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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0140], 4 th line, delete “the” after “within the”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the flameproof-material-covered region" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Since claims 14-16 depend from claim 13, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason. 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. Claims 1 , 4 -6 , 11 - 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda (US 2020/0411818), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 6, 2023. Regarding independent claim 1 , as well as claims 11 and 17 , Takeda discloses a flameproof sheet for use in an assembled battery in which a plurality of battery cells is connected serially or in parallel to form a battery pack encased in a battery case (paragraphs [0004] and [0014]-[0046]; Examples 1 and 2; and Figures 1-4) , wherein the battery cells (12) each having an electrode surface with an electrode (electrode body (15)) and a peripheral surface orthogonal to the electrode surface and being disposed such that the peripheral surfaces face each other, and the flameproof sheet (spacer (30,40) of Figure 2) comprising a pair of flameproof materials (reflection layers (32) and heat absorption layer (41) ) , and an elastic member (heat insulating material (31) formed of an elastic deformable material – see paragraph [0029]) disposed between the pair of flameproof materials (see Figure s 2 and 3 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Takeda discloses that the elastic member (31) is made of an elastomer of an elastic deformable material (see paragraph [0029] ; and Figure 2 ) . Regarding claim s 5 and 6 , Takeda discloses that the flameproof materials contain at least one kind of inorganic particles , including inorganic hydrate compounds provided with a layer of binding particles (see paragraph [0042]; and Figure 3) . Regarding claim s 12 and 13 , Takeda discloses that the assembled battery includes a plurality of battery cells (12), a flameproof material (32,41) covering at least a part of the peripheral surfaces of the battery cells (12), and an elastic member (including heat insulating material (52) of Figure 4) covering at least a part of a region of the peripheral surfaces of the battery cells (12) which is covered with the flameproof material (including reflection layer (51) of Figure 4) , such that the elastic member covers a flameproof-material-covered region along a peripheral direction of the battery cells (12) to press the battery cells (12) – see Figures 2-4 . 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. Claim s 2, 3, 7 -10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (US 2020/0411818). Regarding claims 2 and 3 , although Takeda discloses all features of the flameproof sheet in independent claim 1, Takeda does not disclose that the elastic member has a plurality of grooves extending from one edge surface thereof orthogonal to surfaces thereof facing the flameproof materials to the other edge surface (claim 2), as well as a plurality of through holes piercing the elastic member from one edge surface thereof orthogonal to surfaces thereof facing the flameproof materials to the other edge surface (claim 3). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modification of shape of the elastic member with respect to its contact with the flameproof sheet would be conducted by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is well known in the art that providing a plurality of grooves and/or a plurality of through holes between adjacent members and layers would allow for escape of gases, reduce buildup of heat and pressure, and allow for thermal expansion of the materials, thus providing protection against abnormal heat generation (see paragraph [0004] and Example 1). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of the elastic member , since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 7 , although Takeda discloses all features of the flameproof sheet in independent claim 1, Takeda does not disclose that the flameproof materials include first inorganic fibers and second inorganic fibers that differ from each other with respect to di a meter, shape, and glass transition point. However, since Takeda disclose the use of Mg, La, and Al compounds having sulfate and hydrate groups in particle/fiber form (see paragraph [0042]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that use of two or more of these compounds (each of which would have properties that differ from one another) would have been obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of forming an effective heat absorption layer (see paragraph [0042]) , thus providing protection against abnormal heat generation (see paragraph [0004] and Example 1) . Regarding claims 8 -10 , although Takeda discloses all features of the flameproof sheet in independent claim 1, and in further incorporating the features of claim 7 discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of a predetermined selection of one of the first inorganic fibers or the second inorganic fibers to be larger while the other one is to be smaller (claim 8) , providing one to be linear or acicular while the other one is dendritic or curly (claim 8) , providing one to be amorphous while the other one is crystalline (claim 9), and providing inorganic particles selected among nanoparticles, hollow particles, and porous particles (claim 10). In this instance, routine experimentation of any combination of selected properties of the first inorganic fibers and the second inorganic fibers , as well as the type of inorganic particles, would have been obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of forming an effective heat absorption layer (see paragraph [0042]) , thus providing protection against abnormal heat generation (see paragraph [0004] and Example 1). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape/size of the first and second inorganic fibers and the inorganic particles , since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 14 , although Takeda discloses all features of the flameproof sheet in independent claim 1 and the assembled battery of claims 12 and 13, Takeda does not explicitly disclose that the elastic member is a tubular body that is open at both sides . Although Takeda discloses that the elastic member (31) is made of an elastomer of an elastic deformable material (see paragraph [0029]; and Figure 2) and provided in a layer or sheet form, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a change in shape from a layer or sheet to form a tubular body would have been obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success , for the purpose of increasing flexibility adjacent a surface of an effective heat absorption layer (see paragraph [0042]), thus providing protection against abnormal heat generation (see paragraph [0004] and Example 1). Regarding claims 15 and 16 , although Takeda discloses all features of the flameproof sheet in independent claim 1 and the assembled battery of claims 12 and 13 (while incorporating the features of claim 14 discussed above in terms of the elastic member having a tubular body rather than shaped as a layer or sheet) , Takeda does not disclose that the elastic member has a plurality of grooves extending from one edge surface thereof orthogonal to surfaces thereof facing the flameproof materials to the other edge surface (claim 15 ), as well as a plurality of through holes piercing the elastic member from one edge surface thereof orthogonal to surfaces thereof facing the flameproof materials to the other edge surface (claim 16 ). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modification of shape of the elastic member with respect to its contact with the flameproof sheet would be conducted by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is well known in the art that providing a plurality of grooves and/or a plurality of through holes between adjacent members and layers would allow for escape of gases, reduce buildup of heat and pressure, and allow for thermal expansion of the materials, thus providing protection against abnormal heat generation (see paragraph [0004] and Example 1). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of the elastic member , since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1178 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8am-430pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3458 . 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. /KEVIN P KERNS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 March 1, 2026