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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 8 & 17 are canceled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-7, 9-16 & 18-21 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 16 & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton (US 2021/0108092 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 & 20-21, Hilton teaches an teaches a coating composition comprising: a) a film-forming component comprising a film-forming resin consisting essentially of an epoxy resin; and a crosslinker consisting essentially of a polyamine, wherein the film-forming resin and the crosslinker, react upon cure, to form a continuous film ([0062], [0068]-[0073], [0085]-[0088]); b) a phosphate source such as an ammonium phosphate present in an amount of preferably 50 wt% (Table 3; [0104]-[0106]); c) an aluminum source such as aluminum hydroxide, as a char forming aid, present in an amount of 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% (Tables 2a & 3; [0114]); d) TiO-2, as a nucleating agent, present in an amount of preferably 10 wt% (Table 3; [0112]-[0113]); and e) a gas source such as melamine, as a blowing agent, present in an amount of 0 wt% to 25 wt% (Table 3; [0107]-[0108]); f) a silica source such as fumed silica, as a rheology modifier, present in an amount of 0.02 wt% to 1 wt% ([0119]); reinforcing fibers present in an amount of preferably 3 wt% (Table 3; [0115]-[0117]); one or more additives such as a catalyst present in a total amount of 0.02 wt% to 5 wt% ([0097]-[0099]); wherein the film-forming component is preferably present in an amount of 25 wt% to 60 wt% ([0095]).
Regarding claim 7, Hilton teaches a method of coating a substrate comprising applying to at least a portion of the substrate, the coating composition according to claim 1 ([0130]).
Regarding claim 9, Hilton teaches a substrate coated to the method of claim 7 ([0130]).
Regarding claims 10 & 16, Hilton teaches an article such as steel and/or construction units comprising the substrate of claim 9 ([0130]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton (US 2021/0108092 A1), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 16 & 20-21 above, and further in view of in view of Jordan (US 2022/0220320 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Hilton teaches the coating composition of claim 1 but is silent as to a self-supported film or sheet comprising the coating composition of claim 1. Jordan teaches a self-supported sheet formed from an intumescent composition which can be applied as a coating to a substrate ([0037], [0048] & [0087]-[0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to provide Hilton’s a self-supported sheet formed from an intumescent composition on a substrate as suitable means for providing an intumescent coating on a substrate as taught by Jordan.
Claims 11-12, 14 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton (US 2021/0108092 A1), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 16 & 20-21 above, and further in view of in view of Wang (US 2020/0388810 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14 & 18-19, Hilton teaches the article of claim 10 but is silent as to the article being one selected from the structures recited in claims 11-12, 14-15 & 18-19. Wang a battery pack comprising a plurality of lithium-ion battery cells comprising exterior wall elements made up of aluminum defining a housing, wherein the coating composition or film or sheet is at least partially applied to the external and/or internal side of any of the exterior wall elements (Figs. 1-4 & 6; [0020]-[0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to provide Hilton’s coating composition to a battery pack in order to prevent cascading thermal runaway event in a battery pack which would result in a fire as taught by Wang ([0020]-[0021]). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07. Wang also renders obvious the use of an electric vehicle battery as the presently claimed article in view of the increasing demand for energy storage device such as lithium-ion batteries in applications such as electric vehicles as disclosed in Wang ([0003]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hilton (US 2021/0108092 A1) and Wang (US 2020/0388810 A1), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16 & 18-21 above, and further in view of in view of Czech (US 2021/0143383 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hilton as modified by Wang teaches the article of claim 12 but is silent as to the exterior wall and/or interior wall elements comprises composite steel, aluminum and/or polycarbonate. However, the use of aluminum as a material for forming exterior wall elements of battery cell housings is well-known as evidenced by Czech ([0009] & [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-16 & 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As presently amended, the subject matter of claims 1-7, 9-10, 16 & 20 is found to be obvious over the teachings of Hilton with claims 11-12, 14-15 & 18-19 being obvious in view of Wang and with claim 13 being found obvious further in view of Czech. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-7, 9-16 & 18-21 stand rejected.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights