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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 03/27/2026, are accepted and do not introduce new matter.
Previous objections to claims 7 and 14 are overcome by amendment.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4, 10, 11 and 13 are written with statement of “or a combination thereof”. This is alternate language. As such, the limitations that precede this phrase are optional features. So long as the prior art teaches one of the features, it anticipates claim language. That is, the prior art does not need to teach all of the features in these claims; it only needs to teach one of them.
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 3-4 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 3 discloses: “the flame retardant material layer directly contacts the plurality of walls of the concrete main body”. However, this is direct contradiction of independent claim 1, which was amended to disclose: “wherein the flame retardant adhesive layer directly contacts the plurality of walls of the concrete main body ”. As such, it is unclear how the flame retardant material layer can be in direct contact with the walls of the main body, if claim 1 requires that the flame retardant adhesive layer has to be in direct contact to the walls of the main body. This renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 is indefinite for depending on claim 3.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (CN 210490168 U) in view of Bowersock et al (U.S. 2017/0098806). Note: References of Cheng made in parenthesis are referencing the English copy that is provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a movable cabinet (box 1, the box has a hanging part 7 used to hang the box at high places. As such it is considered movable), comprising:
a concrete main body (the body of the box is formed integral with a reinforcing net 2 in which concrete is poured into, see highlighted section of the translation provided by Examiner) comprising a plurality of walls (walls seen in Fig 1, which show the box having 5 walls, plus one door - not shown) forming an accommodating space (opening 4);
a flame retardant material layer (layer 3, wherein layer 3 is disclosed as a gypsum board that when exposed to a fire releases water vapor that extinguishes a flame, see highlighted section of the translation provided by Examiner) disposed on one or more inner surfaces of the plurality of walls in the accommodating space (as seen in Fig 1), wherein the accommodating space is configured to accommodate at least one battery system (as disclosed in the highlighted section of the translation provided by Examiner, the box 1 is used to safely store electronic components/instruments; it is known that these contain batteries of sorts. Nonetheless, Examiner notes that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, as determined in MPEP 2115; therefore, the type of article the cabinet stores does not carry patentable weight over the cabinet and the apparatus of Cheng is deemed capable of storing battery systems in its accommodating space), and the flame retardant material layer is exposed to the accommodating space (as seen in Fig 1, the flame retardant material layer 3 is exposed to the accommodating space 4); and
an adhesive layer disposed between the concrete main body and the flame retardant material layer (adhesive layer disclosed in the highlighted section of the translation provided by Examiner, where it specifies that the flame retardant material layer 3 is fixed to the inner wall of box 1 with an adhesive, i.e. the adhesive layer is between 3 and 1), wherein the adhesive layer directly contacts the plurality of walls of the concrete main body and the flame retardant material layer (the adhesive is used to fix the flame retardant layer 3 to the walls of the concrete box 1, as such it is in direct contact with both 1 and 3).
However, Cheng does not teach the adhesive later being a flame retardant adhesive layer.
Bowersock teaches passive insulation materials wherein refractory clays, such as kaolin as used as binders, i.e. adhesives (see Par 0057) (Examiner notes that Applicant discloses in Par 0043 of their specification that the flame retardant adhesive layer 160 used in their invention is a refractory clay). As such, Bowersock teaches a flame retardant adhesive in the form of a refractory clay.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Bowersock to provide the adhesive layer as a flame retardant adhesive layer in the form of refractory clay, since these materials contain water, which at highly elevated temperatures volatizes off in an endothermic manner (as disclosed in Par 0057 of Bowersock), thus providing further protection to the box in the event of a fire.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, wherein the concrete main body and the flame retardant material layer as a whole are configured to withstand a flame having a temperature equaling or exceeding 600°C (Cheng and Bowersock teach a device with the same structure and materials, as claimed in claim 1, as such they are deemed capable of performing the function of withstand a flame having a temperature equaling or exceeding 600°C).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, wherein the concrete main body is formed of an ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) (as disclosed in the highlighted section of Cheng provided by Examiner, the concrete is ultra-high performance concrete), and the flame retardant material layer directly contacts the plurality of walls of the concrete main body (as best understood, based in the 112b rejection above, the flame retardant layer 3 contacts the walls of body 1, through the adhesive layer, as required by claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 3, wherein the flame retardant material layer comprises a ceramic fiber board, a ceramic fiber blanket, a refractory clay, a thermally insulative refractory brick, or a combination thereof (in combination with Bowersock, the flame retardant material layer comprises a refractory clay – see Par 0057), and the movable cabinet is free of a metal plate, a reinforcement cage, a reinforcement assembly formed from a plurality of stirrups, or a combination thereof (Cheng does not disclose the movable cabinet including a plurality of stirrups).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, wherein the concrete main body has a thermal conductivity from about 1.6 W/m-K to about 1.8 W/m-K (Examiner notes that thermal conductivity is a mechanical characteristic that depends on the type of concrete; wherein Cheng teaches all of the claimed structural features of the concrete, as such it is deemed capable of having these characteristics; Examiner notes that claims 1 and 6 are silent with respect to any specifics regarding the composition of the concrete body, as such it is broadly claimed). However, Cheng and Bowersock do not teach the cabinet wherein the concrete main body having a unit structural weight from about 2300 kg/m3 to about 2700 kg/m3.
Regarding the concrete main body having a unit structural weight from about 2300 kg/m3 to about 2700 kg/m3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable range of structural weight for the concrete body, including 2300 kg/m3 to 2700 kg/m3, 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 routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Cheng discloses all the general structure of the claimed concrete body. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable range of structural weight for the concrete body. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the claimed structural weight. Finally, changes in structural weight affect the ultimate mechanical characteristics of the resulting concrete such as compression and tension ratings, i.e. these ratios are result-effective variables. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different structural weights to meet any desired mechanical characteristics of the concrete body, based on intended use of the cabinet.
Regarding claim 8, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, wherein the concrete main body is integrally formed (as seen in Fig 1 of Cheng, the concrete body of box 1 is made by pouring concrete into a net 2, thus being integrally formed, as disclosed in the highlighted section in the translation provided by Examiner) (Furthermore, regarding the concrete body being integrally formed, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). Therefore, the process of making the concrete body does not have any patentable weight, since Cheng teaches all the structure of the concrete body).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, wherein the flame retardant material layer comprises a ceramic fiber board, a ceramic fiber blanket, a thermally insulative refractory brick, or a combination thereof (Cheng discloses the flame retardant material layer as gypsum board 3, which is made out of calcium sulfate, which is an inorganic salt, i.e. a ceramic), and the flame retardant adhesive layer comprises a refractory clay (Bowersock teaches the flame retardant adhesive layer as a refractory clay, see Par 0057).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, further comprising a hanger (hanging part 7) component locked to the concrete main body (as seen in Fig 5 of Chen, the main body comprises a hanging part 7).
Claims 5, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (CN 210490168 U) in view of Bowersock et al (U.S. 2017/0098806); further in view of Orange et al (U.S. 2003/0150364).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, wherein the concrete main body has a compressive strength of exceeding 120 MPa, and the concrete main body has a maximum bending strength of exceeding 15 MPa (Cheng discloses the concrete being ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), wherein UHPC is known to have a compressive strength greater than 120 MPa and flexural strength, i.e. a maximum bending strength, greater than 20 MPa. Moreover, Cheng teaches all of the claimed limitations regarding the concrete, as such it is deemed capable of reaching the claimed characteristics). However, Cheng and Bowersock do not explicitly teach the device wherein the concrete main body comprises from 120 kg/m3 to 180 kg/m3 of a silica fume and from 30 kg/m3 to 150 kg/m3 of quartz powder.
Orange teaches a fire-resistant ultra-high performance concrete composition (see abstract) comprising silica fume (Par 0128) and quartz powder (Par 0127), the concrete main body has a compressive strength of exceeding 120 MPa (Par 0026 discloses a compressive strength of at least 120MPa, i.e. 120Mpa or more, see Par 0119 which discloses 150MPa), and the concrete main body has a maximum bending strength of exceeding 15 MPa (Par 0026 and 0119 disclose a bending strength of at least 20MPa).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Orange to provide the concrete as ultra-high performance concrete as taught by Orange due to its improved fire resistance combined with controllable rheology and high mechanical properties (as taught by Par 0001 of Orange).
Regarding the concrete main body comprising from 120 kg/m3 to 180 kg/m3 of a silica fume and from 30 kg/m3 to 150 kg/m3 of quartz powder, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable ratio of silica fume and quartz powder concentration, including the claimed ratios, 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 routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Cheng and Orange disclose all the general structure of the claimed concrete body. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable ratios of silica fume and quartz powder concentration. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the claimed ratios. Finally, changes in ratio of silica fume and quartz powder concentration affect the ultimate mechanical characteristics of the resulting concrete, i.e. these ratios are result-effective variables. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different ratios to meet any desired mechanical characteristics, based on intended use of the concrete.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1. However, they do not teach the device wherein the concrete main body comprises from about 30 kg/m3 to about 60 kg/m3 of a synthetic fiber, each of the plurality of walls has a thickness of equal to or less than about 5cm, and the flame retardant material layer has a thickness of equal to or less than about 5cm.
Orange teaches a fire-resistant ultra-high performance concrete composition (see abstract) comprising synthetic fibers (metal fibers disclosed in Pars 0022-0026, such as steel fibers Par 053, which is a synthetic fiber).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Orange to provide the concrete as ultra-high performance concrete as taught by Orange due to its improved fire resistance combined with controllable rheology and high mechanical properties (as taught by Par 0001 of Orange).
Regarding the concrete main body comprising from about 30 kg/m3 to about 60 kg/m3 of a synthetic fiber, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable ratio of synthetic fiber concentration, including the claimed ratio, 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 routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Cheng and Orange discloses all the general structure of the claimed concrete body. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable ratio synthetic fiber concentration. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the claimed ratio. Finally, changes in ratio of synthetic fiber concentration affect the ultimate mechanical characteristics of the resulting concrete, i.e. this ratio is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different ratios to meet any desired mechanical characteristics, based on intended use of the concrete.
Regarding each of the plurality of walls having a thickness of equal to or less than about 5cm, and the flame retardant material layer has a thickness of equal to or less than about 5cm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable thickness of the walls and layer, including the claimed thickness, 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 routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Cheng and Orange disclose all the general structure of the claimed concrete body and the flame retardant layer. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable thickness for the walls and layer. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the claimed thicknesses of each of these structures. Finally, changes in thickness of the concrete wall and the flame retardant layer affect the ultimate protective characteristics of the resulting cabinet, i.e. these thicknesses are result-effective variables. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different wall and layer thickness to meet any desired protective characteristics, based on the type of object the cabinet is intended store.
Regarding claim 13, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1. However, they do not teach the device wherein the concrete main body comprises a silica fume, quartz powder, a synthetic fiber, or a combination thereof.
Orange teaches a fire-resistant ultra-high performance concrete composition (see abstract) comprising silica fume (Par 0128) and quartz powder (Par 0127).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Orange to provide the concrete body as ultra-high performance concrete as taught by Orange due to its improved fire resistance combined with controllable rheology and high mechanical properties (as taught by Par 0001 of Orange).
Claims 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (CN 210490168 U) in view of Bowersock et al (U.S. 2017/0098806); further in view of Schaefer (U.S. 2014/0054196).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1. However, they do not teach the device wherein the concrete main body further comprises a separation wall to separate the accommodating space into a plurality of sub-spaces, and the flame retardant material layer is disposed on two opposite surfaces of the separation wall.
Schaefer teaches a cabinet (104) for storing and protecting batteries from a fire (see Par 0003), wherein the cabinet has separation walls (seen in Fig 4) and wherein a protective layer (142) is disposed on both sides of the separation walls (as seen in Fig 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng and Bowersock to incorporate the teachings of Schaefer to provide protection of separate electronic components and their battery systems and to protect each one from all directions (as disclosed in Par 0150 of Schaefer).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, wherein the at least one battery system comprises a plurality of battery packs each comprising a plurality of battery modules (Examiner notes that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, as determined in MPEP 2115; therefore, the type of article the cabinet stores does not carry patentable weight over the cabinet and the apparatus of Cheng is deemed capable of storing battery packs in its accommodating space). However they do not teach the device wherein at least one battery system is locked to an inner surface of at least one of the plurality of walls of the concrete main body.
Schaefer teaches a cabinet (105) for storing a plurality of battery systems (battery packs 201) separated by a partition wall (207) and for protecting them from a fire (see Par 0003 and 0165), wherein at least one battery system is locked to an inner surface of at least one of a plurality of walls of a main body (as seen in Fig 5, the battery packs 201 are locked to the inner surface of base wall 208 via a hood 206 and fasteners 209).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Schaefer to lock at least one of the battery system to a wall of the cabinet in order to minimize displaceability when the cabinet is moved (as disclosed at least in Par 0054 of Schaefer).
Regarding claim 15, Cheng, Bowersock and Schaefer teach the movable cabinet of Claim 14, wherein the at least one battery system is locked to the inner surface of at least one of the plurality of walls of the concrete main body through a locking mechanism (defined by fasteners 209 of Schaefer), and the locking mechanism is further locked to the flame retardant material layer (In combination, the lock mechanism of Schaefer would attach to the walls of box 1 of Cheng such that it closes the opening 4 and thus be locked to the flame retardant material layer 3, as can be appreciated in Fig 1 of Cheng).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (CN 210490168 U) in view of Bowersock et al (U.S. 2017/0098806); further in view of Orange et al (U.S. 2003/0150364) and Cleveland et al (U.S. 2003/0141794).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng and Bowersock teach the movable cabinet of Claim 1, further comprising a door pivotally connected to a lateral edge of an opening of the concrete main body (as disclosed in the highlighted section in the translation provided by Examiner, a door is held by hinge 5 to close the opening 4). However, Cheng and Bowersock do not teach the door comprising a concrete layer, the concrete layer comprises a silica fume, quartz powder, a synthetic fiber, or a combination thereof, and the flame retardant material layer is further disposed on the concrete layer of the door.
Orange teaches a fire-resistant ultra-high performance concrete composition (see abstract) comprising silica fume (Par 0128) and quartz powder (Par 0127).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Orange to provide the door with concrete comprising silica fume and quartz powder as taught by Orange due to its improved fire resistance combined with controllable rheology and high mechanical properties (as taught by Par 0001 of Orange).
Cleveland teaches a fire-resistant cabinet comprising a pivoting door (14) wherein a flame retardant material layer (38c) is disposed on a layer of the door (as seen in Fig 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Cleveland to provide the door with a layer of flame retardant composition in order to protect all inner surfaces of the cabinet (as disclosed in Cleveland Par 0015-16). This would assure the battery system of Cheng is completely surrounded by the flame retardant layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments filed on 03/27/2026 have resulted in the new grounds of rejection found above.
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 JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights