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 (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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 12/24/25. Claims 1 and 3-17 are pending, wherein claims 9-17 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 requires “each electric core comprises an explosion-proof valve, the explosion-proof valve is arranged toward the top cover, and the fire-fighting spray nozzle is fitted on the top cover to align the fire-fighting spray nozzle with the explosion-proof valve.”
Note that claim 6 depends from claim 5 which depends from claim 1. Claim 5 requires a plurality of battery modules according to claim 1, and that claim 1 was amended such that “each electric core comprises an explosion-proof valve arranged toward the top cover, and the fire-fighting spray nozzle is fitted on the top cover to align the fire-fighting spray nozzle with the explosion-proof valve.” Thus, the limitation of claim 6 does not further limit claim 5, as the feature of the explosion-proof valve and spray nozzle alignment is already required (as claim 5 depends from claim 1).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 2022/0093995, previously cited) in view of Wei (CN 106876823 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al teaches a battery module (figs 1-4, abstract, battery pack), comprising:
a case comprising a case body (fig 4, note case body around the plurality of batteries 10) forming an accommodating cavity (fig 4, note cavity where batteries are arranged);
a plurality of electric cores (figs 1-4, see batteries 10), which are spaced apart and arranged in the accommodating cavity (figs 1-4, note arrangement in figure 4 within an accommodating cavity of a case); and
a fire-fighting spray nozzle (figs 1-4, spray pipeline 20/22), which is fitted on the case (fig 4) and is configured to spray fire-fighting agent to the plurality of electric cores (paragraph [0026], spray medium may be fire-control gas, liquid, colloid, powder, etc).
Huang et al is quiet to the case having a top cover connected with the case body.
Wei teaches a battery pack housed in a battery box, similar to a traditional battery pack, composed of a box body (3) with an open top and a box cover (6) sealed at the open top of the box body (fig 1, paragraph [0037]). Wei teaches a spray liquid circulation pipe (12) and a sprayer (5) (paragraph [0038]), and that in order to facilitate the assembly of the sprayer, the sprayer is specifically installed on the inner side of the box cover (paragraph [0039], fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Huang et al to further include a top cover connected with the case body, and to install the spray pipeline to the inner side of the cover, as the structure of a top cover is conventional and that the use of a top cover will seal the case so as to meet sealing requirements (paragraph [0037]) and thus prevent leakage, and that said arrangement facilitates the assembly (paragraph [0039]).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Note that the combination teaches wherein each electric core comprises an explosion-proof valve (Huang, paragraph [0054], fig 2, weakened portion 11 so that a heat flow resulting from thermal runaway is able to break through the weakened portion 11, paragraph [0061], thereby reducing pressure to provide the function of being explosion-proof), the explosion-proof valve is arranged toward the top cover (Huang, fig 2, note the weakened portion 11 is arranged facing upwards), and the fire-fighting spray nozzle is fitted on the top cover to align the fire-fighting spray nozzle with the explosion-proof valve (note combination, where Wei teaches the spray pipeline attached to the inside of the cover, Huang shows the breakthrough 21 of the spray pipeline 20 aligned with the weakened portion 11, fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the case body is enclosed by a front panel, a rear panel and side plates, and at least one of the front panel or the rear panel is fitted with the fire-fighting spray nozzle (note combination, Huang shows case body in fig 4 include front and rear panels, and side plates, Wei shows a spray pipeline extending through the rear (fig 1)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein a plug is plugged at the fire-fighting spray nozzle (Huang, fig 2, paragraph [0055], spray pipeline 20 includes a breakthrough region 21, paragraph [0058], breakthrough region includes a hot melt part (construed as the plug)), and the plug is made of low-melting-point heat-sensitive material (paragraph [0058], melting point of the hot melt part is lower than that of other regions of the spray pipeline 20, and the hot melt part can be melted to form the opening, thereby effecting spraying).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al as modified by Wei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 109999386 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Huang et al as modified by Wei is quiet to a battery cluster comprising a battery rack and plurality of battery modules, wherein the battery rack is formed with a plurality of fitting cavities, each fitting cavity configured to fix one battery module.
Yang teaches that when a large capacity and voltage is required, multiple battery boxes is required (paragraph [0005]). Yang teaches a battery cluster with fire protection, which aims to solve the problem that existing batteries are prone to reignition and cause fire to spread after a fire occurs (paragraph [0008]). Figures 1-3 show a battery rack with cavities for the battery modules (fig 2, battery cabinet 11 and battery modules 12), and a fire protection pipeline 111 connected to a fire protection liquid filling port 121 for each battery box 12 (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Huang et al and Wei so as to arrange the battery modules in a cluster, as Yang teaches multiple battery boxes are required when a large capacity and voltage is required, and that the cluster arrangement of Yang is compact (paragraph [0033]) and solves the problem in which batteries are prone to reignition (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches wherein each electric core comprises an explosion-proof valve (Huang, paragraph [0054], fig 2, weakened portion 11 so that a heat flow resulting from thermal runaway is able to break through the weakened portion 11, paragraph [0061], thereby reducing pressure to provide the function of being explosion-proof), the explosion-proof valve is arranged toward the top cover (Huang, fig 2, note the weakened portion 11 is arranged facing upwards), and the fire-fighting spray nozzle is fitted on the top cover to align the fire-fighting spray nozzle with the explosion-proof valve (note combination, where Wei teaches the spray pipeline attached to the inside of the cover, Huang shows the breakthrough 21 of the spray pipeline 20 aligned with the weakened portion 11, fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the case body is enclosed by a front panel, a rear panel and side plates, and at least one of the front panel and the rear panel is fitted with the fire-fighting spray nozzle (note combination, Huang shows case body in fig 4 include front and rear panels, and side plates, Wei shows a spray pipeline extending through the rear (fig 1)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein a plug is plugged at the fire-fighting spray nozzle (Huang, fig 2, paragraph [0055], spray pipeline 20 includes a breakthrough region 21, paragraph [0058], breakthrough region includes a hot melt part (construed as the plug)), and the plug is made of low-melting-point heat-sensitive material (paragraph [0058], melting point of the hot melt part is lower than that of other regions of the spray pipeline 20, and the hot melt part can be melted to form the opening, thereby effecting spraying).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Huang et al does not disclose “the explosion-proof valve is arranged toward the top cover, and the fire-fighting spray nozzle is fitted on the top cover to align the fire-fighting spray nozzle with the explosion-proof valve” as Huang does not mention a top cover.
Applicant argues that Wei does not disclose an explosion-proof valve arranged toward the top cover, and thus also fails to disclose the feature “the explosion-proof valve is arranged toward the top cover, and the fire-fighting spray nozzle is fitted on the top cover to align the fire-fighting spray nozzle with the explosion-proof valve.”
Applicant additionally argues that Yang does not disclose an explosion-proof valve arranged toward the top cover, and thus also fails to disclose the claimed feature above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejections above are based on the combination of references, and not solely Huang, Wei, or Yang. As discussed in the rejections above, Huang discloses an explosion-proof valve (Huang, paragraph [0054], fig 2, weakened portion 11 so that a heat flow resulting from thermal runaway is able to break through the weakened portion 11, paragraph [0061], thereby reducing pressure to provide the function of being explosion-proof), which is shown in the drawings arranged facing upwards, with the breakthrough 21 of the spray pipeline 20 aligned with the weakened portion 11 (fig 2). Huang shows a case body (fig 4), although isn’t clear as to whether there is a top cover. However, a box cover for sealing an open top of a box body of a battery pack is disclosed in Wei. Wei further teaches a spray liquid circulation pipe (12) and a sprayer (5) (paragraph [0038]), and that in order to facilitate the assembly of the sprayer, the sprayer is specifically installed on the inner side of the box cover (paragraph [0039], fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a top cover so as to seal the case, meeting sealing requirements and preventing leakage, and to install the spray pipeline to the top cover, to facilitate the assembly of the sprayer.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). See MPEP 2141.03(I).
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights