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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-14 are pending in the application and are considered below. Claim 7 is canceled, claim 10 was previously canceled, and claims 11-14 are newly added. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 8 August 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-14 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 1 recites the limitations "the fire extinguishing unit" in line 8-9 and “the spray pipe” in line 13. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “a thin-film portion” in line 14 renders the claim indefinite because a “thin film” was already positively recited in line 11. As a result, it is unclear if line 14 requires a second “thin film”, or if it is referring to the “thin film” that was already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the drawings.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 11-14 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “a spray pipe”. It is unclear if the recitation of “a spray pipe” of claim 6 and “the spray pipe” of claim 1 are the same structure or different structures. For the purpose of examination, the former interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the drawings.
Claim 8 is rejected for depending from indefinite claim 6.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky et al. (US 9,093,726) in view of Cho et al. (US 2022/0328906).
Regarding Claim 1, Prilutsky discloses:
A fire extinguishing system (Fig. 6, 501 combined with 601, 107 and 301 or entire structure) for an energy storage device (600) that includes a battery rack (105) for accommodating a battery module (101), the fire extinguishing system comprising:
a sensing unit (Fig. 4, 403, 301) configured to detect when a value of one or more of a temperature of the battery module (Prilutsky discloses detecting temperature to assess occurrence of thermal runaway event, interpreted as a threshold at which the battery temperature exceeds a desired value, Col. 5, ll. 56-58), a voltage of the battery module, or smoke from the battery module is higher than a preset threshold value; and
a fire extinguishing unit (Fig. 6, 501, 601, 107) configured to provide a fire extinguishing agent to the battery module when the sensing unit detects that the value is higher than the preset threshold value (Prilutsky discloses initiating the fire extinguishing system based on temperature, Col. 3, ll. 1-3 and Col. 6, ll. 29-31), the fire extinguishing unit including a heat-sensitive member (Fig. 13, 1305 and 1301 combined form the heat sensitive member), wherein:
the heat-sensitive member is positioned at a battery cell vent hole for a battery cell in the battery module (Col. 7 ll. 40-45 describes that 107 should be placed adjacent a cell cap surface if the cell cap surface has a vent on it), the heat-sensitive member including a thin film (1301) covering a spray hole (1303) in a conduit (107), wherein the heat-sensitive member includes:
a body that surrounds the spray pipe (col. 8, ln. 27-28; fig. 13), and
a thin-film portion (1301) is disposed in a region corresponding the spray hole (fig. 13), and
the thin film of the heat-sensitive member is configured to allow the fire extinguishing agent into the vent hole by being melted when a temperature of the heat-sensitive member reaches a predetermined temperature (Col. 8 ll.23-27, since the material has a lower melting point than the conduit, it will melt clearing the spray hole and allowing fire extinguishing agent into the vent hole).
Prilutsky does not disclose that the thin-film portion has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the body.
Cho teaches a fire extinguishing system (200, par. 2) for an energy storage device (100) that includes a battery rack (par. 51; fig. 1) for accommodating a battery module (101), the fire extinguishing system comprising a heat-sensitive member comprising a spray pipe (610; see also par. 79 and 88 – flow portions 220 and 320, respectively) with a spray hole (230), a body (640) attached to the spray pipe (fig. 7c), and a thin-film portion (641) that has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the body (fig. 7c) and is disposed in a region corresponding to the spray hole (fig. 7c).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire extinguishing system of Prilutsky such that the thin-film portion has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the body, as taught by Cho, since this was known to shorten the time for the thin-film portion to melt and open the spray hole (Cho, par. 96), which would provide a more rapid response to a fire.
Regarding claim 11, Prilutsky in view of Cho discloses the fire extinguishing system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the battery rack includes a plurality of battery racks to support a plurality of battery modules, and wherein the plurality of battery racks include a plurality of main frames to support the conduit and a sub-frame for supporting the plurality of battery modules. It is noted that the recitations of “the battery rack” and “battery module” occur within the context of the preamble, and are not interpreted to be positive recitations of these structures but only to limit the claimed fire extinguishing system. Therefore, since the fire extinguishing system of Prilutsky in view of Cho is configured as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is further configured for the energy storage system recited by claim 11.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky in view of Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et. al. (US 2022/0359947).
Regarding Claim 2, Prilutsky in view of Cho discloses all of the elements of Claim 1. In addition, Prilutsky discloses:
The fire extinguishing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the sensing unit includes a first sensor (Fig. 4, 403) installed inside or outside the battery module to detect one or more of the temperature of the battery module or the voltage of the battery module,
Prilutsky in view of Cho does not disclose the sensing unit includes a second sensor installed outside the battery module to detect the smoke from the battery module, and the first sensor and the second sensor communicate with the fire extinguishing unit.
Lee teaches the sensing unit includes a second sensor (Lee, Fig. 3, 370) installed outside the battery module to detect the smoke from the battery module (Lee, p. 4, paragraph 63, last sentence), and the first sensor (Prilutsky, Fig. 4, 403; or analogously, Lee, Fig. 3, 360) and the second sensor communicate with the fire extinguishing unit (Prilutsky, Fig. 4, 403; temperatures from temperature sensor 403 are communicated from controller 301 to valve 601 through signal cables to allow gas from source 501 to flow to conduit 107, Col. 6, ll. 15-18; or analogously, Lee, Fig. 3, sensor 360 communicates with tank 320 through signal cables and controller 350).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee Fig. 3
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prilutsky in view of Cho with a second sensor as taught by Lee as an alternate means of engaging the fire extinguishing system.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky in view of Cho, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2022/0123,383 to Seunghyun et. al. (“Seunghyun”).
Regarding Claim 3, Prilutsky in view of Cho discloses all of the elements of Claim 1, but not further wherein a first predetermined temperature at which the heat-sensitive member starts to melt is 80 °C, and wherein a second predetermined temperature at which the heat-sensitive member fully melts is 250 °C.
Seunghyun teaches however wherein a first predetermined temperature at which the heat-sensitive member starts to melt is 80 °C, and wherein a second predetermined temperature at which the heat-sensitive member fully melts is 250 °C. (Melting point is a physical property of a material. In paragraph [0006] second sentence, Seunghyun teaches the use of polymers such as polyethylene and polypropylene as separators in batteries. The instant application lists polyethylene and polypropylene as acceptable materials for the heat sensitive member (Instant application [0071] second to last sentence). Thus, the polymers of Seunghyun will have the same melting range as claimed. (MPEP 211.01 (I)). Seunghyun also teaches damage to the polymer separators can lead to thermal runaway. Prilutsky teaches that a breach point or a second material should have a melting temperature that corresponds to a preset temperature, and the preset temperature should correspond to a thermal runaway event or a precursor to a thermal runaway event. (Paraphrased from Prilutsky, col. 2, ll. 25-40).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat-sensitive member of Prilutsky in view of Cho with the polypropylene and polyethylene of Seunghyun to ensure the fire extinguishing system would activate prior to, or shortly after the start of thermal runaway.
Regarding Claim 4, Prilutsky in view of Cho discloses all of the elements of claim 1, but not further, wherein thin film of the heat-sensitive member includes one or more of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or perfluoroalkoxy alkane.
Seunghyun however teaches wherein thin film of the heat-sensitive member includes one or more of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or perfluoroalkoxy alkane. (In paragraph [0006] second sentence, Seunghyun teaches the use of polymers such as polyethylene and polypropylene as separators in batteries. Seunghyun also teaches damage to the polymer separators can lead to thermal runaway. Prilutsky teaches that a breach point or a second material should have a melting temperature that corresponds to a preset temperature, and the preset temperature should correspond to a thermal runaway event or a precursor to a thermal runaway event. (Paraphrased from Prilutsky, col. 2, ll. 25-40)).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat-sensitive material of Prilutsky in view of Cho with the polypropylene or polypropylene of Seunghyun to ensure the fire extinguishing system would activate prior to, or soon after the start of thermal runaway.
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky in view of Cho, and further in view of Lee and United States Patent No. 4,819,732 to Laumeister. (“Laumeister”).
Regarding Claim 5, Prilutsky in view of Cho discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Prilutsky discloses:
further comprising: a supply unit (see Fig. 6) which includes a chemical container (501) for storing the fire extinguishing agent,
PNG
media_image2.png
384
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prilutsky Fig. 6
a main valve (601) configured to open and close the chemical container (col. 6, ll. 17-18),
and, a controller (301) configured to control the main valve. (col. 6 ll. 14-17)
Prilutsky does not disclose a leak detector configured to detect a leak of the chemical container, an adjustment device configured to regulate a discharge pressure of the fire extinguishing agent discharged from the chemical container.
Lee teaches an adjustment device (Lee, 312, paragraph [0066]) configured to regulate a discharge pressure of the fire extinguishing agent discharged from the chemical container, (Lee, paragraph [0028])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fire extinguishing system of Prilutsky in view of Cho with the adjustment device of Lee to increase the length of time at which the fire extinguishing system operates at the proper pressure with a constant flow rate. (Lee, paragraph [0028], first sentence).
Laumeister teaches a leak detector (Laumeister, 50, col. 2, Il. 39-49) configured to detect a leak of the chemical container, (Laumeister, col.2, Il. 42-45).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fire extinguishing system to Prilutsky in view of Cho with the adjustment device of Lee and the leak detector of Laumeister to indicate if a leak has occurred. (Laumeister, col.2, Il. 42-45).
Regarding Claim 6, Prilutsky in view of Cho, Lee, and Laumeister teach the limitations of Claim 5. In addition, Prilutsky discloses:
a spray pipe (107)
the spray pipe has the spray hole that penetrates the spray pipe at a position corresponding to the vent hole, and (col. 7 ll. 42-45, describes that 107 should be placed adjacent a cell cap surface if the cell cap surface has a vent on it)
the thin film portion of the heat-sensitive member is disposed at a position to block the spray hole. (see Fig. 13)
Prilutsky does not disclose: a main pipe connected to the chemical container; a branch pipe connected to the main pipe; and a spray pipe connected to the branch pipe.
Lee however teaches wherein the fire extinguishing unit includes: a main pipe (Lee, 333A, see annotated Fig. 12) connected to the chemical container; a branch pipe (Lee, 338) connected to the main pipe; and a spray pipe (Prilutsky, 107 oriented as per Lee annotated Fig. 12) connected to the branch pipe.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify spray pipe of Prilutsky in view of Cho into the form of the main pipe and branch pipe as taught by Lee, to align the spray pipe with the batteries in the battery rack and maintain more equal pressure across all spray lines.
PNG
media_image3.png
418
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee Fig. 12 (Annotated)
Regarding Claim 8, Prilutsky in view of Cho, Lee, and Laumeister discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6. Lee further teaches wherein a spraying pressure of the fire extinguishing agent that has passed through the adjustment device is less than a pressure within the chemical container. (Lee paragraph [0028)).
Regarding Claim 9, Prilutsky in view of Cho, Lee, and Laumeister discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Prilutsky further discloses wherein the controller is configured to open the main valve when the sensing unit detects that a value of one or more of a temperature of the battery module, a voltage of the battery module, or smoke from the battery module is higher than the preset threshold value. (Col. 6, II. 29-31).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilutsky in view of Cho, and further in view of Ll et al. (US 2020/0197735).
Regarding claims 12-14, Prilutsky in view of Cho discloses the fire extinguishing system described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein,
if the sensing unit detects a temperature one degree above the preset threshold value, a battery management system may determine an abnormality in a battery cell, regarding claim 12; or,
if the sensing unit detects a temperature rise of 5 degrees or more per second twice in a row, a battery management system may determine an abnormality in a battery cell, regarding claim 13; or,
if the sensing unit detects a voltage above the preset threshold value per second twice in a row, a battery management system may determine an abnormality in a battery cell; regarding claim 14.
Ll teaches a battery safety system having a sensing unit (12/8) and a battery management system (11, see par. 68, 116) wherein,
if the sensing unit detects a temperature above a preset threshold value, a battery management system may determine an abnormality in a battery cell (par. 116); or,
if the sensing unit detects a temperature rise, a battery management system may determine an abnormality in a battery cell (par. 32 – “rapid temperature rise”); or,
if the sensing unit detects a voltage above the preset threshold value per second, a battery management system may determine an abnormality in a battery cell (par. 68, 116).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the fire extinguishing system of Prilutsky in view of Cho such that if the sensing unit detects a temperature above a preset threshold value, or a temperature rise or, a voltage above the preset threshold value per second, a battery management system may determine an abnormality in a battery cell, as taught by Ll, since each of these characteristics were known to be indications that a fire may occur.
Prilutsky in view of Cho and Ll still does not disclose that the temperature is one degree above the preset threshold, or the temperature rise is 5 degrees or more per second twice in a row, or the voltage preset value per second is detected twice in a row. Nevertheless, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II. The system of Prilutsky in view of Cho and Ll is capable of detecting a temperature above a threshold, and a temperature rise, and a voltage; therefore, it can be operated in the manner further recited by each of claims 12-14. Further, one having ordinary skill would find it obvious to set the battery management system to report an abnormality when the temperature is one degree above the preset threshold, or the temperature rise is 5 degrees or more per second twice in a row, or the voltage preset value per second is detected twice in a row since these would provide the desired value between taking the firefighting action quickly enough, but not too quickly or when the threat of fire is not determined to be present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection over Prilutsky in view of Cho; therefore, the rejections do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights