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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-5, 12-14, and 16-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species (applicant has elected the invention in group I, species B {Fig. 8}, subspecies 1 {Fig. 1}), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 15, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 15, and 18-20 are original. Claims 4-5, 12-14, and 16-17 have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-11, 15, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The amendment filed on September 15, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “210 & 220” have been used to designate both “a closing means or arrangement (Para. 0044, 0101-0105)” and “the first and second openings (Para. 0062)”. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A closing arrangement (Claim 1)
A flange (Claim 6)
Flaps (Claims 18 & 20)
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 because Figs. 1-4 show items 210 and 220 (“a closing means or arrangement 210 and 220” (Para .0044)) as a dashed lines and items 110 and 120 (“a first opening 110 and a second opening 120”) as locations, while Figs. 4-5 and 7 show items 110 and 120 as dashed lines and items 210 and 220 as locations. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“An arrangement” in line 3 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “arrangement” coupled with functional language “to provide a fire extinguishing medium to the housing” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A closing arrangement” in lines 10-11 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “arrangement” coupled with functional language “to prevent access to the fluid flow path of at least one of the first and second openings until at least one pre-defined condition is met” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “an arrangement” in line 3 of claim 1, because para 0044 of the applicant’s specification states “at least one of the first opening 110 and the second opening 120 comprises a closing means or arrangement 210 and 220,” and Figs. 1-4 show the arrangement and therefore there is no corresponding structure. The examiner will interpret this limitation as a passageway, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a closing arrangement” in lines 10-11 of claim 1, because lines Para. 0013 of the applicant’s specification states “the closing arrangement is a solenoid” The examiner will interpret this limitation a solenoid, or equivalent thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “an arrangement” but fails to describe any structure, and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “an arrangement” is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification, and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-3, 6-11, 15, and 18-20 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-3, 6-11, 15, and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 1-3, 6-11, 15, and 18-20 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 limitation “an arrangement” in line 3 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “an arrangement” was found in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-3, 6-11, 15, and 18-20 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-3, 6-11, 15, and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 3 recites “the exterior of the body of a vehicle” in line 2 of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the vehicle body" in line 2 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17, and 18-20 depend on claim 15, therefore claims 17, and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “at least one pre-defined condition” in lines 1-2 of claim 20, but claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one pre-defined condition” in line 12 of claim 1. It is unclear if there are separate “pre-defined conditions” or if these are the same “pre-defined conditions”. The examiner will interpret this limitation as different pre-defined conditions.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeder (US 2023/0170552) in view of Kim (US 2023/0364455).
Regarding claim 1, Baeder discloses a housing (Fig. 3, 11) for an electrical energy store (Fig. 3, 12) , the housing comprising:
a first (Fig. 3, 24 & 48 attached to 24) and second opening (Fig. 3, 36 & 48 attached to 36) each arranged to allow access to an interior (Fig. 3, 20) of the housing, wherein the first opening is attachable to an arrangement (Fig. 3, 46) configured to provide a fire extinguishing medium (Fig. 3, 21) to the housing (Para. 0048), and the second opening is arranged to allow the fire extinguishing medium to be collected from the housing (Para. 0056 – “A hose or a discharge device can also be connected to the openings 34, which can be provided by outlet connecting pieces, so that the water can be discharged in a targeted manner, for example into the sewage system or a ditch or a collection container”); and
the first opening is arranged to provide a fluid flow path for the fire extinguishing medium to pass over an electrical energy store positioned inside the housing and the second opening is arranged to provide a fluid flow path for the fire extinguishing medium to exit the housing (Fig. 3 shows the fire extinguishing medium entering the supply connection (26) which includes the first opening and exiting the drain means (30) which includes the second opening which passes over the electrical energy store; Para. 0048 & 0055); and
wherein the first opening comprises an element (Para. 0020 – “pressure release valve”) configured to prevent access to the fluid flow path of the first opening until at least one pre-defined condition is met (Para. 0020 – “the supply connection is fluidically connected to the intermediate space via this first line. This fluidic connection can optionally also be formed to be closed or closable during normal operation of the motor vehicle … a pressure relief valve, which releases the fluidic connection between the supply connection and the intermediate space only above a minimum pressure, for example above 12 bar or above 20 bar or generally above a minimum pressure in the range between 10 bar and 25 bar”; The first opening is part of the supply connection (22))
Baeder does not disclose wherein the element is a closing arrangement.
However, Kim teaches a prior art comparable device (Para. 0024 – “a system for extinguishing an electric fire”) wherein a first opening (Fig. 1, opening from 120 into housing 100) comprises a closing arrangement (Fig. 1, 101; Para. 0029 – “an inlet valve 101 and such an outlet valve 102 are all constituted of solenoid valves”) configured to prevent access to the fluid flow path of at least one of the first and second openings until at least one pre-defined condition is met (Para. 0040 –“ That is, when a temperature inside the loading container 100 increases to a temperature equal to or more than a first set temperature that is preset, the control unit 130 opens the inlet valve 101 that is constituted of a solenoid valve”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of a closing arrangement configured to prevent access to the fluid flow path of at least one of the first and second openings until at least one pre-defined condition is met by replacing the element disclosed by Baeder with the closing arrangement taught by Kim and including the control circuitry (Fig. 2, 130) and fire detector (Fig. 2, 110) as taught by Kim to actuate the closing arrangement to rapidly and effectively extinguish an electric fire (Para. 0016) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Regarding claim 2, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the housing of claim 1.
Baeder further discloses wherein first opening further comprises a conduit (Fig. 2 & 3, 24), the conduit being arranged to provide a fluid flow path between the exterior of the body of a vehicle and the interior of the housing (Fig. 2 shows the fire extinguishing medium moving through the conduit along a fluid flow path to the interior of the housing.; Para. 0063 – “FIG. 3 shows the battery arrangement 11 and in particular the flooding device 16 according to FIG. 2 again in a perspective representation and in particular with minor modifications relating to the position of the openings 44.”).
Regarding claim 3, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the housing of claim 1.
Baeder further discloses wherein the conduit is arranged to provide access between the exterior of the body of a vehicle (Fig. 2, 10) and the interior of the housing (Fig. 2, 20) through a manifold (Fig. 3, 18; Merriam-Webster defines manifold as “a whole that unites or consists of many diverse elements,” thus item 18 can be considered one whole manifold. ).
Regarding claim 6, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the housing of claim 1.
Baeder further discloses the housing comprising a flange (Fig. 3, 22) arranged to provide a channel (Opening of item 22 to allow flow of extinguishing medium to pass through.) for guiding the fire extinguishing medium between the interior of the housing and the exterior of the housing (Fig. 2; Para. 0063 – “FIG. 3 shows the battery arrangement 11 and in particular the flooding device 16 according to FIG. 2 again in a perspective representation and in particular with minor modifications relating to the position of the openings 44.”).
Regarding claim 7, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the housing of claim 1,
Baeder further discloses wherein the first opening is attachable to the arrangement configured to provide the fire extinguishing medium to the housing through a quick-fit connection (“coupling unit”; Para. 0059 – “For this purpose, a fire hose, for example, can in turn be connected to the supply connection 22. In order to reversibly and detachably connect the supply connection 22 to such a liquid-carrying line 46 as the fire hose 46, the supply connection 22, as well as the opening 34 of the drain means 30, can have a coupling unit. By means of the coupling unit, a fire hose can be connected to the flooding device 16, for example, so that the liquid (extinguishing water) can be flushed directly around the high voltage battery 12. The respective coupling unit can couple the respective connecting piece or the supply connection 22 and/or the opening 34 to the line 46, for example by means of a bayonet lock principle.”).
Regarding claim 10, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the housing of claim 1.
Baeder further discloses the housing comprising a temperature sensor (Fig. 3, 58; Para. 0064 – “Such a sensor means 58 can thus be used, for example, to determine the water inlet and outlet temperature”) arranged detect the temperature of the electrical energy store (The temperature of the electrical energy store is detected via the fire extinguishing medium.).
Regarding claim 11, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the housing of claim 1.
Kim further teaches wherein the at least one pre-defined condition is met when the electrical energy store exceeds a temperature (Para. 0040 –“ That is, when a temperature inside the loading container 100 increases to a temperature equal to or more than a first set temperature that is preset, the control unit 130 opens the inlet valve 101 that is constituted of a solenoid valve”).
Baeder in view of Kim does not teach wherein the temperature is 100 degrees Celsius.
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 include wherein the temperature is 100 degrees Celsius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the temperature is 100 degrees Celsius (Para. 0017 & Para. 0064), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Baeder in view of Kim teaches an electrical energy store of claim 1.
Baeder further discloses the electrical energy store comprised within a vehicle (Fig. 2, 10; Para. 0063 – “FIG. 3 shows the battery arrangement 11 and in particular the flooding device 16 according to FIG. 2 again in a perspective representation and in particular with minor modifications relating to the position of the openings 44.”).
wherein the vehicle body (Body of vehicle 10 shown in Fig. 2) further comprises an opening (Fig. 2, 22 & 30) corresponding to each of the first and second openings of the housing.
Regarding claim 18, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the vehicle of claim 15.
Baeder further discloses the vehicle comprising flaps arranged to cover openings (Para. 0061 – “the relevant openings 22, 34 can again be designed to be covered by appropriate covers or trims”; Para. 0031 – “The cover can be, for example, a movable flap or a removable lid.”) on the exterior of the body of the vehicle (The openings 22 and 34 are on the exterior of the body of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 19, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the vehicle of claim 15.
Baeder further discloses a temperature sensing arrangement (Fig. 3, 58; Para. 0064 – “Such a sensor means 58 can thus be used, for example, to determine the water inlet and outlet temperature”), wherein the temperature sensing arrangement is configured to detect a temperature of the interior of the housing (The temperature of the interior of the housing is detected via the fire extinguishing medium.).
Baeder does not disclose the temperature sensing arrangement connected to control circuitry.
However, Kim teaches a temperature sensing arrangement (Fig. 1-2, 110) connected to control circuitry (Fig. 2, 130), wherein the temperature sensing arrangement is configured to detect a temperature of the interior of a housing (Fig. 1, 100; Para. 0025 – “a fire detector 110 configured to detect a fire by measuring a temperature inside the loading container 100”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of the temperature sensing arrangement connected to control circuitry taught by Kim to actuate the closing arrangement (Fig. 2) to rapidly and effectively extinguish an electric fire (Para. 0016) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeder in view of Kim and Glen (US 10,016,641).
Regarding claim 8, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the housing of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the closing arrangement is biased into a closed position.
However, Glen (US 10,016,641) teaches a closing arrangement (Fig. 1, 7) that is biased into a closed position (Col. 5: Ln. 14-15; A normally closed solenoid is biased into the closed position as described in Para. 0101 of the applicants’ specification.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element of a closing arrangement with a known function of controlling flow, taught by Glen, by performing a simple substitution with another element of a closing arrangement taught by Baeder in view of Kim yielding the predictable result of stopping the flow of extinguishing fluid when closed and allowing the flow of extinguishing fluid when open.
Regarding claim 9, Baeder in view of Kim and Glen teaches the housing of claim 8.
Glen further teaches wherein the closing arrangement is a solenoid (Col. 5: Ln. 14-15), the solenoid being powered shut (A normally closed solenoid is powered shut when there is a loss of power, which is further described in Para. 0101 of the applicants’ specification.).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeder in view of Kim and Bäder (US 2023/0181950), hereinafter ‘1950.
Regarding claim 20, Baeder in view of Kim teaches the vehicle of claim 18.
Baeder in view of Kim does not teach wherein the flaps open when at least one pre-defined condition is met, and wherein the pre-defined condition is a temperature of the interior of the housing.
However, ‘1950 teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, 1) wherein a flap (Fig. 1, 24) opens when at least one pre-defined condition is met (Para. 0049 – “a predetermined heating state Z of the battery 11 or its battery cells 12. In the present case, heating state Z means, for example, exceeding the specified temperature limiting value, i.e., the presence of thermal runaway”; Para. 0054 – “The valve element 24 can additionally be secured or protected against vandalism or misuse from the outside. This means that the valve element only opens, for example, when the control signal from the detection device 30 confirms the presence of the heating state Z.”), and wherein the pre-defined condition is a temperature of the interior of the housing (Batteries (12) are located within a housing (13) and thus the temperature is of the interior of the housing.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of wherein the flaps open when at least one pre-defined condition is met, and wherein the pre-defined condition is a temperature of the interior of the housing as taught by ‘1950, into the vehicle taught by Baeder in view of Kim to protect against vandalism or misuse from the outside (Para. 0054), and yielding the predictable result of the flaps opening when a fire is detected to allow suppression of the fire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 October 24, 2025
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752