cells (see paragraph 0005). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the laminate to other electrical components around battery cells including electrically-conductive cables, in order to prevent or delay the spread of heat, energy or both.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0058396 (Dietz et al.).
Dietz discloses a laminate as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Dietz discloses that the thickness of the laminate is from 0.7 to 5 mm (see paragraph 0059), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 2 mm. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0058396 (Dietz et al.) in view 3M Flame Barrier FRB-NT Laminate Data Sheet (FRB-NT).
Dietz discloses a laminate as discussed above, disclosing that the flame-retardant layer (supplemental layer) has a flammability rating compliant with at least one plastic flammability standard (see paragraph 0089).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Dietz also discloses that the flame-retardant layer (supplementary layer) may be inorganic insulating paper (see paragraph 0089). Dietz does not state that the flammability standard is UL94 5VA or UL94 5B; however, FRB-NT is an inorganic insulating paper having a flammability rating compliant with UL94 5VA (see Physical Properties on page 3). FRB-NT teaches that the inorganic insulating paper is useful as flame protection for electronic device applications and that a material classified as 5VA can withstand a flame ignition source that is approximately five times more severe than in V-0, V-1 and V-2 tests (see FRB-NT page 1, Features section and Flammability section). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use FRB-NT as the inorganic insulating paper of the Dietz barrier for the electronic devices, in order to maximize flame resistance of the laminate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights