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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on August 7, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 2, 4, 5, 8-10, and 20 are canceled; resulting in claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 11-19 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 is currently shown with the claim status “Previously Presented” but also has markings indicating that the claim is currently amended (see “w/[[w]]mK” in line 4). Given that this amendment was previously presented in the claim set filed April 20, 2026, claim 19 is interpreted as not being currently amended. 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, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ootsuki et al. (US 2021/0013460, newly cited).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 11, Ootsuki et al. teaches a fire-resistant laminate (25; flexible multilayer battery pack insulator) comprising a base material (21; single intermediate fabric layer) and fire-resistant resin layers (22; first and second impervious polymeric outermost film layers) disposed on both sides of the base material ([0079], see Fig. 2 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ootsuki et al. teaches that the fire-resistant resin layers (22) may be laminated directly with the base material (21) ([0080]), such that the base material is sandwiched, in contact with, and laminated with the inner sides of the first and second fire-resistant layers. The base material may be a cloth, wherein the cloth may be a woven fabric or a knitted fabric ([0164], [0167]). The fire-resistant resin layers are made of thermoplastic resins such as polyester, polyamide (nylon), or the like, and may be formed on the base material by extrusion or coating ([0088], [0092]). The fire-resistant laminate may further include a pressure-sensitive adhesive material (first and second adhesives) disposed on both of the fire-resistant resin layers so that the laminate can be arranged between and laminated to two battery cells ([0198]-[0199], Fig. 9), such that the pressure-sensitive adhesive material is bonded to the outer sides of the first and second fire-resistant resin layers.
Regarding claim 7, Ootsuki et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above and further teaches that the thickness of each of the fire-resistant resin layers is, for example, 2 to 5000 µm, preferably 35 to 150 µm ([0158]), which falls squarely within the claimed range. Ootsuki et al. teaches that the thickness of the fire-resistant layer is set to achieve proper fire resistance and fire-extinguishing performance while preventing the laminate from having a thickness larger than necessary [0158].
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 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootsuki et al. (US 2021/0013460, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 16-18, Ootsuki et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the thickness of each of the fire-resistant resin layers (first and second impervious polymeric outermost film layers) is, for example, 2 to 5000 µm, preferably 35 to 150 µm ([0158]), which falls squarely within the range of claim 17. Ootsuki et al. teaches that the thickness of the fire-resistant layer is set to achieve proper fire resistance and fire-extinguishing performance while preventing the laminate from having a thickness larger than necessary [0158].
Ootsuki et al. further teaches that the thickness of the base material (intermediate fabric layer) is preferably 2 to 1000 µm ([0171]), equivalent to 0.002 to 1 mm, which overlaps the range of claim 18. Ootsuki et al. teaches that the thickness of the base material is set to achieve adequate support for the fire-resistant resin layers without having a thickness larger than necessary, allowing the laminate to have sufficient flexibility to conform to a battery surface [0172].
The combined maximum thickness of the fire-resistant resin layers and the base material is therefore about 6 to 11000 µm, equivalent to about 0.006 to 11 mm, which overlaps the range of claim 16. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootsuki et al. (US 2021/0013460, 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, Ootsuki et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Although Ootsuki et al. teaches that the fire-resistant resin layers (22; first and second impervious polymeric outermost film layers) may be laminated directly with the base material (21; intermediate fabric layer) ([0080], ), the reference does not expressly teach that the outer peripheries of the fire-resistant resin layers and the base material 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). 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 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 fire-resistant laminate of Ootsuki et al. by forming a weld seam as claimed along the outer peripheries of the fire-resistant resin layers and the base material, as taught by Lu et al., in order to effectively encapsulate the cloth base material between the outer resin layers while avoiding any degradation in insulation performance.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootsuki et al. (US 2021/0013460, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rathod et al. (US 2023/0238600, previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Ootsuki et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Ootsuki et al. teaches that the fire-resistant laminate has good heat absorbability, such that the laminate can minimize damage caused by thermal runaway of a battery ([0002], [0123], [0219]), the reference is silent to a value of the combined thermal conductivity of the base material and the first and second fire-resistant resin layers.
However, in the analogous art of battery pack insulators, Rathod et al. teaches a thermal runaway barrier (24) comprising a fiber matrix layer (10; intermediate fabric layer) encapsulated between organic polymeric layers (12; first and second impervious polymeric outermost film layers) ([0038], [0041]-[0044], [0093], Figs. 1, 4, 6, 7). Similar to Ootsuki et al., Rathod et al. teaches that the thermal runaway barrier is adapted for being disposed between adjacent battery cells in order to slow down a thermal runaway event within a battery assembly ([0001], [0006]). Rathod et al. teaches that the thermal runaway barrier preferably has a thermal conductivity in the range of 0.0481 to 0.0708 W/m-K (Table 12), which overlaps the claimed range of less than 0.07 w/m-K.
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 fire-resistant laminate of Ootsuki et al. by setting a combined thermal conductivity within the claimed range, as suggested by Rathod et al., in order to ensure that the laminate can effectively contain a thermal runaway event of a battery.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 10 is moot in light of the cancellation of the claim in the response filed August 7, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks filed August 7, 2026, have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new combination of references being used in the rejections above. In light of the amendments to claim 1 requiring that the single intermediate fabric layer is woven or knitted, the previous rejections based on Rathod et al. are withdrawn, and new rejections based on Ootsuki et al. are presented in the office action above to address the new combination of claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buss et al. (US 2017/0232716) teaches a composite comprising a first layer (102) of a fluoropolymer such as PTFE, a second layer (102) of a reinforcing fabric such as an assembly of warp yarns (1042) and weft yarns (1044) (woven fabric), and a third layer (106) of a second fluoropolymer, wherein the composite can be tailored to provide for desirable properties, such as vapor permeability, depending on the end-use application (Abstract, [0023], [0028], [0032], [0045], Fig. 1)
Zheng et al. (US 2015/0050476) teaches a burnthrough resistant laminate film (150) comprising a glass cloth (102) formed of woven glass, first and second films (106, 108) formed of heat-resistant polymers formed on either side of the glass layer, and a fire retardant adhesive (152) applied to an outer surface of the first film or the second film in order to allow for the laminate to sealed to a vehicle to provide thermal and acoustic insulation ([0027]-[0028], [0030], [0045]-[0049], Fig. 4).
Loos (WO 2007/002966) teaches an insert (1) for an item of equipment , comprising an insulating layer (3) sandwiched between two membrane layers (2), wherein the membrane layer may be a PTFE membrane which exhibits water-repellent or liquid-impermeable properties, and the insulating layer can be a woven fabric or knitted fabric to allow for optimal shielding against cold and/or heat ([0002], [0014], [0055]-[0056]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights