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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on April 20, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19 are amended; claims 2, 4, 5, and 20 are canceled; resulting in claims 1, 3, and 6-19 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reciting “wherein said inorganic material is includes at least one of” contains a typographical error. Paragraph [0044] of the as-filed specification discloses that the inorganic material can be provided as one or more of the claimed materials, such that the limitation in claim 10 appears to intend to require that the inorganic material is at least one of the claimed materials.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rathod et al. (US 2023/0238600, newly cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Rathod et al. teaches a thermal runaway barrier (24; flexible multilayer battery pack insulator) comprising a fiber matrix layer (10; single intermediate fabric layer) encapsulated between organic polymeric layers (12; first and second impervious polymeric outermost film layers) which may be present in the form of continuous layers, wherein the major opposite faces of the polymeric layers are coated with adhesive (e.g., a pressure sensitive adhesive; first and second adhesives) ([0038], [0041]-[0044], [0093], Figs. 1, 4, 6, 7). Rathod et al. teaches that the polymeric layers (12) are laminated to opposite sides of the fiber matrix layer (10) ([0042], [0070]), such that the fiber matrix layer is sandwiched in contact with the inner sides of the first and second polymeric layers. Rathod et al. further teaches that the thermal runaway barrier is adapted for being disposed between adjacent battery cells of a battery module or assembly such as that used to power an electric motor, e.g., in an electric vehicle ([0001], [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Rathod et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that examples of the organic polymer layers include a PET film and a co-polyester polymeric film ([0060], [0093]).
Regarding claim 7, Rathod et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above and further teaches that the thickness of the PET film is 0.076 mm ([0060]), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 1 nm to 3 mm.
Regarding claims 8-10, Rathod et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above and further teaches that the fiber matrix layer preferably contains a nonwoven material formed of ceramic or otherwise nonmetallic inorganic fibers, wherein an example of the inorganic fibers includes SW+ alkaline earth silicate fibers (silica-based material) ([0038], Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Rathod et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the organic polymeric layers can encapsulate both major faces and the peripheral edge of the fiber matrix layer so as to prevent or significantly reduce the shedding or loss of inorganic fibers or particles from the encapsulated fiber matrix layer [0070].
Regarding claims 16-18, Rathod et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the fiber matrix layer has an installed (i.e., compressed) thickness in the range of from about 0.5 mm up to less than 5.0 mm and an uninstalled (i.e., uncompressed) thickness in the range of from about 1.0 mm up to 8.0 mm, wherein the gap between adjacent battery cells into which the thermal runaway barrier may be installed is in the range of from about 0.75 mm to about 1.25 mm or from about 1.50 mm to about 2.5 mm ([0090], Table 5). Rathod et al. further teaches that the polymeric layers may be PET films each having a thickness of 0.076 mm [0060].
The combined maximum (uninstalled) thickness of the polymeric layers and the fiber matrix layer is therefore about 8.15 mm (i.e., 8.0 mm + 2 x 0.076 mm), which falls squarely within the range of claim 16, where the thickness of the polymeric films falls squarely within the range of claim 17, and the installed thickness of the fiber matrix layer falls squarely within the range of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Rathod et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches exemplary embodiments of the thermal runaway barrier having a thermal conductivity in the range of 0.0481 to 0.0531 W/m-K (Table 12).
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.
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.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod et al. (US 2023/0238600, newly cited) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0352574, previously cited).
Regarding claims 12-15, Rathod et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Although Rathod et al. teaches an embodiment in which outer peripheries of the polymeric layers (12) extend beyond an outer periphery of the fiber matrix layer (10) so that the polymeric layers can be sealed around the peripheral edge of the fiber matrix layer (claim 13, Figs. 6-7), the reference does not expressly teach that the outer peripheries of the polymeric layers and the fiber matrix layer are laminated together via a weld seam as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of battery pack insulators, Lu et al. teaches a thermal insulator (200) comprising a core layer (201) confined between a pair of reinforcement layers (202) in a three-layer sandwich configuration, ([0038], Fig. 2). Similar to Rathod et al., Lu et al. teaches an embodiment in which the reinforcement layers can be made larger than the core layer so that the peripheral edge includes the reinforcement layers but excludes the core layer [0043]. Lu et al. also teaches an embodiment in which the peripheral edges (204) of the thermal insulator, including peripheral edges of the core layer and the reinforcement layers, are permanently compressed to form respective edge seals (weld seam), thus encapsulating the core layer between the pair of reinforcement layers ([0038]-[0039], Fig. 2).
Lu et al. teaches that the edge sealing can be achieved by ultrasonic welding, wherein the edge sealed regions are relatively narrow so as to avoid any degradation in insulation performance that might be caused by compressing large areas of the thermal insulator ([0039], [0042]). Therefore, the core layer and reinforcement layers are detached from one another inwardly of the narrow edge sealed regions.
Lu et al. further teaches that the edge seal can extend along the entire perimeter of the thermal insulator ([0039]), thus corresponding to the claimed continuous, annular weld seam extending about the entirety of the outer peripheries. Lu et al. teaches that edge sealing along the entire perimeter of the thermal insulator effectively encapsulates the non-woven core layer between the pair of reinforcement layers, wherein the edge sealed regions are relatively narrow to avoid any degradation in insulation performance caused by compressing large areas of the thermal insulator [0039]. The edge sealed regions located on opposite ends of the perimeter of the thermal insulator therefore correspond to the claimed plurality of weld seams spaced in generally parallel relation from one another along opposite outer peripheries, wherein the core layer and reinforcement layers are detached from one another across the entirety of the region extending between narrow edge seals on opposite perimeter edges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal runaway barrier of Rathod et al. by forming a weld seam as claimed along the outer peripheries of the polymeric layers and the fiber matrix layer, as taught by Lu et al., in order to effectively encapsulate the fiber matrix layer between the polymeric layers while avoiding any degradation in insulation performance.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claim in the response filed April 20, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1 and 3-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claim in the response filed April 20, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks filed April 20, 2026, have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new ground of rejection presented above. In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections based on Gao et al. and Gao et al. in view of Stude et al. are withdrawn, and a new ground of rejection based on Rathod et al. is presented in the office action above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bush (US 2020/0331230) teaches a fibrous structure (10) comprising a fiber matrix (12), and first and second facing layers (14, 16) which may each be an impermeable film or foil, wherein the fibrous structure may include adhesives for securing the fibrous structure to a substrate ([0045], [0049], Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights