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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 9 & 20 are amended. Claims 8 & 17 are canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-16 & 18-20 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 1-7, 9-10, 15-16 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 2022/0220320 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 & 20, Jordan teaches an teaches a coating composition comprising: a) a film-forming component comprising a film-forming resin comprising a silane-terminated polymer present in an amount of 10 wt% to 30 wt% and an epoxy resin present in an amount of 6 wt% to 25 wt%; and a crosslinker comprising a polyamine such as isophorone diamine, wherein the film-forming resin and the crosslinker, react upon cure, form a continuous film ([0006], [0009] & [0011]-[0014]); b) a phosphate source such as an ammonium phosphate present in an amount of 25 wt% to 65 wt% with specific embodiments using from 35.37 wt% to 41.29 wt% (Table 1; [0017]); c) a borate source such as zinc borate present in an amount of 1 wt% to 10 wt% with a specific embodiment using 5.53 wt% (Table 1; [0028]); d) TiO-2 present in an amount of 1 wt% to 15 wt% ([0020]); and e) a gas source such as melamine present in an amount of 5 wt% to 30 wt% ([0018]); f) a silica source such as fumed silica, as a rheology modifier, present in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 4 wt% with specific embodiments using from 0.25 wt% to 0.99 wt% (Table 1; [0023]); reinforcing fibers present in an amount of 1 wt% to 6 wt% with specific embodiments using less than 4 wt% (Table 1; [0021]); one or more additives such as a carbon source present in a total amount of 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% with a specific embodiment using 3.69 wt% (Table 1; [0019]); wherein the film-forming component is present in an amount of 16 wt% to 55 wt% with specific embodiments using from 28.2 wt% to 32.8 wt% (Table 1; [0009] & [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Jordan teaches a self-supporting film or sheet formed from the coating composition of claim 1 ([0037] & [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Jordan teaches a method of coating a substrate comprising applying to at least a portion of the substrate, the coating composition according to claim 1 ([0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 9, Jordan teaches a substrate coated to the method of claim 7 ([0038]).
Regarding claims 10 & 15-16, Jordan teaches an article such as vehicle comprising the substrate of claim 9, wherein the substrate can be an automotive component or structural member ([0066]).
Claims 11-12, 14 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 2022/0220320 A1), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 15-16 & 20 above, and further in view of in view of Wang (US 2020/0388810 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14 & 18-19, Jordan 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 Shepherd’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 Jordan (US 2022/0220320 A1) and Wang (US 2020/0388810 A1), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16 & 18-20 above, and further in view of in view of Czech (US 2021/0143383 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jordan 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 & 18-20 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 Jordan 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.
With regards to Applicant’s assertions that Wang does not fairly teach or suggest the intumescent material being applied to an external surface of the battery, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As correctly noted by Applicant, Wang discloses that the intumescent composition can be coated on the external surfaces of the foam wherein the coated foam is placed between two batteries as illustrate in figs. 1-4 of Wang. However, it is clear from Wang that the intumescent composition on the surface of the foam contacts the external surfaces of the adjacent batteries 2 and 6 (see fig. 1). Furthermore, claim 15, as presently recited, merely requires an article comprising a vehicle which comprises a substrate coated according to the method of claim 7. Accordingly, Wang discloses electric vehicles which can comprise a battery assembly in which an intumescent composition is coated on a substrate as noted above. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the coating… or the self-supported film or sheet may be applied to the floor portion of the vehicle adjacent to the battery between battery and the vehicle body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-7, 9-16 & 18-20 stand rejected.
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