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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 06/02/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous drawing objections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 03/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al. (Pub. No. WO 2025169559 A1) in view of Konno et al. (Pub. No. WO 2025182153 A1) and further in view of Sasaki et al. (Pub. No. WO 2025187107 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ido teaches an insulation member (50, Fig. 3, see [0047]) comprising: an insulation composite (10, Figs. 9/10, see [0047] where 50 comprises 10, see [00100] where 10 in Figs. 1 to 8 is the 10 in Figs. 9 and 10) comprising a substrate (organic fibers, see [00101]) and a network structure (three-dimensionally connected pores between inorganic particles and organic fibers, see [00101]), the network structure (three-dimensionally connected pores between inorganic particles and organic fibers, see [00101]) including a plurality of particles (inorganic particles, see [00100], see [00101] where the pores are formed by the network of the inorganic particles) and one or more pores (three-dimensionally connected pores, see [00101]), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the insulation composite is a silica insulation composite, the network structure is a silica network structure, and the plurality of particles are silica particles, and fails to teach and a film wrapping the silica insulation composite, wherein when a heat of 700 °C is applied to a first surface of the insulation member, a 180 °C heat resistance index (A) represented by Equation 1 is 50% or greater: [Equation 1] 180 °C heat resistance index (A) = [Time (in seconds) for the insulation member to reach 180 °C] / [Time (in seconds) for the silica insulation composite to reach 180 °C] X 100 wherein in Equation 1, the time (in seconds) for the insulation member to reach 180 °C is the time (in seconds) it takes for a temperature of a second surface of the insulation member to reach 180 °C, and the time (in seconds) for the silica insulation composite to reach 180 °C is the time (in seconds) it takes for a temperature of a second surface of the silica insulation composite to reach 180 °C when a heat of 700 °C is applied to a first surface of the silica insulation composite that is not wrapped with the film.
However, Ido further teaches that the insulation composite (10, Figs. 9/10, see [00100]) is a silica insulation composite (10, Figs. 9/10, see [00100], see [00171] where the inorganic particles are silica nanoparticles therefore the insulation composite is a silica insulation composite), the network structure (three-dimensionally connected pores between inorganic particles and organic fibers, see [00101]) is a silica network structure (three-dimensionally connected pores between inorganic particles and organic fibers, see [00101], see [00171] where the inorganic particles are silica nanoparticles), and the plurality of particles (inorganic particles, see [00100]) are a plurality of silica particles (inorganic particles, see [00100], see [00171] where the inorganic particles are silica nanoparticles).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ido such that the inorganic particles are silicon nanoparticles as Ido teaches it is known in the art to do so. Further Ido teaches that modifications can be made (see [00239] of Ido).
Ido fails to teach a film wrapping the silica insulation composite. However, Konno teaches a film (22, Fig. 6, see [0057]) wrapping the silica insulation composite (19, Fig. 6, see [0057] where 22 covers the outer peripheral surface of 19 and 19 includes 10, see [0069] where 10 includes inorganic particles, see [00139] wherein the inorganic particles are silica nanoparticles) wherein the film is made of polyethylene terephthalate (polyethylene terephthalate, see [00203]) and wherein the thickness of the film is 0.005 mm to 0.1 mm (0.005 mm or more and 0.1 mm or less, see [00206]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ido to a film of polyethylene terephthalate with a thickness of 0.005 mm to 0.1 mm covering the outer peripheral surface of 10 as taught by Konno to prevent inorganic particles from falling off (see [0057] of Konno). Further Ido teaches that modifications can be made (see [00239] of Ido).
Ido in view of Konno fail to teach wherein the silica insulation composite has a density from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.50 g/cm3.
However, Sasaki teaches wherein the silica insulation composite (insulating layer, see [0067], see [0016] wherein the insulating layer is formed of silica particles and inorganic fibers) has a density from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.50 g/cm3 (0.2 to 0.5 g/cm3, see [0067]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ido in view of Konno such that the density of the insulating material 10 is 0.2 to 0.5 g/cm3 as taught by Sasaki in order to buffer variations in the gap between adjacent cells with good adaptability (see [0007] of Sasaki). Further Ido in view of Konno teaches that modifications can be made (see [00239] of Ido).
Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki is silent to wherein when a heat of 700 °C is applied to a first surface of the insulation member, a 180 °C heat resistance index (A) represented by Equation 1 is 50% or greater: [Equation 1] 180 °C heat resistance index (A) = [Time (in seconds) for the insulation member to reach 180 °C] / [Time (in seconds) for the silica insulation composite to reach 180 °C] X 100 wherein in Equation 1, the time (in seconds) for the insulation member to reach 180 °C is the time (in seconds) it takes for a temperature of a second surface of the insulation member to reach 180 °C, and the time (in seconds) for the silica insulation composite to reach 180 °C is the time (in seconds) it takes for a temperature of a second surface of the silica insulation composite to reach 180 °C when a heat of 700 °C is applied to a first surface of the silica insulation composite that is not wrapped with the film.
However, the insulation member as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki exhibits the same structure and compositions as the insulation member claimed above, therefore it is the Examiner’s position that if the 180 °C heat resistance index of the insulation member as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki was measured in the same way one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the 180 °C heat resistance index to be within or overlap the claimed range in such a way as to obviate the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki fails to teach wherein the time (in seconds) for the insulation member to reach 180 °C is 15 seconds or more.
However, the insulation member as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki exhibits the same structure and composition as the insulation member claimed above, therefore it is the Examiner’s position that if the time to reach 1800C for the insulation member as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki was measured in the same way one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the time to reach 1800C to be within or overlap the claimed range in such a way as to obviate the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki fails to teach wherein when the heat of 700 °C is applied to the first surface of the insulation member, a 350 °C heat resistance index (B) represented by Equation 2 is 50% or greater: [Equation 2] 350 °C heat resistance index (B) = [Time (in seconds) for the insulation member to reach 350 °C] / [Time (in seconds) for the silica insulation composite to reach 350 °C] X 100 wherein in Equation 2, the time (in seconds) for the insulation member to reach 350 °C is the time (in seconds) it takes for the temperature of the second surface of the insulation member to reach 350 °C, and the time (in seconds) for the silica insulation composite to reach 350 °C is the time (in seconds) it takes for the temperature of the second surface of the silica insulation composite to reach 350 °C when the heat of 700 °C is applied to the first surface of the silica insulation composite that is not wrapped with the film.
However, the insulation member as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki exhibits the same structure and compositions as the insulation member claimed above, therefore it is the Examiner’s position that if the 350 °C heat resistance index (B) of the insulation member as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki was measured in the same way one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the 350 °C heat resistance index (B) to be within or overlap the claimed range in such a way as to obviate the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki fails to teach wherein the time (in seconds) for the insulation member to reach 350 °C is 100 seconds or more.
However, the insulation member as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki exhibits the same structure and composition as the insulation member claimed above, therefore it is the Examiner’s position that if the time to reach 3500C for the insulation member as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki was measured in the same way, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the time to reach 3500C to be within or overlap the claimed range in such a way as to obviate the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki fails to teach wherein the film has a calorific value from 1,500 J/g to 3,000 J/g.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that if the calorific value of the film as taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki was measured in the same way one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the calorific value to be within or overlap the claimed range in such a way as to obviate the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki fails to teach wherein the silica insulation composite has a thickness from 0.5 mm to 10 mm.
However, Ido further teaches wherein the silica insulation composite (10, Figs. 9/10, see [00100]) has a thickness from 0.5 mm to 10 mm (0.05 mm to 10 mm, see [00231] the thickness of the overall heat transfer suppression sheet is generally the same as the insulating material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki such that the thickness the insulating material 10 is between 0.05 mm and 10 mm as Ido teaches it is known in the art to do so and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and it would have further been obvious to modify the thickness to be within the claimed range as thickness of the insulating material 10 and therefore the thickness of the heat transfer suppression sheet 50 is a result effective variable of sufficient compressive strength, and good insulating properties (see [00231] of Ido). Further Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [00239] of Ido).
Regarding claim 7, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches wherein the silica network structure (three-dimensionally connected pores between inorganic particles and organic fibers, see [00101]) comprises silica (silica nanoparticles, see [00171] where the inorganic particles are silica nanoparticles, see modification above), methylsilylated silica, dimethylsilylated silica, trimethylsilylated silica, or a mixture thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki fails to teach in the present embodiment wherein the silica insulation composite comprises a plurality of aggregated particles, in which a plurality of silica particles having a particle diameter from greater than 0 nm to 5 nm are aggregated in each of the plurality of aggregated particles.
However, in a different embodiment, Ido teaches wherein the silica insulation composite comprises (10, Figs. 9/10, see [00100]) a plurality of aggregated particles (secondary particles, see [00172] wherein the inorganic particles are secondary particles), in which a plurality of silica particles (silica nanoparticles, see [00171] wherein the inorganic particles are silica nanoparticles, therefore when the inorganic particles are secondary particles of silica nanoparticles they would have a plurality of silica nanoparticles aggregated together) having a particle diameter (average primary particle diameter of nanoparticles, see [00180]) from greater than 0 nm to 5 nm (2 nm or more and 10 nm or less, see [00180]) are aggregated in each of the plurality of aggregated particles (secondary particles, see [00172] wherein the inorganic particles are secondary particles, as a secondary particle is a aggregation of primary particles, primary particles being silicon nanoparticles means there is a plurality aggregated to make the secondary particle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 9/10 such that the silica nanoparticles are secondary particles of a plurality of primary silica nanoparticles with an average primary particle diameter of 2-10 nm as taught by another embodiment of Ido. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [00239] of Ido).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki such that the average primary particle diameter of the silica nanoparticles stays within the claimed range of 2-5 nm as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and nanoparticle size is a result effective variable of suppression of convective and conductive heat transfer and improvement of thermal insulation properties (see [00180] of Ido). Further Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [00239] of Ido).
Regarding claim 9, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki fails to teach wherein the plurality of aggregated particles have an average particle diameter from 5 nm to 2,000 nm.
However, Ido further teaches wherein the plurality of aggregated particles (secondary particles, see [00172] wherein the inorganic particles are secondary particles) have an average particle diameter (average secondary particle diameter of inorganic particles, see [00172]) from 5 nm to 2,000 nm (50 nm to 100000 nm, see [00172]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki such that the average secondary particle diameter of the inorganic particles of silica nanoparticles is 50-100000 nm which overlaps the claimed range as further taught by Ido as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and further obvious to modify the range to be within the claimed range as the average secondary particle diameter is a result effective variable of availability, suppression of increase in production cost, and desired heat insulating effect (see [00172] of Ido). Further Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [00239] of Ido).
Regarding claim 10, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches wherein the silica insulation composite (10, Figs. 9/10, see [00100]) has a density from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.50 g/cm3 (0.2 to 0.5 g/cm3, see [0067] of Sasaki, see modification above).
Regarding claim 11, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches a battery module (100, Fig. 3, see [00233]) comprising: one or more battery cells (20a/20b/20c, Fig. 3, see [00233]) in an internal space (inside of 30, Fig. 3, see [00233] where the cells are inside the case) of the battery module (100, Fig. 3, see [00233]); and the insulation member of claim 1 (50, Fig. 3, see [0047], see rejection of claim 1 above).
4. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al. (Pub. No. WO 2025169559 A1) in view of Konno et al. (Pub. No. WO 2025182153 A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Pub. No. WO 2025187107 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hickey et al. (Pub. No. US 20240297400 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches the battery module of claim 11 (100, Fig. 3, see [00233], see rejection of claim 11 above), but fails to teach a battery pack comprising the battery module of claim 11.
However, Hickey teaches a battery pack (traction battery pack 70, Fig. 1, see [0034]) comprising a battery module (battery module 72, Fig. 1, see [0034]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki such that the battery modules 100 are used in a traction battery pack as taught by Hickey in order to provide power capacity and energy density needed to propel a vehicle at desired speeds and ranges (see [0004] of Hickey). Further Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki teaches that modifications can be made (see [00239] of Ido).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the cited art does not inherently teach or make obvious an insulation member having the claimed 180oC heat resistance index (A) of 50% or greater because the examples provided in the instant specification shows relatively small changes in the method of manufacturing the insulation member results in significant changes to the 180oC heat resistance index (A). The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the prima facie case of obviousness for inherency has been based on technical reasoning that the insulation member taught by Ido in view of Konno and further in view of Sasaki exhibits the same structure and composition as the claimed invention therefor would be expected to, if measured in the same way to exhibit the same or overlapping characteristics in regards to the heat resistance index. Further the examples provided by the applicant, as pointed out by the applicant provide insufficient evidence to the contrary as the example provided present a wet method for forming the insulation composite while the cited prior art present a dry forming method therefore these examples are not comparable. As the applicant has pointed out the MPEP does allow a prima facie case to be rebutted by evidence, however arguments by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence and since the examples provided in the specification are not comparable example they fail to meet the burden of proof required to overcome the prima facie case presented by the examiner.
Conclusion
6. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights