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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed April 3, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2-5, and presentation of “new” claims 8-13, is also acknowledged. Claims 1 and 6-13 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Drawings
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 “fire extinguishing body” including all three specified elements in their specified arrangement of “a rigid base plate”, “a resin layer on the rigid base plate” and “a fire extinguishing agent-containing layer on the resin layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that the originally-filed drawings appear to only show a two-layered fire extinguishing body (see Fig. 1), and while the specification does set forth that the “substrate 1” may include a combination of a rigid base plate and a resin layer, the two-layer depiction of Fig. 1 does not clearly show the specified arrangement in the particular order now recited in claim 1. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Tomiyama et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0050941.
As to claim 1, Tomiyama shows a fire extinguishing body (“fire extinguishing laminated body”; see paragraph [0033]), comprising: a rigid base plate (“base material”; see, at least paragraphs [0033] and [0036]), having a Young's modulus from 10 GPa to 640 GPa (every single one of the exemplary rigid base plate materials mentioned in paragraph [0036] of Tomiyama exhibits a Young’s modulus within the recited range); a resin layer on the rigid base plate (as discussed in paragraph [0039] of Tomiyama, an embodiment may include one in which an ”adhesive layer” is “provided between the base material and the fire extinguishing agent layer”; and paragraph [0040] of Tomiyama expressly discusses several examples of such an “adhesive layer”, every single one of which is a “resin” material); and a fire extinguishing agent-containing layer (“fire extinguishing agent sheet/layer”; see paragraph [0033]) on the resin layer (see again, paragraph [0039]), wherein the fire extinguishing agent containing layer contains a fire extinguishing agent (see, at least paragraphs [0014] and [0033]); and wherein the resin layer has a Young's modulus of 2 MPa to 5 GPa (see again, the exemplary resin layer materials discussed in paragraph [0040], every one of which exhibits a Young’s modulus within the recited range).
As to claim 6, Tomiyama discloses a battery pack comprising: a housing; the fire extinguishing body of claim 1; and a battery, the fire extinguishing body and the battery being disposed inside the housing (see Abstract, and see paragraph [0030]).
As to claim 7, Tomiyama discloses the battery pack of claim 6, and wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery (see paragraph [0030]).
As to claim 10, Tomiyama discloses the fire extinguishing body of claim 1, and wherein a content of the fire extinguishing agent in the fire extinguishing agent-containing layer is 85 to 92 mass% (paragraph [0015] of Tomiyama expressly states that examples of the fire extinguishing agent-containing layer contain a binder resin of 0.5 to 30 mass%, and thus the content of the fire extinguishing agent in the layer would necessarily be 70 to 99.5 mass%, which completely encompasses the recited content range).
As to claim 11, Tomiyama discloses the fire extinguishing body of claim 10, and wherein the fire extinguishing agent-containing layer further comprises a binder resin (see paragraphs [0015] and [0016]).
As to claim 12, Tomiyama discloses the fire extinguishing body of claim 1, and wherein the rigid base plate consists of a wood or a metal (see paragraph [0036]).
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 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomiyama et al.
As to claim 8, Tomiyama discloses all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, Tomiyama does not expressly disclose that the fire extinguishing body has a thickness of 2 to 20 mm. (although, based on particular “thickness” discussions regarding the layers of the fire extinguishing body of Tomiyama, it is not only quite possible that at least one working fire extinguishing body embodiment of Tomiyama exhibits a thickness within the recited - and extremely broad - range, it is very likely that such is already met by Tomiyama). It should be noted that Applicant’s own specification lacks criticality with respect to the recited thickness range (see, Applicant’s specification paragraph [0028]), by merely stating that the thickness of the fire extinguishing body “is not necessarily limited” and may vary, and only expresses thickness concerns with respect to ensuring that the body is easy to handle and can fit into a desired space (which is not unlike the expressed disclosure of Tomiyama).
Regardless, it should also be noted that Tomiyama expressly discloses exemplary, non-limiting thicknesses for each of the fire extinguishing agent-containing layer (see paragraph [0032]), and the resin layer (see paragraph [0040]), wherein just those two layers may add up to a thickness of approximately 1.1 mm. Thus, in order to meet the recited thickness range for the fire extinguishing body, the rigid base plate layer need only have a thickness of between the extremely broad range of 0.9 to 18.1 mm. It should further be noted that Tomiyama is expressly concerned with an appropriate thickness of the device, wherein layer “dimensions such as thickness” can be “appropriately adjusted depending on the fire extinguishing objects such as facility, equipment, machine, tool, and structure to be used, and the intended use” (see paragraph [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of one or more of the fire extinguishing body layers of the Tomiyama device, through routine experimentation and engineering expedience, in order to arrive at an overall thickness of the fire extinguishing body to be within the recited range of 2 to 20 mm., based on (at least) a predetermined intended use of the device, 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 (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
As to claim 9, Tomiyama discloses all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. Further, Tomiyama expressly discloses an exemplary thickness range of the resin layer which completely encompasses the recited thickness range thereof (see paragraph [0040]), and an exemplary thickness range of the fire extinguishing agent-containing layer which completely encompasses the recited thickness range thereof (see paragraph [0032]). However, Tomiyama does not expressly disclose an exemplary thickness or thickness range of the rigid base plate, and thus Tomiyama is silent as to the thickness of the rigid base plate being within the extremely broad range of 0.1 to 5 mm. It should be noted that Applicant’s own specification lacks criticality with respect to the recited thickness range for the rigid base plate (see, Applicant’s specification paragraph [0036]), by merely stating that the thickness range of the rigid base plate is merely exemplary, and “can be selected as appropriate according to required strength, an allowed space, and the like” (which is not unlike the expressed disclosure of Tomiyama).
It should also be noted that Tomiyama is expressly concerned with an appropriate thickness of the device, wherein layer “dimensions such as thickness” can be “appropriately adjusted depending on the fire extinguishing objects such as facility, equipment, machine, tool, and structure to be used, and the intended use” (see paragraph [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the rigid base plate of the Tomiyama device, through routine experimentation and engineering expedience, in order to arrive at a thickness within the extremely broadly recited range of 0.1 to 5 mm., based on (at least) a predetermined intended use of the device, 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 (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
As to claim 13, Tomiyama discloses (or renders obvious) all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 9, and wherein the rigid base plate consists of a wood or a metal (see paragraph [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see the section under the heading “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102) on pages 4-5 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed April 3, 2026, have been fully considered, but the arguments are essentially moot, because the anticipatory and obviousness grounds of rejection in view of the prior art to Tomiyama (US2023/0050941), as set forth in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the instant Office action, are based on a different embodiment of the same disclosure, as compared to how the claims were met by Tomiyama in the Office action mailed January 16, 2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent to Dimanshteyn, and US Patent Application Publications to Kim, Winter et al., Miyata et al. and Yoon et al., are cited as of interest.
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 DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights