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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 18/029,884 and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 12/19/2025.
Claims 1-12 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 10-11 have been amended, claim 3 is canceled, and new claim 13 is added. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 2020/0101335 A1) in view of HIROKI (EP 2624332 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2. LIU teaches a battery fire extinguishing system through flooding the battery and comprises a water tank, a battery box 301, and 302, water distribution pipe, and water outlet control gates 501-506 (paragraph 0024). The battery boxes 301 and 302 each have a battery space for accommodating the battery (paragraph 0024). The water distribution pipe 80 is connected to the water tank and the battery boxes, and at least one water outlet is disposed in the battery boxes (paragraph 0024). The water outlet control gates are provided, and water is discharged when the batteries are burned or fired, so that the water solution floods the batteries in the battery bodes to extinguish the fire (paragraph 0024). A sealed automatic sprinkler is used as the water outlet control gates 501-506 (paragraph 0025). As soon as the set automatic sprinkling temperature is reached, the sealed automatic sprinkler will burst and then automatically sprinkle water, thus making the water solution of the water solution container inject into the battery boxes so that the batteries are flooded, thereby achieving the fire extinguishing effect (paragraph 0025). The combination of the battery boxes and the water tank are taken to be the claimed battery rack, and includes a pack frame (see Figure 2B). Each of the battery boxes include batteries (paragraph 0024) and are taken to be the at least one battery pack. The battery boxes are taken to be the back frame, and have a height greater than the battery (see Figure 2b). The sprinklers then are the sealed automatic sparklers, and are burst to discharge the water (paragraph 0025). This is taken to be the service plug that is configured to open inside the battery pack.
LIU teaches the sealed automatic sprinkler is used to control the gates 501-506, so that when the set automatic sprinkling temperature is reached, the sealed automatic sprinkler will burst and then automatically sprinkle water (paragraph 0025). Thus LIU teaches coolant, being the water, is injected into the battery box when an abnormal situation occurs (paragraph 0025). LIU doesn’t teach that when an internal pressure of the at least one battery pack rises above a predetermined pressure. However, this limitation is taken to be a statement of intended use and is not being given patentable weight. The Examiner notes that LIU teaches the response is in view of temperature, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an increase in temperature would also have an increase in pressure.
LIU teaches the control gates 501-506 which are taken to be the claimed service plugs. However, LIU does not explicitly teach that the gates 501-506 are configured to disconnect an electrical connection of the battery pack.
HIROKI teaches a battery pack 20, where water may be poured into the pack in case of an emergency (paragraph 0022). The battery pack includes a cover with a service plug 22 (paragraph 0022). The service plug 22 has an electrically insulated structure and is configured to shut off the high voltage circuit in the battery pack in case of emergency (paragraph 0023). When the vehicle is put in an emergency situation the plug can be removed so that water can be readily poured into the battery pack (paragraph 0036).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the control gates of LIU to have the function of electrically disconnecting the battery case as taught by HIROKI for the gates of LIU as LIU teaches such a feature is beneficial that when an emergency happens the electrically conducting components can short circuit (paragraph 0019). Therefore it would have been obvious at the time the invention to include the electrical disconnect of HIROKI for the battery packs and rack of LIU in order to help prevent short circuit in the case of emergency.
With respect to claims 4-5. LIU teaches as seen in Figure 2B the sprinklers are located on an upper surface of the battery pack. Similarly there is the distribution pipes 80-83 which are disposed above at least the respective battery boxes 301 and 302 being the pack frames (see Figure 2B and paragraph 0024).
With respect to claim 6. LIU teaches the coolant system uses the sprinkler (paragraph 0025).
With respect to claim 7. LIU teaches the sealed automatic sprinkler (paragraph 0025). The element of the sprinkler that bursts then is taken to be the claimed service plug, and therefore is taken to be disposed close to the sprinkler (paragraph 0025).
With respect to claim 10. LIU teaches the battery fire extinguishing system can be applied to an electric vehicle (paragraph 0036).
With respect to claim 11. LIU teaches the system includes a control host 20 and at least a first and second battery boxes, 301-302, which are stacked on top each other in a height direction of the battery rack (paragraph 0024 and Figure 2B). The battery system may be used as a storage system, including for at least a vehicle (paragraph 0036) and therefore it is reasonable that the battery packs are electrically connected to each other.
With respect to claim 12. LIU teaches batter fire extinguishing system usable in an electric vehicle (paragraph 0036) and is taken to be the claimed energy storage system.
With respect to claim 13. HIROKI teaches the service plug 22 which includes a plug cover 40 (paragraph 0024). In the case of an emergency situation the plug can be removed so that water can be poured in (paragraph 0036). Similarly LIU teaches an automatic fire extinguishing when the battery is on fire (paragraph 0014). When it is detected that the battery is fired (paragraph 0018-0019) the battery may be flooded to extinguish the fire (paragraph 0020). The state of firing is taken to cause an increase in the internal pressure, and in view of HIROKI the plug may include a cover that may be opened. Further when it is opened it allows for the fire extinguishing solution to enter. Therefore the combination of LIU and HIROKI is taken to meet this limitation.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 2020/0101335 A1) in view of HIROKI (EP 2624332 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of SHIMIZU (JP 2016171028 A).
Claim 8 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of LIU Nd HIROKI, and claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8. LIU teaches the battery pack frame as noted above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the battery pack fame includes one cable through-hole portion with one cable passed there through to connect to the battery pack.
SHIMIZU teaches a case 12 wherein cables 14 are inserted into the case through holes formed in the case to electrically connect the battery cells and battery packs together (paragraphs 0008 and Figures 1-2). The cables are used for output to an external device (paragraph 0009). SHIMIZU then teaches a cable sealing member 18 mounted in the cable through hole (paragraphs 0010 and 0040 and Figure 5). The sealing member is attached to improve the dustproof and waterproof properties where the cable is inserted into the housing (paragraph 0010).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the cable through hole, electrical cable, and sealing member of SHIMIZU to electrically connect the battery packs of LIU, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results, as SHIMIZU teaches that these elements are beneficial in order to electrically connect the battery pack to external devices.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/029,335 in view of LIU (US 2020/0101335 A1) and HIROKI (EP 2624332 A1). Application ‘335 claims a battery rack, including a battery pack, and a pack frame accommodating the battery pack, and having a height greater than a height of the battery pack (claim 1). Further there is coolant which is injected to submerge the battery pack in the coolant (claims 2-3). Application ‘335 does not explicitly claim a service plug.
LIU teaches a battery fire extinguishing system (paragraph 0024) that includes a sealed automated sprinkler (paragraph 0025), the seal being the claimed service plug.
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary kill in the art would have been motivated to include the sealed automatic sprinkler to control the coolant injected into the battery pack of Application ‘335, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Application ‘335 does not explicitly claim the service plug configured to disconnect an electrical connection.
HIROKI teaches a battery pack 20, where water may be poured into the pack in case of an emergency (paragraph 0022). The battery pack includes a cover with a service plug 22 (paragraph 0022). The service plug 22 has an electrically insulated structure and is configured to shut off the high voltage circuit in the battery pack in case of emergency (paragraph 0023). When the vehicle is put in an emergency situation the plug can be removed so that water can be readily poured into the battery pack (paragraph 0036).
Therefore at the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the service plug which is configured to shut off the voltage circuit of HIROKI for the battery rack of application ‘335 in order to protect the battery and prevent short circuit in the case of an emergency.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/020,590 in view of LIU (US 2020/0101335 A1). Application ‘590 claims a battery rack, including a battery pack, and a pack frame accommodating the battery pack, and having a height greater than a height of the battery pack (claim 1). Further there is coolant which is injected to submerge the battery pack in the coolant (claims 2-3). Application ‘335 does not explicitly claim a service plug.
LIU teaches a battery fire extinguishing system (paragraph 0024) that includes a sealed automated sprinkler (paragraph 0025), the seal being the claimed service plug.
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary kill in the art would have been motivated to include the sealed automatic sprinkler to control the coolant injected into the battery pack of Application ‘590, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Application ‘590 does not explicitly claim the service plug configured to disconnect an electrical connection.
HIROKI teaches a battery pack 20, where water may be poured into the pack in case of an emergency (paragraph 0022). The battery pack includes a cover with a service plug 22 (paragraph 0022). The service plug 22 has an electrically insulated structure and is configured to shut off the high voltage circuit in the battery pack in case of emergency (paragraph 0023). When the vehicle is put in an emergency situation the plug can be removed so that water can be readily poured into the battery pack (paragraph 0036).
Therefore at the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the service plug which is configured to shut off the voltage circuit of HIROKI for the battery rack of application ‘590 in order to protect the battery and prevent short circuit in the case of an emergency.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in vie of LIU have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of LIU (US 2020/0101335 A1) in view of HIROKI (EP 2624332 A1).
Applicant argues on page 5 that claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitations of claim 3 as well as that the service plug is configured to disconnect an electrical connection of the battery pack. On page 6 Applicant argues that LIU’s automatic sprinkler is not mounted on a pack case and configured to open to the battery pack and is not configured to disconnect an electrical connection. This argument is persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are made in view of HIROKI.
HIROKI teaches a battery pack where water may be poured into the pack in case of an emergency (paragraph 0022). The service plug is electrically insulating and is configured to shut off the high voltage circuit in the battery pack in case of emergency (paragraph 0023). Therefore HIROKI explicitly teaches a service plug that is configured to disconnect an electrical connection of the battery pack.
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722