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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/2026, has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 9-20 have been canceled.
Claim 1 has been amended; support for claim 1 is found in paragraph [0047] of the instant specification.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 are currently pending in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takezawa et al. (US2011 /0026207A1), as evidenced by Cirstea et al. lntumescent Silicate Coatings with the Addition of Alkali-Activated Materials, May 10, 2020, retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9145861 /, in view of Miloago et al. (US2021/0305544A1, with filing date of March 24, 2020), and as evidenced by Diab et al. Advantages of Sandwich Core, retrieved from https://www.diabgroup.com/what-we-do/advantages-of-sandwich-core/#, in view of Melack et al. (US2018/0048036A1).
As to claim 1, Takezawa discloses a housing for a battery pack ( The present invention relates to portable electronic devices. More specifically, the present invention relates to improvements to package structures for housing secondary batteries as power sources. [0001]),
the housing comprising: a casing configured to enclose battery stack ( The package
10 included in the cell phone 1…The package 10 has housed therein the electronic device body 11 and the battery housing portion 12 [0035]),
the casing having a composite structure having ( The battery housing portion 12 includes a battery fitting portion 14 for fitting the secondary battery 13 therein and a lid portion 15 for covering the secondary battery 13 fitted in the battery fitting portion 14 [0037]):
an exterior surface formed of a first material ( The battery fitting portion 14 and
the lid portion 15 are preferably made from a resin material or a metallic material. [0042]);
and an interior surface comprising a second different material comprising an intumescent material (A foaming agent-containing layer 16 is provided on a surface of
the battery fitting portion 14 that faces the secondary battery 13 and on a surface of the lid portion 15 that faces the secondary battery 13. In this manner,
the foaming agent-containing layer 16 is formed on the surface of the battery housing portion 12 on the side of which the secondary battery 13 is housed. [0042], see figure 5…The foaming agent-containing layer 16 is mainly composed of alkali metal silicate
[0046], "Inorganic intumescent alkali silicate coatings can be applied to a wide range of
surfaces," Cirstea, page 2). Takezawa does not explicitly teach that the alkali metal silicate is an intumescent material. However as evidenced by Cirstea, alkali silicate coatings are known to be intumescent materials.
PNG
media_image1.png
413
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Takezawa, figure 5)
Takezawa discloses the casing defines side walls forming an interior and further comprising opposing end walls.
As shown in figure 4 battery housing portion 12 comprises side walls forming an interior and opposing end walls.
PNG
media_image2.png
555
1098
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Takezawa, figure 4)
Takezawa discloses the intumescent material is provided as a layer on the casing interior surface. (A foaming agent-containing layer 16 is provided on a surface of the battery fitting portion 14 that faces the secondary battery 13 [0043], see figure 4 above).
Takezawa discloses the intumescent material is provided as a layer on a surface of the end cap directed towards the interior of the housing. (The foaming agentcontaining layer 16 is formed on ... the facing-side surface of the lid portion 15, [0064], see figure 6.)
PNG
media_image3.png
408
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Takezawa, figure 6)
Takezawa discloses a housing for a battery stack, the housing comprising: a casing to receive the battery stack, (Battery housing portion including a battery fitting
portion for fitting a secondary battery therein [Abstract])
The casing being closed at one or both ends by an end cap (The battery housing portion 12 includes a battery fitting portion 14 for fitting the secondary battery 13 therein and a lid portion 15, or end cap, for covering the secondary battery 13 fitted in the battery fitting portion 14 [0037]), as shown in figure 4 above;
Takezawa discloses the end cap (lid portion (15)) is formed having a sandwich structure comprising a single core layer formed of foam (a foaming agent-containing layer (16) [0043]) between two layers of reinforcement material formed (blocker layer (17) and fitting portion (14), as shown in figure 6 above.
Takezawa does not explicitly teach the two reinforcement layers are formed from unidirectional carbon fiber fabric.
However, in the same field of endeavor housing for a battery Miloago discloses a battery enclosure [Abstract] and further teaches, the top cover 120 of the battery enclosure 100… includes reinforcing strips 122 that provide additional structural support to the battery enclosure 100. The reinforcing strips 122 may include carbon fiber or glass fiber reinforcements, such as a unidirectional tape applied to the thermoplastic material and molded into the shape of the top cover 120. The reinforcing strips 122 are shown on an upper surface of the top cover 120, but may be positioned on an interior surface of the top cover 120, or both in some examples. [0053]… the unidirectional tape strips 524 reinforce particular areas of weakness or areas requiring additional strength or support. [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Takezawa with the carbon fiber unidirectional tape of Miloago to provide additional strength to the endcap.
Regarding the limitation of “ wherein the two layers of reinforcement material are arranged to evenly distribute a compressive pre-load across the battery stack in the housing in use.”
Examiner notes, modified Takezawa discloses the two layers are arranged as claimed in a “sandwich structure,” of reinforced materials (carbon fiber) around the claimed core (foam) as exemplified in paragraph [0010] [0047] of the instant specification, and the structure arranged as claimed by of modified Takezawa would function in the same manner to evenly distribute a compressive pre-load across the battery stack in the housing in use, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
It should be noted as evidenced by Diab a sandwich structure has an inherent structural resilience to uniformly distribute the load, Superior Structural Integrity : The sandwich construction method ensures the uniform distribution of loads across the entire structure, effectively minimizing stress concentrations and enhancing overall stability.
Takezawa discloses the end cap (lid portion (15)) is formed having a sandwich structure comprising a single core layer formed of foam (a foaming agent-containing layer (16) [Takezawa 0043]) between two layers of reinforcement material formed (blocker layer (17) and fitting portion (14), as shown in figure 6 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the intumescent material is provided as a layer on the casing interior surface; and wherein the intumescent material is provided as a layer on an outer surface of one of the reinforcement layers of the end cap such that it is directed towards the interior of the housing.
In the same field of endeavor Melack discloses a housing (metal can) for a battery stack [Abstract] and teaches (embodiment of a lid with the underside painted with intumescent paint to protect the electrical connections and prevent plastic parts from catching fire [Melack 0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modified Takezawa with the intumescent paint of Melack to protect electrical connections and prevent plastic parts from catching fire.
And wherein the housing (housing portion (12)) further comprises a cell stack location feature (battery fitting portion (14) [0037]) configured to ensure a correct position of the stack relative to the end cap [0038-0039].
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Takezawa discloses the casing defines side walls forming an interior and further comprising opposing end walls.
As shown in figure 4 battery housing portion 12 comprises side walls forming an interior and opposing end walls.
PNG
media_image4.png
527
996
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Takezawa, figure 4)
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Takezawa discloses ancillary features are captive in the core. (The block layer 17 may be formed not only by simply laying the molding but also by bonding the molding onto the surface of the foaming agent-containing layer 16. Furthermore, instead of bonding, the molding may be fixed by catches previously provided on the battery fitting-side surface of the battery fitting portion 14 and the facing-side surface of the lid portion 15 for fixing the molding. Such a catch is provided so as to project from the surface of the foaming agentcontaining layer 16. [0073]). Where the catches projecting from the core, layer (16), provide ancillary features captive in the core.
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Takezawa discloses comprising a locating structure on the end cap to locate battery stack in the housing. As shown in figure 4 the end cap, lid portion 15, has a protruding portion or locating structure, that the lid portion 15 is attached so as to cover the secondary battery 13 fitted in the recessed portion [0039], thereby holding or locating the battery in place .
PNG
media_image5.png
580
794
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Takezawa, figure 4)
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Takezawa discloses the first material comprises a fiber reinforced material. Where the combination with the unidirectional carbon fiber tape of Miloago would meet the limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 5, none of the cited documents describes or suggests a housing comprising a cell stack location feature configured to ensure a correct position of the stack relative to the end cap of the housing, and to ensure even distribution of the pre-load and provide stability to the stack. The office respectfully disagrees as Takezawa discloses a battery fitting portion (40) having a shape corresponding to the battery and fitted with lid (15). [0037-0038].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phillips et al. (US20050253553A1) Intumescent coatings on seams.
Czech et al. (US2019/0348653A1) EV with battery with intumescent layers.
Rippa et al. (US2022/0055469A1) Cover (18) comprised of carbon fiber.
Ma et al. (US2022/0145097A1) Intumescent coating on battery substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728