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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “112a to 112d” has been used to designate both “hydrogen discharge nozzles” (see paragraphs [56]-[58] of the specification) and “sidewalls” (see paragraphs [58] and [59] of the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “112b” (see paragraphs [56]-[58] of the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“110a” and “110b” (see Figure 1);
“110c” and “110d” (see Figure 2); and
“111” and “130b” (see Figure 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the legal terms “comprising” and “comprises” (in the 1st and 2nd lines, respectively), as well as the phrase that can be implied “The present invention provides…” (in the 1st line).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [40], 1st line, it is believed that “FIGS. 1, 2, and 4” should be changed to “FIGS. 1, 2, 4, and 5” since Figure 5 shows a portion of the reference numbers that Figures 1, 2, and 4 do not illustrate.
With regard to paragraphs [38], [45], [53], [60], [76], [85], [97], [104], [110], and [114], there is no text provided with any of these paragraphs.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 limitation "the battery rack" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the battery rack" with "the at least one battery rack" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one battery rack" in the 2nd line of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the battery pack" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the battery pack" with "the at least one battery pack" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one battery pack" in the 2nd line of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the battery pack" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the battery pack" with "the at least one battery pack" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one battery pack" in the 2nd line of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the outside" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the" with "an" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the catalyst structure" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the catalyst structure" with "the at least one catalyst structure" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 4th line of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the discharge port" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the discharge port" with "the at least one discharge port" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 2nd line of claim 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the discharge port" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the discharge port" with "the at least one discharge port" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 2nd line of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the discharge port" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the discharge port" with "the at least one discharge port" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 2nd line of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the upper side" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the" with "an" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the discharge port" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the discharge port" with "the at least one discharge port" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 2nd line of claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the discharge port" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the discharge port" with "the at least one discharge port" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 2nd line of claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fan" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the fan" with "the at least one fan" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one fan" in the 2nd line of claim 2.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the learning information" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete "the" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the above containers" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the corresponding container" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the" with "a" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the information" bridging the 6th and 7th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete "the" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the data information" in the 7th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete "the" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the location information" bridging the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete "the" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the catalyst structure" in the 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the catalyst structure" with "the at least one catalyst structure" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 4th line of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the surface" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the" with "a" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the catalyst structure" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the catalyst structure" with "the at least one catalyst structure" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 4th line of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the removal" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete "the" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the catalyst structure" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the catalyst structure" with "the at least one catalyst structure" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 4th line of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the catalyst structure" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the catalyst structure" with "the at least one catalyst structure" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 4th line of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the change" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the" with "a" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the arithmetic average result" bridging the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the" with "a" to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the battery pack" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the battery pack" with "the at least one battery pack" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one battery pack" in the 1st line of claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the catalyst structure" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the catalyst structure" with "the at least one catalyst structure" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one catalyst structure" in the 2nd line of claim 13.
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.
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.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0105316 A in view of KR 2017-0137997 A, of which copies of both Korean documents with respective machine translations are provided with this Office Action.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, KR ‘316 discloses an energy storage system (abstract; pages 2-5 of translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS on page 2 of translation; and Figures 1-3), in which the energy storage system (power storage device (10)) includes the following structural features:
a plurality of battery racks (100) that each includes a plurality of battery packs (150) holding a plurality of battery cells (155); and
a container (200) which accommodates the plurality of battery racks (100).
KR ‘316 does not disclose that the energy storage system includes at least one catalyst structure having a catalyst material located in the container.
However, KR ‘997 discloses a battery pack (abstract; pages 2-7 of translation; and Figures 1-4), in which the battery pack includes a catalyst structure having a catalyst material located within a honeycomb structure (100) in a container, wherein the honeycomb structure (100) is coated with a supported catalyst having ability to remove a flammable gas (including hydrogen), for the purpose of improving the flammable gas removing ability (see pages 5 and 6 of translation under the heading Honeycomb Structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the energy storage system disclosed by KR ‘316, by using at least one catalyst structure having a catalyst material located in the container, as taught by KR ‘997, in order to improve the flammable gas removing ability (KR ‘997; see pages 5 and 6 of translation under the heading Honeycomb Structure).
As to the limitations “so that hydrogen leaked from the battery pack reacts with a catalyst material to thus enable recombination into steam” (of independent claim 1) and “wherein hydrogen leaked from the battery pack reacts with a catalyst material so as to ensure recombination into steam” (of independent claim 13), these limitations have no patentable weight (other than the “catalyst material”) since system (apparatus) claims do not require the material being worked upon. Per MPEP 2115, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 2, although KR ‘316 discloses (in Figure 3) that one side of the container (200) includes a discharge port (430), KR ‘316 does not disclose a catalyst structure that is located at the discharge port. However, KR ‘997 discloses a catalyst structure having a catalyst material located within a honeycomb structure (100) in a container, wherein the honeycomb structure (100) is coated with a supported catalyst having ability to remove a flammable gas (including hydrogen), for the purpose of improving the flammable gas removing ability (KR ‘997; see pages 5 and 6 of translation under the heading Honeycomb Structure). With regard to the desired location of the catalyst structure at the discharge port, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the location of the catalyst structure would be selectively positioned near (adjacent) the discharge port, for the purpose of removing flammable gas more efficiently. As to the limitations “in order to discharge the hydrogen leaked from the battery pack from the battery pack to the outside of the container” and “and removes the hydrogen gas moving toward the discharge port”, these limitations have no patentable weight since system (apparatus) claims do not require the material being worked upon. Per MPEP 2115, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 3, although KR ‘316 discloses a nitrogen discharge unit (450) in the container (200), the combined teachings of KR ‘316 and KR ‘997 do not disclose a hydrogen discharge nozzle formed to protrude from the discharge port on the upper side of the container while having a cross-sectional area smaller toward the discharge port side. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a discharge nozzle would be operable to flow any type of gas, wherein the gas is a material to be worked upon per MPEP 2115. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (gas) by a structure (system) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. With regard to the desired location of the discharge port and its relative (tapering) cross-sectional area, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the location of the discharge port would be selectively positioned and/or tapered in a desired manner near or at an upper side of the container, for the purpose of removing gas more efficiently.
Regarding claim 4, KR ‘316 discloses (in Figure 3) that one side of the container (200) includes a fan (discharging unit (470)) provided at the discharge port (430). As to the limitation “in order to induce an ascending airflow with respect to the hydrogen in the container”, this limitation has no patentable weight since system (apparatus) claims do not require the material being worked upon. Per MPEP 2115, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 5, although KR ‘316 discloses the use of one or more oxygen sensors (500,510,520) in Figures 2-4 (also see pages 3 and 4 of translation), neither KR ‘316 nor KR ‘997 discloses a hydrogen concentration measuring means inside the container and being operable to measure a hydrogen gas concentration. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that contemplation of the use of any type of gas sensor(s) would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to measure and control amounts of any type of gas that is present and/or generated within the container.
Regarding claim 6, and also in referring to applicants’ claims 4 and 5 above, KR ‘316 discloses (in Figure 3) that one side of the container (200) includes a fan (discharging unit (470)) provided at the discharge port (430), wherein a control unit that controls fan speed based on a gas concentration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the gas, in order to measure and discharge any type of gas (especially at high temperature) if it is present in excess within the container, for the purpose of reducing risk of damage and/or an explosion if a flammable gas is used. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated control of fan driving speed to expedite any type of excess gas removal.
Regarding claim 7, and also in referring to applicants’ claims 4-6 above, the combined teachings of KR ‘316 and KR ‘997 disclose and/or suggest the energy storage system of independent claim 1 above. In this instance, a hydrogen concentration distribution would be present in the container of KR ‘997, wherein the honeycomb structure (100) of KR ‘997 is coated with a supported catalyst having ability to remove a flammable gas (including hydrogen), for the purpose of improving the flammable gas removing ability (KR ‘997; see pages 5 and 6 of translation under the heading Honeycomb Structure). When taken in view of the combined teachings of KR ‘316 and KR ‘997 in terms of the control unit and gas sensor for measuring any type of gas (as applied to applicants’ claims 5 and 6 above), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that learning information, data information, and location information parameters would be obtained upon routine experimentation of the energy storage system based on combined structural features of KR ‘316 and KR ‘997 above. Regarding the use of different shapes and sizes of containers for which learning information would be estimated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of the container to obtain different estimated learning information, since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, KR ‘997 discloses that the catalyst structure with its catalyst material is located within a honeycomb structure (100) formed in a cordierite honeycomb shape in the form of a Pt/TiO2 coated with platinum (Pt) as a catalyst support (KR ‘997; see pages 5 and 6 of translation under the heading Honeycomb Structure).
Regarding claim 9, although KR ‘997 discloses that the cordierite honeycomb has a cell density of 10 to 600 cells per square inch (CPSI), KR ‘997 does not explicitly disclose a web thickness of 2 to 12 mil. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of cell density and web thickness would be optimized by routine experimentation to increase catalytic efficiency of the cordierite honeycomb. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, although the combined teachings of KR ‘316 and KR ‘997 disclose and/or suggest all features of independent claim 1 above, neither KR ‘316 nor KR ‘997 explicitly discloses the use of a non-contact temperature sensor to measure a temperature of a surface of the catalyst structure using infrared rays, as well as an alarm means that outputs an alarm when temperature exceeds a threshold temperature, both of which are connected to a control unit that determines if hydrogen gas is to be removed. However, since KR ‘997 discloses a honeycomb structure (100) that is coated with a supported catalyst having ability to remove a flammable gas (including hydrogen), for the purpose of improving the flammable gas removing ability (KR ‘997; see pages 5 and 6 of translation under the heading Honeycomb Structure), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the surface of the catalyst structure would necessarily be monitored in terms of temperature and any potential contamination that reduces its efficiency, such that any type of temperature sensor coupled with an alarm that outputs at excessive temperatures, which would in turn be monitored by a control unit, for the purpose of improving safety and efficiency by reducing the risk of excessive pressure and explosion of the flammable gas (hydrogen).
Regarding claim 12, and also in referring to applicants’ claims 10 and 11 above, the combined teachings of KR ‘316 and KR ‘997 disclose and/or suggest the energy storage system of independent claim 1 above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the control unit would be operable to include one or more temperature sensors that measure(s) temperatures over a predetermined period and would readily be set to be below a present explosion threshold temperature, for the purpose of improving safety and efficiency by reducing the risk of excessive pressure and explosion of the flammable gas (hydrogen).
Regarding claim 14, although the combined teachings of KR ‘316 and KR ‘997 disclose and/or suggest all features of independent claims 1 and 13 above, including the catalyst device of KR ‘997 that has a main body having a gas inlet and being accommodated in an inner space formed by the main body and a cover, the combined teachings of KR ‘316 and KR ‘997 do not explicitly disclose that the catalyst device is coupled to extend from an upper end of the battery rack and that the cover has a gas outlet. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that coupling of the catalyst device having a honeycomb structure (100) that is coated with a supported catalyst, as taught by KR ‘997, would be incorporated to extend from an upper end of the battery rack, since any excessive flammable gases (including hydrogen) would rise to the upper end of the battery rack and include a gas outlet at the upper end of the battery rack, and thus be operable to have more efficient discharge/exhaust thereof, for the purpose of improving safety and efficiency by reducing the risk of excessive pressure and explosion of the flammable gas (hydrogen), thus improving the flammable gas removing ability (KR ‘997; see pages 5 and 6 of translation under the heading Honeycomb Structure),
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure. US 6,254,841 and US 9,224,997 are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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 P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 November 26, 2025