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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 and Species A in the reply filed on 5/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/21/26.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-20250375950-A1 (M).
Regarding claim 1, M teaches a laminate (100) for sealing materials comprising: a first layer (101) that contains a flame-retardant silicone rubber compound ([0145], V-0 UL-94 means flame resistant, [0056], “silicone rubber”); and a second layer (102) that contains a fiber-based flame retardant ([0183], “AES”), wherein a content of an organic component ([0175] “organic binder”) in the second layer is 0 to 10% by weight ([0177], 2.5% to 10%, further evidenced by masses in [354], where 60 grams of fibers and 6.5 grams other components including the binder are mixed. The other components account for under 9.8% of the mass of the second layer).
Regarding claim 2, M teaches the second layer has a thickness of 5 mm or less ([0178-179], [0354], see Table 4 where the example has a thickness of 4.17 mm.)
Regarding claim 3, M teaches the flame-retardant silicone rubber compound has a flame retardancy of V-0 or higher in UL94 standards [0145].
Regarding claim 4, M teaches the fiber-based flame retardant contains artificial mineral fiber ([0183], AES is an artificial mineral fiber).
Regarding claim 5, M teaches the artificial mineral fiber is AES wool [0183].
Regarding claim 6, M teaches the first layer is entirely composed of a flame-retardant silicone rubber compound because the compound is silicone based [0056] and has a V-0 UL-94 flame resistance [0145]. The examiner is choosing to interpret the term “flame-retardant silicone rubber compound” to mean a composition containing silicone which produces the fire resistance properties claimed and disclosed by the applicant in claim 3 and [0029-32].
Regarding claim 7, M teaches the layers are laminated together [0361-363]. While M does not explicitly teach this is done by insertion molding, because the resulting laminate is one integrally formed piece, the method of producing this does not matter.
Claim 7 is considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 10, M teaches a sealing material (100) comprising the laminate for sealing materials.
Regarding claim 11, M teaches a battery ([0020] “battery pack”) comprising: two or more cells (202); a heat insulating material (201); a container [0156], wherein the two or more cells and the heat insulating material are housed in the container [0156], the heat insulating material is disposed to divide an inside of the container into two or more compartments (see Fig. 2), the two or more cells are disposed to be divided into two or more of the two or more compartments (see Fig. 2). M teaches the insulating material can be placed on the perimeter of adjacent cells and on top of the battery cells [0156]. Doing so would amount to covering a gap between the insulating material on the sides of the battery cells and the battery container. M teaches the sealing material is used as insulation between adjacent battery cells (see Fig. 2). The instant claim 11 does not prohibit the insulating material from being made from the same material as the sealing material, nor does the specification specify a material for the insulating material. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the insulation between the battery cells maps to the “insulating material” of the instant claim 11, and the insulation on the top of the battery cells maps to the “sealing material”. In this case where the two are made of the same material, then the first layer would necessarily contact the heat insulating material because it is a part of the heat insulating material.
For these reasons, claim 11 is anticipated by the teachings of M.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights