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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 17-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are as previously presented. Claims 1-8 and 16 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-16 and 21-24 are currently pending and claims 9-15 and 21-24 are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 9-11, 13-15 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki (JP 2018/055768) in view of Geertz (US 2,209,264).
Regarding claim 9 Oki discloses a fire suppression system (Para. 0002 – “fire extinguishing system”) comprising:
a battery enclosure (Fig. 1, 3) configured to hold a battery (Fig. 1, 27; The battery is not positively recited and therefore the battery enclosure only needs to be capable of holding a battery.);
a liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) storage system (Fig. 1, {9, 31, 33} & Fig. 2, 51); Para. 0032 – “The coolant storage container 31 contains a coolant (for example, carbon dioxide filled in a compressed liquefied state).”) coupled to the battery enclosure (Coupled to the battery enclosure via 7 as shown in Fig. 1); and
a controller (Fig. 1, 37) configured to:
receive an indication of a fire condition associated with the battery enclosure (Para. 0036 – “the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold value (the temperature at which the secondary battery module 27 begins to experience thermal runaway)”); and
control operation of the liquid CO2 storage system to provide liquid CO2 to an interior of the battery enclosure (Para. 0036 – “the container valve 33 is opened and the coolant is supplied into the housing 3”);
wherein the liquid CO2 cools the battery within the battery enclosure (Para. 0033 – “The piping 7 is provided beyond the container valve 33, and when the container valve 33 is opened, the coolant in the coolant storage container 31 passes through the container valve 33 and the piping 7 and is sent into the secondary battery casing 3 to cool the secondary battery module 27.”; The battery is not positively recited and therefore the liquid CO2 only needs to be capable of cooling an article within the battery enclosure.).
Oki does not disclose wherein the liquid CO2 converts into dry ice within the interior to cool the battery.
However, Geertz teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Apparatus For Discharging Fire Extinguishing Mediums”) wherein liquid CO2 converts into dry ice (Pg. 1, Col. 1: Ln. 42-50 describes liquid CO2 converting to dry ice (carbon dioxide snow) when released.; It is well known in the art that when pressurized liquid CO2 is released at ambient conditions can form dry ice (carbon dioxide snow, solid CO2) then further converts to the gaseous phase of CO2 which is further disclosed in US 2,238,693 and in US 2,352,379.) within an interior (Fig. 1, 14; Pg. 2, Col. 1: Ln. 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (liquid CO2 converts into dry ice) as taught by Geertz, into the system disclosed by Oki to provide a blanket of dry ice (carbon dioxide snow) over a fire that is more effective in excluding oxygen from the fire (Pg. 1, Col, 1: ln. 50-54), and yielding the predictable result of cooling the battery and suppressing a fire.
Regarding claim 10, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 9.
Oki further discloses the system further comprising: a manifold (Fig. 1, 7 except for the delivery pipes shown in Annotated Fig. 1) fluidly coupled with a storage tank (Fig. 1, 31) of the liquid CO2 storage system and configured to selectably direct the liquid CO2 to one or more of a plurality of delivery pipes (Annotated Fig. 1; Para. 0033; When valve 33 is open the system selectably directs the liquid to one or more of a plurality of delivery pipes.), each of the plurality of delivery pipes configured to provide liquid CO2 to a corresponding one of a plurality of battery compartments (Fig. 1, 25) of the battery enclosure (Each of the delivery pipes are configured to provide liquid CO2 to a corresponding one of a plurality of battery compartments as shown in Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 1).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
532
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 10.
Oki further discloses wherein the liquid CO2 storage system comprises a valve (Fig. 1, 33) fluidly coupled between the storage tank and the manifold (Fig. 1), the valve actuatable between an open position to allow the liquid CO2 to transfer from the storage tank to the manifold (Para. 0033 & 0036), and a closed position to limit transfer of the liquid CO2 from the storage tank to the manifold (Para. 0033 & 0036), wherein the controller is configured to operate the valve to transition into the open position in response to detecting a fire event at one or more of the plurality of battery compartments (Para. 0036).
Regarding claim 13, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 10.
Oki further discloses wherein each of the plurality of battery compartments comprise one or more battery cells (Fig. 1 shows each compartment with three battery cells (27).).
Regarding claim 14, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 13.
Oki further discloses wherein the one or more battery cells are Lithium Ion battery cells (Para. 0002 – “Secondary batteries such as lithium ion batteries”).
Regarding claim 15, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 10.
Oki further discloses, wherein the controller is configured to generate control signals for the liquid CO2 storage system (Para. 0075 – “under the control of the control unit 37”) and the manifold to provide a metered amount of liquid CO2 into each of the plurality of battery compartments (Para. 0075 recites “container valve 33 is opened, the selection valve 51A is opened, and the amount of coolant is adjusted by the coolant adjustment mechanism 9” and adjusting the amount of coolant provides a metered amount of CO2.).
Regarding claim 21, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 9.
Geertz further teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Apparatus For Discharging Fire Extinguishing Mediums”), wherein the liquid CO2 is maintained in a liquid state as it is discharged (Pg. 1, Col. 1: Ln. 37-41 describes the liquid carbon dioxide being discharged and thus maintained in a liquid state as it is discharged.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (wherein the liquid CO2 is maintained in a liquid state as it is discharged) as taught by Geertz, into the system taught by Oki in view of Geertz to afford a much higher percentage of yield of snow that is more effective in excluding oxygen from the fire (Pg. 1, Col. 1: Ln. 41-55) and yielding the predictable result of the liquid CO2 being maintained in a liquid state as it is discharged into the battery enclosure.
Regarding claim 22, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 9.
Oki further discloses wherein the fire condition comprises any a temperature exceeding a threshold temperature value (Para. 0036 – “the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold value (the temperature at which the secondary battery module 27 begins to experience thermal runaway)”).
Regarding claim 23, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 9.
Oki further discloses wherein the battery comprises a Lithium Ion battery (Para. 0002 – “Secondary batteries such as lithium ion batteries”; The battery is not positively recited and therefore the lithium ion battery is not required due to claim construction.).
Regarding claim 24, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 9.
Oki further discloses they system further comprising a sensor (Para. 0035 –“temperature sensor”) configured to monitor the battery enclosure and provide sensor signals (Para. 0075 – “detected by the temperature sensor … under the control of the control unit 37”) as the indication of the fire condition (Para. 0075).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki in view of Geertz and Ye (CN 110649201).
Regarding claim 12, Oki in view of Geertz teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 10,
Oki further discloses wherein each of the plurality of battery compartments comprises a detector (Para. 0102 – “the temperature of the secondary battery module detected by the temperature sensor”) operatively coupled with the controller (Para. 0075 – “detected by the temperature sensor … under the control of the control unit 37”).
Oki in view of Geertz does not teach wherein each of the plurality of battery compartments comprises an off-gas detector operatively coupled with the controller and configured to detect a presence of electrolyte gas.
However, Ye teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. & Para. 0001 – “A power battery module structure”), wherein a battery compartment (Fig. 1, 1) comprises an off-gas detector (Para. 0025 – “battery electrolyte gas concentration detectors”) operatively coupled with the controller and configured to detect a presence of electrolyte gas (Para. 0025 – “battery electrolyte gas concentration detectors to ensure that the early stage of thermal runaway of the power battery is discovered, and the thermal runaway information is fed back to the controller in time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (an off-gas detector operatively coupled with the controller and configured to detect a presence of electrolyte gas) as taught by Ye, into the system disclosed by Oki in view of Geertz to ensure that the early stage of thermal runaway of battery discovered (Para. 0025) and yielding the predictable result of detecting a thermal runaway condition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the argument regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejections for claims 9-11, 13-15, and 21-24 on pages 6-8 that “Oki fails to disclose, teach, or suggest any system that uses liquid CO2 which converts into dry ice. In particular, Oki fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "control operation of the liquid CO2 storage system to provide liquid CO2 to an interior of the battery enclosure," and "wherein the liquid CO2 converts into dry ice within the interior to cool the battery within the battery enclosure," as recited in Claim 9.”
Firstly, regarding that “Oki fails to disclose, teach, or suggest… wherein the liquid CO2 converts into dry ice within the interior to cool the battery within the battery enclosure." The examiner respectfully disagrees because, the limitation is taught by Oki in view of Geertz not by Oki alone. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Secondly regarding the argument regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejections for claims 9-11, 13-15, and 21-24 on page 6 that “Oki fails to disclose, teach, or suggest control operation of the liquid CO2 storage system to provide liquid CO2 to an interior of the battery enclosure," The examiner respectfully disagrees because, as cited in the office action, Oki explicitly discloses liquid carbon dioxide (Para. 0032 – “The coolant storage container 31 contains a coolant (for example, carbon dioxide filled in a compressed liquefied state), and further discloses the CO2 storage system to provide liquid CO2 to an interior of the battery enclosure (Para. 0036 – “the container valve 33 is opened and the coolant is supplied into the housing 3”). The applicant further contends that “Oki fails to make any discussion as to what phase the agent is in when discharged” on page 7, however patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art and therefore it is reasonable for stored liquid CO2 to remain liquid CO2 until it is provided to an interior of the battery enclosure. See MPEP 2123.
Thirdly the applicant appears to argue that Oki does not disclose a liquid CO2 system because of an embodiment of the invention of Oki that utilizes a specific coolant, namely IG 541 (Para. 0079-0080). However, Oki clearly discloses in Para 0078 that carbon dioxide or IG541 may be used and further cites an embodiment utilizing liquid CO2 and further in claims 7-8. Additionally, MPEP 2123-II states “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” and thus the utilization of the disclosed liquid CO2 is proper and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regards to the argument regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejections for claims 9-11, 13-15, and 21-24 on pages 8-12 that the combination of Oki and Geertz is improper because it would change the principle of operation of Oki and require it would require substantial reconstruction to the system of Oki with respect to MPEP 2143.01-VI, the examiner respectfully disagrees because firstly the principal operation of Oki does not change. The principal operation of Oki is “ cooling a large-scale secondary battery system associated with, for example, a power generation facility, using a coolant” (Para. 0001) and the operation remains in tact when the teaching of Geertz, namely “the liquid CO2 converts into dry ice within the interior” is incorporated.
Secondly with regards to the argument that it would require substantial reconstruction to the system of Oki, the examiner respectfully disagrees because as the examiner has already established above Oki discloses the use of liquid CO2 and thus conversion from a gas system to a liquid system is not required. The applicant further contends that “the dual headers of Geertz are essential in order to provide the liquid carbon dioxide,” however the examiner respectfully disagrees because Geertz is only relied upon for the teaching of “the liquid CO2 converts into dry ice within the” and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that controlling different conditions such as pressure, temperature as described in claim 1 of Geertz will achieve this effect and Oki already discloses that “the piping is covered with heat insulating material” in para 0017 which would assist in the known technique. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regards to the argument regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejections for claims 9-11, 13-15, and 21-24 on page 12 that “Oki inherently teaches away from the use of liquid carbon dioxide that transforms into ice” (underline for emphasis), the examiner disagrees because as [t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. See MPEP 2123-II.
With regards to the argument regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejections for claims 9-11, 13-15, and 21-24 on pages 12-13 the argument that the modification is improper because it relies on impermissible hindsight and further that “the Examiner has improperly gleaned "wherein the liquid CO2 converts into dry ice within the interior to cool the battery within the battery enclosure," from the Applicant's own specification,” the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner took into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (See MPEP 2145-X-A) and further provided a motivation directly from the teaching reference of Geertz, namely to provide a blanket of dry ice (carbon dioxide snow) over a fire that is more effective in excluding oxygen from the fire (Pg. 1, Col, 1: ln. 50-54), and the invention of Oki in view of Geertz arrives at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
April 20, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights