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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In view of amended claim 1, Olivo (US-20200139178-A1) is newly applied to modify Liu. Olivo discloses an apparatus for battery fire suppression with a battery tray corresponding to a support frame (see e.g., Olivo; figs. 11-16), the battery tray disposed below battery modules, wherein the support frame has an area wider than a bottom area of the battery module (see e.g., Olivo; [0057], figs. 11-15, wherein the battery modules are supported by the shelf 1120 with vertical support posts 1110 on either side, the shelf having a depression with depth such that the area of the support frame would be wider than a bottom area of the battery module), wherein the support frame has a step portion having a predetermined height at the edge of the support frame to hold coolant up to a predetermined height when the coolant leaks from the water tank frame (see e.g., Olivo; fig. 13, regarding the edge of the shelf which has a vertical lip, the vertical lip would thereby perform the function of holding up the coolant); and a drain pipe connected to an internal space formed by the step portion such that the held coolant exits from the support frame through the drain pipe (see e.g., Olivo; figs. 11-13, [0057], regarding drain holes such as 1122 and 1123, fig. 13 and [0060] describe how the overflow holes 1123 have a height which therefore corresponds to a drain pipe structure). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack frame of Liu by providing a support frame having a wider bottom area, a step portion, and a drain pipe as provided by Olivo below the water tank frame of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to properly address thermal runaway of batteries (see e.g., Olivo; [0008]) and delivering extinguishing agent closer to a fire (see e.g., Olivo; [0041]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US-20200101335-A1), and in further view of Olivo (US-20200139178-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a battery pack frame (see e.g., Liu; fig. 2b, [0024], regarding battery boxes 301 and 302) comprising: a water tank frame including a space configured to accommodate at least one battery pack (see e.g., Liu; [0024], fig. 2b, regarding water tank 10, fig. 2b, regarding battery boxes 301 and 302 having a battery space for accommodating at least one battery and which may also be considered as a water tank frame as they accommodate the battery packs 91 and 92 and accommodate water in the instance of a thermal event, [0024], regarding having two batteries accommodated in the embodiment of fig. 2b, batteries 91 and 93 thereby forming a battery pack with multiple cells; multiple battery cells can be provided to form the battery pack), the at least one battery pack being used for a predetermined period of time or below a predetermined capacity (a battery pack must necessarily include the features of being used for a predetermined period of time and below a predetermined capacity because any amount of time can be predetermined and all battery packs have a limited capacity which can also be predetermined; any quantity can be predetermined), wherein a height of the battery pack frame is greater than a height of the at least one battery pack (see e.g., Liu; fig. 2b, regarding battery boxes 301 and 302 with a higher height than battery packs 91 and 93).
Liu does not explicitly disclose a support frame disposed below the water tank frame, wherein the support frame has an area wider than a bottom area of the water tank frame such that edges of the support frame extend outward from side walls of the water tank frame, and wherein the support frame has a step portion having a predetermined height at the edge of the support frame to hold coolant up to the predetermined height when the coolant leaks from the water tank frame; and a drain pipe connected to an internal space formed by the step portion such that the held coolant exits from the support frame through the drain pipe. However, Olivo discloses an apparatus for battery fire suppression with a battery tray corresponding to a support frame (see e.g., Olivo; figs. 11-16), the battery tray disposed below battery modules, wherein the support frame has an area wider than a bottom area of the battery module (see e.g., Olivo; [0057], figs. 11-15, wherein the battery modules are supported by the shelf 1120 with vertical support posts 1110 on either side, the shelf having a depression with depth such that the area of the support frame would be wider than a bottom area of the battery module), wherein the support frame has a step portion having a predetermined height at the edge of the support frame to hold coolant up to a predetermined height when the coolant leaks from the water tank frame (see e.g., Olivo; fig. 13, regarding the edge of the shelf which has a vertical lip, the vertical lip would thereby perform the function of holding up the coolant); and a drain pipe connected to an internal space formed by the step portion such that the held coolant exits from the support frame through the drain pipe (see e.g., Olivo; figs. 11-13, [0057], regarding drain holes such as 1122 and 1123, fig. 13 and [0060] describe how the overflow holes 1123 have a height which therefore corresponds to a drain pipe structure). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack frame of Liu by providing a support frame having a wider bottom area, a step portion, and a drain pipe as provided by Olivo below the water tank frame of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to properly address thermal runaway of batteries (see e.g., Olivo; [0008]) and delivering extinguishing agent closer to a fire (see e.g., Olivo; [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 1, wherein the battery pack frame is configured to receive a coolant (see e.g., Liu; fig. 2b, [0024], regarding battery boxes 301 and 302 configured to receive a water solution), and wherein the battery pack frame is configured to submerge the at least one battery pack to a first predetermined heigh with the coolant (see e.g., Liu; [0024], regarding the water solution floods the batteries 91 and 93 in the battery boxes 301 and 302, [0028], regarding flooding the entire battery box with the water solution therefore corresponding with a first predetermined height) when a predetermined condition is detected in the at least one battery pack (see e.g., Liu; [0024], regarding flooding the battery in the predetermined condition of a fire being detected in the battery packs, [0018], regarding heat sensing automatic-sprinkler as the detection device).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 2, wherein the battery pack frame is configured to receive the coolant from at least one feed pipe disposed above the battery pack frame (see e.g., Liu; fig. 2b, [0024], regarding water distribution pipe 80, 81, 82, wherein a section of section 80 of the pipe is disposed above the battery boxes 301 and 302).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 3, wherein the at least one feed pipe includes at least one sprinkler to spray the coolant onto the at least one battery pack (see e.g., Liu; fig. 2b, [0025], regarding feed pipes 80, 81, 82, including automatic-sprinklers as the outlet control gates 501-506 to sprinkle water onto the batteries 91 and 93).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 2, further comprising at least one smoke detection sensor disposed at an upper part of the battery pack frame (see e.g., Liu; fig. 4b, [0019], [0030], regarding a similar embodiment wherein fire sensors 71, 72 are disposed at an upper part of the battery boxes, [0032], regarding the fire sensor may be a smoke sensor), wherein the at least one smoke detection sensor is configured to detect smoke generated from the at least one battery pack (see e.g., Liu; [0031], regarding the fire sensors configured to sense a fire condition and generate a fire occurrence signal, [0032], regarding the fire sensor may be a smoke sensor).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 5, further comprising a sensor support disposed at the upper part of the battery pack frame, wherein the at least one smoke detection sensor is mounted on the sensor support (see e.g., Liu; [0035], fig. 4d, regarding fire sensors disposed on the top of the battery boxes 301, 302; this top area of the battery boxes where the sensors are disposed may correspond to a sensor support area).
Regarding claim 12, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 2, wherein the at least one battery pack is a battery pack used in an electric vehicle (see e.g., Liu; [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 1. Liu also discloses a battery rack (see e.g., Liu; fig. 2b, wherein the stacked frame of 11, 301, 302, may be considered as a battery rack) including the battery pack frames (see e.g., Liu; fig 2b, regarding 301, 302) and the at battery packs (see e.g., Liu; fig 2b, regarding battery packs 91, 93).
Regarding claim 14, modified Liu teaches the battery rack according to claim 13, comprising a plurality of battery pack frames including the at least one battery pack frame (see e.g., Liu; fig. 2b, regarding frames 301 and 302), wherein at least one of the plurality of battery pack frames is stacked on top of an adjacent one of the plurality of battery pack frames in a vertical direction of the battery rack (see e.g., Liu; fig. 2b, regarding frame 301 stacked vertically on top of frame 302).
Regarding claim 15, modified Liu teaches an energy storage system wherein at least one battery rack comprises the battery rack according to claim 13 (see e.g., Liu; [0036], regarding invention used in battery energy storage systems).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the energy storage system comprising a plurality of battery racks. However, Olivo discloses wherein an energy storage system with a fire extinguishing apparatus may comprise a plurality of battery racks (see e.g., Olivo; fig. 19, [0083]-[0084]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the battery rack apparatus of modified Liu to be in an energy storage system comprising a plurality of battery racks as disclosed by Olivo in order to reduce assembly time and labor (see e.g., Olivo; [0083]) and relieve firefighters in instance of thermal runaway (see e.g., Olivo; [0084]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US-20200101335-A1) and Olivo (US-20200139178-A1), and in further view of Shimizu (JP-2016171028-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 2. Liu does not explicitly disclose the battery pack frame comprises at least one cable through-hole portion, wherein at least one electrical cable is passed through the at least one cable through- hole portion to connect to the at least one battery pack. However, Shimizu discloses a case 12 wherein a plurality of cable 14 are inserted into the case 12 via through holes formed in the case to electrically connect the battery cells and battery packs together (see e.g., Shimizu; [0008], figs. 1-2), wherein the cables used in the context of electric vehicles (see e.g., Shimizu; [0079]). Furthermore, the cables are used for output to an external device (see e.g., Shimizu; [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack disclosed by Liu by providing a frame with at least one cable through-hole portion extending through through- holes to connect to the battery pack disclosed by Shimizu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to connect battery pack or cells together with positive cables, negative cables, communication cables, battery cell terminals, and output to an external device (see e.g., Shimizu; [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 9. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one cable sealing member is mounted in the at least one cable through-hole portion. However, Shimizu discloses a cable sealing member 18 (see e.g., Shimizu; fig. 5, [0010], regarding a grommet) mounted in the at least one cable through-hole portion (see e.g., Shimizu; [0040], regarding grommet fitting into the through- holes). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack disclosed by Liu by providing cable sealing members mounted into the cable through-hole portions disclosed by Shimizu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure dustproof and waterproof properties (see e.g., Shimizu; [0040]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US-20200101335-A1), Olivo (US-20200139178-A1), and Shimizu (JP-2016171028-A) (see translation), and in further view of Galaxy "Water Block Cable, Water Resistant Cable, Waterproof Cable." Galaxy, 7 Dec. 2017, web.archive.org/web/20171202162554/www.galaxywire.com/applications/water-block-cable/, Accessed 14 Aug. 2025.
Regarding claim 11, modified Liu discloses the battery pack frame according to claim 9. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one electrical cable has a waterproof sealing coating on an outer surface of the at least one electrical cable. However, Galaxy discloses electrical cables that are waterproof due to a specific jacket material corresponding to a waterproof sealing coating on an outer surface of the cable (see e.g., page 1 "What is Water Block Cable?"). Similar to Shimizu which discloses cables used in the presence of water, Galaxy discloses the use of the cable in water environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack disclosed by Liu to have waterproof cables with waterproof sealing coatings disclosed by Galaxy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have wires that can function in a wet environment (see e.g., page 1 "What is Water Block Cable?").
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US-20200101335-A1) and Olivo (US-20200139178-A1), and in further view of Jeon (US-20190372070-A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Liu teaches the battery pack frame according to claim 1. Liu also discloses the sensors 71 and 72 may be smoke sensors (see e.g., Liu; [0032], fig. 4B).
Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery pack includes a service plug for disconnecting an electrical connection of the battery pack, and a smoke detection sensor is disposed above the service plug. However, Jeon teaches that a service plug for disconnecting an electrical connection of the battery pack (see e.g., Jeon; [0043], fig. 1 regarding the disconnection header unit 120 with service plug unit 110 mounted to the battery system), wherein the manual service disconnect 100 with the service plug 110 may be fixed to the external of the battery case (see e.g., [0039]-[0040], fig. 1). Because Jeon discloses the service plug fixed to the battery case, when applied to the battery cases of Liu, the smoke sensors which are above the battery case will also be disposed above the service plugs (see e.g., Liu; fig. 4B). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack frame of Liu with a service plug for disconnecting an electrical connection of the battery pack which is positioned below the smoke sensor as disclosed by Jeon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a prevent safety-related accidents from occurring during the manufacture, assembly, repair, delivery, etc. of an electric car, and have a manual service disconnect which can be inserted into the battery system even when an internal space of an external casing is insufficient (see e.g., Jeon; [0003]-[0004]).
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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights