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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/25 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 7477591 (KUWANO ET AL ).
Regarding claim 17: The reference discloses a battery pack comprising a housing, a plurality of cell modules which are spaced apart by gaps, and a thermal insulator including a nonwoven layer and an outer heat-shrunk polymeric layer encapsulating the nonwoven layer where the thermal insulator is in the gaps. See Figure 2 for housing 30, cells 20 and thermal insulators 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 1, 4-5, 10, 12, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7277591 (KUWANO ET AL).
Regarding claim 1: The reference discloses a thermal insulator including a nonwoven layer and an outer heat-shrunk polymeric layer. It is recognized that the reference does not specify the nonwoven fibers are compressed by the heat-shrunk layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compress the fibers during heat-shrinking by adjusting the shrink time and heat conditions. One would be motivated by the reasoned expectation of varying the thickness of the insulator.
Regarding claims 4 and 14: The thickness of the insulation layer 11 is not specified. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness based on the space/gap it is needed to fill.
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 20: See <Inorganic Fibers> for fiber diameter of 1-15um.
Regarding claim 10: See (Thickness of Resin Film) for thickness range of 0.001-1mm.
Regarding claim 12: The reference discloses a thermal insulator including a nonwoven layer and an outer heat-shrunk polymeric layer encapsulating the nonwoven layer. See Figure 3B and claim 7. It is recognized that the reference includes an outer cover layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the cover layer. One would be motivated by the reasoned expectation of saving time and cost, i.e. making the heat-shrink resin layer thicker would yield the same protective results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-9, 11, 13, 16 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH EVANS MULVANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1527. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH E MULVANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights