DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed 2/4/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the IDS, filed 1/13/2026, it is noted that Cite No. 3 lists an incorrect Inventor and Publication Date. However, since the Publication Number (US 20110024933) is correct (based on the Foreign Search information also listed in the instant IDS), Cite No. 3 has been reviewed and considered (and used in the rejection below).
To maintain a clear record, the examiner is also including Publication Number 20110024933 (Monnet et al.) in the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 20180065674) in view of Lewis (US 20080111394).
Regarding claim 1: Maier discloses a system of an insulated passage 110 of an electrically driven motor vehicle (Fig. 1; [0025]). Maier discloses a passage 110 which connects a first region to a second region (Figs. 1, 3, 4; [0025]). Maier discloses that the first region is air-permeable in the direction toward a battery of the motor vehicle and that the second region is air-permeable in the direction toward a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle (Figs. 1, 3, 4; [0025]). Maier discloses an insulating element ([0005], [0033]). Maier does not explicitly disclose that the insulating element comprises an expanded material, that the expanded material closes the passage against the first region, and that the expanded material is a foamed and at least partially cured epoxy resin composition. Lewis discloses that an insulating element 10, 100 comprises an expanded material 16, 106, that the expanded material closes a passage 62 against the first region, and that the expanded material is a foamed and at least partially cured epoxy resin composition ([0020], [0028]-[0033], [0043], [0045]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Maier so that the insulating element comprises an expanded material, that the expanded material closes the passage against the first region, and that the expanded material is a foamed and at least partially cured epoxy resin composition as taught by Lewis. As both Maier and Lewis are directed to insulated motor vehicle passages, as Maier teaches that the insulating element insulates the passenger compartment from the battery element, as expandable material that is a foamed and at least partially cured epoxy resin composition is well known in the art, and as Lewis explicitly discloses the recited insulating element, it would have been within routine skill to have selected and positioned a desired insulating element from a finite selection of sealing elements and their positioning (i.e. a selection to protect the passenger compartment from the battery compartment). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the passage is formed in a channel-like manner and/or wherein the passage is formed by side walls which surround an empty space (Maier - Figs. 1, 3, 4; [0025], [0033]; Lewis – [0038]).
Regarding claim 3: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the passage is configured in a hole-like manner and/or wherein the passage is formed by an opening in a wall (Maier - Figs. 1, 3, 4; [0025]).
Regarding claim 4: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the insulating element exposes only expanded material towards the first region (Lewis – Fig. 10; [0045]).
Regarding claim 5: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the expanded material has a layer thickness measured in a direction along a main passage axis of the passage between 1 and 50 mm (Lewis – Fig. 10; [0045]).
Regarding claim 6: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the expanded material has a volume which is between 50% and 1200% greater than before expansion (Lewis – [0032]).
Regarding claim 7: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the expanded material was present in the form of an expandable material which contained the following composition before expansion one-component, thermally curing epoxy resin composition comprising at least one epoxy resin A with on average more than one epoxy group per molecule, at least one latent curing agent for epoxy resins, and at least one physical or chemical propellant BA (Lewis – [0028]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 8: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the insulating element comprises a carrier 12, 14 (Lewis – [0020], [0021]).
Regarding claim 9: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the carrier is in the form of a film and/or that the carrier is configured in a flexible manner and/or that the carrier is made from metal (Lewis – [0022]).
Regarding claim 10: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the carrier is in the form of a rigid carrier and/or that the carrier is made from plastics material (Lewis – [0022]).
Regarding claim 11: Maier, as modified by Lewis, discloses that the carrier and expandable material were produced by a two-component injection molding method (Lewis – [0022], [0030).
Regarding claim 15: Maier discloses that the system is in a motor vehicle without an internal combustion engine (Maier – Fig. 1; abstr.; [0005] – Maier discloses an electric vehicle with no internal combustion engine).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 20180065674) and Lewis (US 20080111394), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monnet et al. (US 20110024933).
Maier and Lewis disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12: Maier, as modified by Lewis, does not explicitly disclose that the insulating element does not comprise any carrier. Monnet discloses that an insulating element 10 does not comprise any carrier (Figs. 2, 3; abstr.; [0011], [0060], [0061]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Maier, as modified by Lewis, so that the insulating element does not comprise any carrier as taught by Monnet. As Maier, Lewis, and Monnet are directed to insulated motor vehicle passages, as insulating elements are known to be formed with or without a carrier (Monnet – [0003], [0011]), and as Monnet explicitly teaches an insulating element that does not comprise any carrier, it would have been within routine skill to have selected an insulating element with a desired configuration from a finite selection of insulating element configurations (i.e. with a carrier or without a carrier). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13: Maier, as modified by Lewis and Monnet, discloses that the insulating element is secured to a structure of the passage by an adhesive film (Monnet – [0082]).
Regarding claim 14: Maier, as modified by Lewis and Monnet, discloses that the insulating element is secured to a structure of the passage by a push-pin (Monnet – Fig. 3; [0061], [0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights