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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 remain as originally filed. Claims 1-20 are pending review in this Office action.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 1/20/2026 have been maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/283,614 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim(s) 1, claim 1 of Reference claims inter alia “a battery device, comprising: a cell; and an insulating layer hermetically sealed into the cell” as recited by the instant claim.
Regarding claim(s) 2-20, claims 2-20 of Reference appear identical in verbiage and claim hierarchy to the respective claims 2-20 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 12-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hermann (US20100136424A1 cited in 01/20/2026 Office action)
Regarding claim 1, Hermann discloses a battery device (“battery”), comprising: a cell (“electrode assembly”) and an insulating layer (701, “thermally insulating layer”) ([0049]). While Hermann does not explicitly describe the insulating layer (701) as being hermetically sealed into the cell, the insulating layer (701) is provided on an inner wall surface of the cell’s casing (101), which is sealed such that a venting mechanism must be ruptured at high pressure in order to allow the cell contents to escape ([0025]); this would be recognized to require gastight, i.e., hermetic sealing to prevent the escape of gaseous cell contents before seal rupture.
Regarding claim 2 and 18, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1, wherein the material of the insulating layer comprises alumina ([0051]), which is noted in the instant specification as being thermally stable at 2050 °C (Instant specification, [0019-0020]), and is thus inherently thermally stable up to at least 1800 °C (claim 2) with a melting point above 100 °C (claim 18).
Regarding claims 4-5, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1, wherein the insulating layer (701) comprises a ceramic material (“some ceramics”, [0051]) (claim 4). As Hermann discloses that the insulating layer may be formed from the ceramic material and does not disclose the addition of other components ([0050-0052]), Herman further discloses the battery device of claim 1 wherein the insulating layer is entirely (100%) ceramic, and thus at least 50% ceramic (claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1, wherein the insulating layer (701) comprises a material that is added via a coating process ([0052]).
Regarding claims 12-13, 17, 19, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1, wherein the insulating layer comprises polyethylene or polypropylene ([0053-0054], both being polymers; see claim 17), and is configured to absorb energy released during the thermal runaway event ([0054]), necessarily including an increased heat capacity to absorb this heat and thus being broadly and reasonably interpreted as a high heat capacity material (claim 13). These materials also melt at relatively low temperatures ([0046]) and thus function as phase change materials (claim 12) by melting.
Furthermore, the melting points of polypropylene (160 °C) and of polyethylene (142 °C) are below 200 °C (claim 19).
Claims 1, 7-10, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Meister et al. DE102020126088A1 (cited with machine translation, 01/20/2026 Office action)
Regarding claims 1, 7-10, 14-15, and 17, Meister discloses a battery device, comprising a cell (2) and an insulating layer (17, “functional layer”, “flame-retardant tape”) airtightly (i.e., hermetically) sealed into the cell (“tightly enclosed with a pouch film”) ([0015-0016], [0033], FIG. 3) (claim 1).
Meister further discloses that the insulating layer comprises a polymer (claim 17) and a flame-retardant material (claim 10) ([0017]). Battery devices provided with Meister’s flame-retardant material may outright prevent a fire in addition to reducing the spread of fire ([0036]), requiring some ability of the flame retardant to extinguish a flame; the flame-retardant material is thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as a flame extinguishing material (claim 9). The flame-retardant material may be added to the insulating layer through a doping, i.e., saturation process (claim 7) or through a coating process (claim 8) ([0017]), and is selected from a group of substances including magnesium hydroxide ([0021]) (claim 14). Magnesium hydroxide is also inherently operable to undergo an endothermic reaction (claim 15) as indicated in paragraph [0023] of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US20100136424A1) as applied to claim 1, evidenced by TinyCircuits (Lithium Ion Cell 18650 2500mAh Battery Datasheet; copy in 01/20/2026 Office action)
Regarding claim 20, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1. Hermann provides the insulating layer in 18650 form-factor cells (Hermann [0064]) which are evidenced to have a weight of about 50g/cell (TinyCircuits pp. 2 Table 1, no. 2.12), and Hermann indicates a need to reduce a weight of the insulating layer below the conventional insulating layer weight of 4g/cell to provide sufficient battery pack performance (Hermann [0032]); thus, the insulating layer reduces the mass energy density of the battery by less than 8%; furthermore, at least some amount of insulating layer must be present in order to provide insulation, requiring an energy density reduction of at least 0%.
While Hermann does not explicitly provide a battery device with an energy density reduction less than 5%, Hermann nonetheless envisions the use of lightweight insulating layers ([0050]), and in seeking to balance considerations of improving battery performance while providing sufficient insulation with Hermann’s insulating layer, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the energy density reduction within a range of 0-8% encompassing the claimed range (>4%) such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Hermann’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US20100136424A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Turpin et al. (US20210280336A1 cited in 01/20/2026 Office action)
Regarding claim 3, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1. While Hermann’s insulating layer (701) necessarily comprises at least some measure of thermal conductivity, and would be expected to have a low thermal conductivity to provide its function of minimizing transfer of thermal energy to the cell casing (101) ([0049]), Hermann does not explicitly specify a thermal conductivity of the insulating layer as being less than 1 W/(m- K).
Turpin, directed to an insulating material for an analogous insulating layer (“sheet”) incorporated into a battery cell for a similar purpose of providing thermal insulation (Turpin [0006], [0030]) teaches a thermal conductivity of less than 0.15 W/(m- K) as suitable in order to provide thermal insulation with minimal impact to battery device weight or energy density ([0005-0007]), these considerations of weight and energy density also shared by Hermann (Hermann [0032]).
As such, in seeking to provide sufficient thermal insulation to Hermann’s battery device while minimally impacting the weight or energy density, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a thermal conductivity of less than 0.15 W/(m- K) for the insulating layer as taught by Turpin, which falls within the claimed range of less than 1 W/(m- K).
Regarding claim 6, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1. While Hermann’s insulating layer must be capable of withstanding temperatures of at least 1000 °C in addition to providing thermal insulation ([0049-0051]) and may be suitably formed from a ceramic material for this purpose ([0051]), Hermann does not explicitly specify the use of a porous ceramic paper as the ceramic material.
Turpin, directed to an insulating material for an analogous insulating layer (“sheet”) incorporated into a battery cell for a similar purpose of providing thermal insulation (Turpin [0006], [0030]), teaches that ceramic paper is capable of providing thermal insulation even at temperatures above 1000 °C ([0004]). Furthermore, ceramic paper is formed from ceramic fibers ([0004]) and would be recognized as comprising pores between the fibers, thus inherently being a porous material.
As such, in seeking to provide Hermann’s battery device with an insulating layer with suitable thermal insulation and temperature resistance, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a porous ceramic paper for the insulating layer as taught by Turpin. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Hermann envisions the use of ceramic materials for the insulating layer.
Claims 7, 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US20100136424A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Meister (DE102020126088A1)
Regarding claims 7, 9-10, and 14-15, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1. Hermann’s insulating layer may comprise polyethylene or polypropylene in order to absorb energy released during the thermal runaway event ([0053-0054]), however, Hermann does not further disclose the addition of a material added via a saturation process in the insulating layer (claim 8), the inclusion of a flame extinguishing or flame retardant material (claims 9-10), the inclusion of magnesium hydroxide (claim 14) or a material operable to undergo an endothermic reaction (claim 15).
Meister is directed to a similar battery device comprising a cell and an insulating layer (17, “functional layer”, “flame-retardant tape”) sealed into the cell (Meister [0015-0016], [0033], FIG. 3), Meister’s insulating layer (17) formed of a polyethylene or polypropylene polymer ([0019]) being analogous in structure and function to Hermann’s insulating layer (701, Hermann [0053], FIG. 7). Meister teaches doping (i.e., saturating) the insulating layer’s polymers with a flame-retardant material, improving flame protection without interfering with electrical performance of the battery device (Meister [0014], [0019], [0035]).
As such, in seeking to improve the flame protection of Hermann’s battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide Hermann’s insulating layer with a flame-retardant material added through saturation (claims 7, 10) as taught by Meister, with a reasonable expectation of success as Meister teaches that this process does not interfere with electrical performance.
Furthermore, Meister teaches that battery devices provided with the flame-retardant material may outright prevent a fire in addition to reducing the spread of fire ([0036]), requiring some ability of the flame retardant to extinguish a flame; the flame-retardant material is thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as a flame extinguishing material (claim 9).
Meister teaches a finite set of materials for this purpose including magnesium hydroxide inter alia ([0030]). A skilled artisan would need to select a flame-retardant material in order to suitably improve the flame protection of modified Hermann’s battery device, where Meister’s finite set of flame-retardant materials recognized as predictable solutions within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan such that it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore providing magnesium hydroxide in the insulating layer (claim 14) with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the flame resistance of the battery device (MPEP 2143 E.). Magnesium hydroxide is also inherently operable to undergo an endothermic reaction (claim 15) as indicated in paragraph [0023] of the instant specification.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US20100136424A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zielecka (Flame Resistant Silicone-Containing Coating Material; copy in 01/20/2026 Office action)
Regarding claim 11, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1. Hermann’s insulating layer may comprise polyethylene or polypropylene in order to absorb energy released during the thermal runaway event ([0053-0054]). While Hermann envisions considerations of preventing the spread of fire and thermal runaway between battery devices ([0005]), Hermann does not further provide the insulating layer with polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) for this purpose.
Zielecka, directed to the application of PDMS as a flame retardant, teaches improving the fireproofing properties of polyolefins (e.g., polyethylene or polypropylene) through the addition of PDMS and silica (Zielecka pp. 8 ¶3).
As such, in seeking to improve the fireproofing properties of Hermann’s battery device, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide Hermann’s insulating layer with PDMS and silica as taught by Zielecka. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Zielecka teaches suitability of this addition to polyolefins including the polyethylene or polypropylene of Hermann’s insulating layer.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann (US20100136424A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US6586912B1 cited in 01/20/2026 Office action)
Regarding claim 16, Hermann discloses the battery device of claim 1. Hermann’s insulating layer may comprise the thermoplastic material of the separator, i.e., polyethylene or polypropylene in order to absorb energy released during the thermal runaway event ([0053-0054]), however, Hermann does not disclose the use of paraffin for purpose.
Tsukamoto, directed to an analogous battery device comprising a cell and an insulating layer (96, “heat absorber material”) sealed into the cell (Tsukamoto col. 5 ln. 48-59, FIG. 12), teaches that paraffin has improved heat absorption properties compared to polypropylene or polyethylene for use in the insulating layer (col. 4 ln. 53-58).
As such, in seeking to improve the energy absorption ability of Hermann’s insulating layer, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the insulating layer to comprise paraffin as taught by Tsukamoto. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Hermann and Tsukamoto are directed to substantially similar battery devices comprising the cell and an insulating layer sealed within the cell for the same purpose of providing heat absorption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended co-pending application 19283614 (Reference) to clarify distinguishing structural limitations. As the instant claim 1 and claim 1 of Reference are no longer identical, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the basis of statutory double patenting is withdrawn. However, on further consideration of amended claim 1 of Reference as necessitated by amendment, a new rejection of the instant claims on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting has been submitted; see above.
Applicant argues that Hermann’s insulating layer is merely placed between the electrode assembly and casing and is not integrated into the cell sealing structure. Consequently, Hermann does not disclose that the insulating layer itself is hermetically sealed into the cell.
Applicant contrasts this with the embodiment of instant FIGs. 2A-2B and 6 where the insulating layer is integrated as part of the sealed internal structure and is sealed within the cell envelope itself, and not merely placed adjacent to the casing (Remarks pp. 6).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an insulating layer integrated as part of the sealed internal structure) are not recited in the rejected claim 1, which does not require that the insulating layer to be a part of the cell sealing structure, only that the insulating layer be hermetically sealed into, i.e., inside the cell. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, even in light of the specification, it is not clear how the embodiments of the instant FIGs. 2A-2B and 6 differ from Hermann’s cell and insulating layer. Paragraph [0028] of the inst. spec. describes the insulating layer (“BLD”) of FIGs. 2A-2B as being simply “placed between the jelly-roll and the pouch enclosure”, and paragraph [0052] indicates the insulating layer of FIG. 6 is coupled to the cylindrical metal can cell. The instant specification fails to describe integration of the insulating layer into the sealing structure besides simply placing the insulating layer adjacent to or attached to the cell enclosure.
Applicant asserts that Meister’s insulating layer in an airtight wrapping is not equivalent to an “insulating layer hermetically sealed into the cell”, as this limitation requires the insulating layer to be incorporated into the sealed internal structure of the cell as an integrated structural element. Meister’s insulating layer does not participate in forming the sealed cell enclosure.
Applicant further alleges a distinction between a material located inside a sealed cavity and a material structurally sealed into the cell, where under the Office action’s interpretation, any internal component would be hermetically sealed into the cell, which renders the claim language meaningless.
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive. The instant specification does not appear to define any process of “structurally sealing” or “integrating” a material into the cell, nor do the claims themselves recite this language; as such, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning wherein any material located inside a sealed cavity may be recognized as a material structurally sealed into the cell. As discussed above, paragraph [0028] of the inst. spec. describes the insulating layer (“BLD”) of FIGs. 2A-2B as being simply “placed between the jelly-roll and the pouch enclosure”, and paragraph [0052] indicates the insulating layer of FIG. 6 is coupled to the cylindrical metal can cell.
As such, the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Hermann and anticipated by Meister are maintained. The rejections of claims 2-20 under Hermann, Meister, Tiny Circuits (NPL cited in 01/20/2026 Office action), Turpin (US20210280336A1), Zielecka (NPL cited in 01/20/2026 Office action), and Tsukamoto (US6586912) as applied in the Office action filed 01/20/2026 are similarly maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/10/2026