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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman et al. (US 20190359070 A1, published 28 Nov 2019) in view of Sugeno (US 20190334143 A1, published 31 Oct 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Soliman et al. discloses a battery pack (1) comprising: a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells (7); a case (wall 4) configured to accommodate the battery module (7), and comprising an upper cover (upper battery wall 4, 11 and extinguishing agent reservoir 5); and a fire extinguishing material (extinguishing agent 6) provided in the upper cover of the case (reservoir 5) to fall into the case when a flame occurs ([0033-0034]; Figs. 1-2). Soliman further discloses that the upper cover (4, 11, reservoir 5) comprises: a lower plate having at least one hole (perforated plate 10) formed therein; a deformation layer (reservoir wall 8) positioned on an upper side of the lower plate (10) and deformed by flame; and an upper plate (upper battery wall 4) coupled to the lower plate to cover the fire extinguishing material (6), wherein the fire extinguishing material (6) may be disposed on the deformation layer (8, [0033-0034]; Figs. 1-2). Soliman et al. does not clearly disclose fixing portions formed both ends of the deformation layer, or stoppers in contact with the fixing portions.
Sugeno discloses an upper cover (lid 13); and a fire extinguishing material (liquid 16) provided in the upper cover (13) of the case (cell tray 12) to fall into the case when a flame occurs ([0030]). Sugeno further discloses fixing portions (eyelets 24) formed at both ends of the fire extinguishing material (16), and stoppers (side edge of 14 and 15, as shown in Figs. 2b, 2c) in contact with the fixing portions (24) formed in an upper plate (14) and a lower plate (15, [0036, 0038]; see Figs. 2b, 2c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add fixing portions to both ends of the deformation layer of Soliman, and stoppers in contact with those fixing portions in the upper plate and lower plate of Soliman, as taught by Sugeno, to fix the deformation later and fire extinguishing material in place within the upper cover. While Sugeno does not teach a deformation layer, a deformation layer is present between the fire extinguishing material and lower plate in the teachings of Soliman, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by adding fixing portions to both ends of the fire extinguishing material as taught by Sugeno, those fixing portions would also be formed at both ends of the deformation layer. Furthermore, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Soliman further discloses that the deformation layer (8) is made of an elastomer ([0018]), which is a material that melts in a flame in order to allow the fire extinguishing material (6) to fall through the hole of the lower plate (10) when a flame occurs ([0016]). Therefore, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Soliman further discloses that the fire extinguishing material (6) comprises Novec 1230® ([0014]), which is a fire extinguishing liquid provided as an example by the instant specification (instant spec. pg. 9). Therefore, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. As discussed regarding claim 4, Soliman discloses that the fire extinguishing material (6) comprises Novec 1230® ([0014]), which is identified as a fluorinated ketone by the instant specification (see pg. 2 of amendments to the specification, regarding amendments to pg. 9). Therefore, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sugeno teaches fixing portions (24) which are formed at both ends of the fire extinguishing material (16, [0036, 0038]; Figs. 2b, 2c). While Sugeno does not teach a deformation layer, a deformation layer is present between the fire extinguishing material and lower plate in the teachings of Soliman, and thus it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adding fixing portions to both ends of the fire extinguishing material as taught by Sugeno, as well as at both ends of the deformation layer of modified Soliman. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Furthermore, in order for the fixing portions to extend to each of the upper plate and lower plate, as shown in Figures 2b and 2c of Sugeno, with both the deformation layer and fire extinguishing material disposed between, the fixing portions must have a thickness greater than a thickness of the deformation layer, and protrude upward from the lower plate. Therefore, modified Soliman meets the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. While Figure 2c of Sugeno only shows a stopper (side edge of 15) formed at one end of the lower plate (15), Figures 2b and 2d make clear that the lower plate (15) extends across the length of the upper cover (13, see Fig. 2d), and fixing portions (24) are located at both ends of the upper cover (13, [0036], see Fig. 2b). Sugeno also teaches that the fixing portions are set in the vicinity of the side edge (stopper), as shown in Figure 2c, and thus a portion of each stopper (side edge of 15) is caught by the fixing portion (24). Therefore, modified Soliman meets the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Soliman further discloses a vehicle (2) comprising the battery pack (1) according to claim 1 ([0035]; Fig. 3). Therefore, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Furthermore, as discussed above regarding claim 7, while Sugeno does not teach a deformation layer, a deformation layer is present between the fire extinguishing material and lower plate in the teachings of Soliman, and thus it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adding fixing portions to both ends of the fire extinguishing material as taught by Sugeno, as well as at both ends of the deformation layer of modified Soliman. In order for the fixing portions to extend to each of the upper plate and lower plate, as shown in Figures 2b and 2c of Sugeno, with both the deformation layer and fire extinguishing material disposed between, the fixing portions must have a thickness greater than a thickness of the deformation layer (increased thickness), and protrude upward from the lower plate.
The fixing portions still are not “formed by a section of the deformation layer,” however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such a modification could comprise integrating the fixing portions of Sugeno and the deformation layer of Soliman into a single structure. The material of the deformation layer is not limited, therefore the integrated sections which meet the claimed “fixing portions” can be considered as part of the deformation layer. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Soliman et al. does not teach that the fixing portions are integrally formed with the deformation layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the fixing portions of Sugeno with the deformation layer of Soliman. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Soliman et al. meets the limitations of claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Soliman et al. is the closest prior art. However, neither Soliman et al. or Sugeno as references above disclose stoppers comprising a first portion extending upwardly from an end of the lower plate; a second portion extending horizontally from the first portion; and a third portion extending vertically from the second portion, wherein the third portion is provided to be caught by the fixing portion. There is no clear teaching or motivation to modify the shape of the stoppers so as to be caught by the fixing portion in this manner, and therefore the subject matter of claim 9 would be allowable if written in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 2 October 2025, with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 2 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above regarding claim 1, while Sugeno does not teach a deformation layer, a deformation layer is present between the fire extinguishing material and lower plate in the teachings of Soliman, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by adding fixing portions to both ends of the fire extinguishing material as taught by Sugeno, those fixing portions would also be formed at both ends of the deformation layer. Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728