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
The amendments filed 1/29/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3 are amended, Claims 19-21 are new, and Claim 17 is cancelled.
Support for the amendments can be found in original Claims 1, 2, and 7, and paragraphs 00045 and 00046 of the instant specification.
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, Applicant argues that the potassium nitrate embedded in epoxy of Murray (0055, 0114) would not read on the language of “a polymeric encapsulating material and a potassium aerosol encapsulated within the polymeric encapsulating material.”
Applicant states that the plain and ordinary meaning of “encapsulate” refers to physically enclosing a substance within another material. However, embedding potassium nitrate into epoxy can be viewed as physically enclosing a substance (potassium nitrate) within another material (epoxy). Although Applicant claims that the embedding process is chemical, Murray does not appear to teach or suggest a chemical embedding process.
Furthermore, to encapsulate something can be also defined as “to completely cover (something) especially so that it will not touch anything else (Britannica: encapsulate). In this case, the epoxy completely covers the potassium nitrate embedded in it.
On pages 6 and 7, Applicant argues that Murray does not teach or suggest two aerosol devices, with one mounted on an enclosure cover and another mounted on an enclosure tray. Murray teaches that the panels can be attached to the top wall/ceiling and the interior wall of an enclosure tray (Fig. 5 – part 14), an embodiment of an enclosure where the top wall/ceiling is removable (0158 – the top plate 92 is fastened using screws and would be removable), and that multiple panels/aerosol devices can be used in an enclosure (0131, Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murray such that the embodiment of Fig. 5 (enclosure comprises panels attached to the top wall/ceiling and the interior walls of the enclosure tray) has a removable top wall/ceiling as Murray teaches it as a known structure for the top wall/ceiling.
Although Murray does not directly teach or suggest splitting the panel apart, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have separated the panel as Murray teaches that multiple panels can be used in an enclosure and separating the portion of the panel on the top wall/ceiling from the portion of the panel on the interior walls would allow the top wall/ceiling to be removed in an easier manner (See MPEP 2144.04 V.C.)
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murray (US 20220016459 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Murray teaches fire suppression sheets/panels that contain aerosol extinguishing agents (Abstract), which can be viewed as aerosol devices. The panels can be positioned inside an enclosure that contains a fire hazard (Abstract), such as a bank of batteries (battery array) inside a vehicle (0077, 0134). The fire suppression panels (aerosol devices) can be positioned within an enclosure such that they do not contact the fire hazard (Figs. 2-4: part 14). The fire suppression panels/aerosol devices include a polymeric encapsulating material (epoxy resin) and a potassium aerosol (potassium nitrate) encapsulated within the polymeric encapsulating material (0114, 0115 - epoxy resin, which is a polymeric material, is used as a binder material for the potassium nitrate).
Regarding Claim 2, Murray teaches that the aerosol device (fire suppression panels) has a sheet-like structure (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Murray teaches that the potassium aerosol is configured to release an aerosol cloud when a predefined temperature threshold is exceeded (0117, 0123 - once a predetermined temperature is reached (ignition temperature of panel materials), the aerosol releases potassium radicals in the form of fine particulates).
Regarding Claim 4, Murray teaches that the aerosol device is attached to an enclosure for the battery array (Abstract, 0134). This enclosure can be viewed as a support structure of the battery array.
Regarding Claim 5, Murray teaches the thermal suppression system of Claim 4 and that the aerosol device can be attached to a top plate of the battery array support structure (0134; Figs. 2-5: part 14).
Regarding Claim 6, Murray teaches the thermal suppression system of Claim 4 and that the aerosol device can be attached to a side plate of the battery array support structure (0134; Figs. 2, 3, and 5 – part 14).
Regarding Claim 7, Murray teaches the thermal suppression system of Claim 4 and that an adhesive can be used to bond the aerosol device to the battery array support structure (0143).
Regarding Claim 8, Murray teaches that the aerosol device can be attached to every wall of the enclosure, which would include the interior walls of an enclosure tray (0134; Figs. 2-5: part 14).
Regarding Claim 10, Murray teaches that a gap extends between the aerosol device and the battery array (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood in light of the claim objection presented above, Murray teaches the traction battery pack of Claim 1 (0085 – the batteries can be used in a vehicle). Murray teaches that the aerosol device is heat-activated to release the potassium aerosol as an aerosol cloud containing potassium radicals upon reaching a predefined temperature threshold (0117, 0123 - once a predetermined temperature is reached (ignition temperature of panel materials), the aerosol releases potassium radicals in the form of fine particulates). Murray teaches that the potassium radicals can bind to fuel radicals (0123) but does not disclose whether the potassium radicals are capable of binding to oxygen.
However, it has been held that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, both the claimed invention and Murray teach an aerosol device that releases potassium radicals. As the potassium radicals have the same chemical composition, they would necessarily have the same properties (being capable of bonding with gaseous oxygen).
Applicant is invited to provide evidence showing any differences between the potassium radicals of the claimed invention and the potassium radicals of Murray that would result in the potassium radicals of Murray not bonding with oxygen.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20220016459 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Murray teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 1. Murray teaches that multiple panels can be used in an enclosure (0131 – aerosol panels may not be in contact with each other, indicating the presence of multiple panels; Claim 5 – “at least one”) and that the panels can be present on multiple walls of the enclosure (0134: Figs 2, 3, and 5 – part 14). Specifically, Murray discloses an embodiment where a panel (aerosol device) is attached to the top wall/ceiling of an enclosure and the interior wall of an enclosure tray (Fig. 5 – part 14) but does not disclose if the top wall/ceiling is removable or that the panel comprises two separate panels where one panel is attached to the top wall/ceiling and a second panel is attached to an interior wall of an enclosure tray.
However, Murray teaches an embodiment of an enclosure where the top wall/ceiling is removable (0158 – the top plate 92 is fastened using screws and would be removable by unscrewing the screws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the top wall/ceiling of the enclosure removable as Murray teaches it as a possible structure for an enclosure and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an enclosure with a structure known to function.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire suppression panel of Murray to be separate panels as Murray teaches that multiple panels can be used within an enclosure and separate panels would allow the removable top (enclosure cover) to be removed in an easier manner.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20220016459 A1) in view of Klausmann (US 20140162105 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Murray teaches a traction battery pack comprising an enclosure assembly (Abstract, 0063), a bank of batteries in a vehicle (0085), and a thermal suppression system comprising aerosol devices mounted to at least one interior surface of the enclosure assembly (Abstract – fire suppression sheets/panels can be viewed as aerosol devices; 0131 – aerosol panels may not be in contact with each other within the enclosure, indicating the presence of multiple panels). Each of the plurality of aerosol devices (fire suppression panels) includes a polymeric encapsulating material (epoxy resin) and a potassium aerosol (potassium nitrate) encapsulated within the polymeric encapsulating material (0114, 0115 - epoxy resin, which is a polymeric material, is used as a binder material for the potassium nitrate).
Murray does not disclose whether the bank of batteries are arranged in a singular battery array or a plurality of battery arrays.
Klausmann teaches that batteries for motor vehicles (traction batteries) are known to comprise a plurality of battery modules with each battery module having a plurality of battery cells (0005, 0035).
Murray and Klausmann are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries for vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bank of batteries of Murray to be in the form of a plurality of battery modules with each battery module having a plurality of battery cells as Klausmann teaches it as a known battery arrangement for a vehicle battery and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a vehicle battery with a suitable battery arrangement. The plurality of battery modules can be viewed as a plurality of battery arrays housed within the enclosure assembly.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Murray teaches the battery pack of Claim 11. Modified Murray teaches that each of the plurality of aerosol devices are positioned in a non-contiguous manner with respect to each battery array of the plurality of battery arrays (Figs. 2-4: part 14 and part 12)
Regarding Claim 13, modified Murray teaches the battery pack of Claim 12. Modified Murray teaches that there is a gap between each of the plurality of aerosol devices and each battery array of the plurality of battery arrays (Figs. 2-4: part 14 and part 12).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Murray teaches the battery pack of Claim 11. Modified Murray teaches that the potassium aerosol is configured to release an aerosol cloud when a predefined temperature threshold is exceeded (0117, 0123 - once a predetermined temperature is reached (ignition temperature of panel materials), the aerosol releases potassium radicals in the form of fine particulates).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Murray teaches the battery pack of Claim 11. Modified Murray teaches that each of the plurality of aerosol devices is a heat activated (0117, 0123 – the aerosol activates after the temperature reaches the ignition temperature of the panel), sheet-like structure (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Murray teaches the battery pack of Claim 11. Modified Murray teaches that the at least one interior surface can be part of the top wall/ceiling of the enclosure (0134; Figs. 2-5), but does not teach that the top wall/ceiling is removable.
However, Murray teaches an embodiment of an enclosure where the top wall/ceiling is removable (0158 – the top plate 92 is fastened using screws and would be removable by unscrewing the screws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the top wall/ceiling of the enclosure removable as Murray teaches it as a possible structure for an enclosure and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an enclosure with a structure known to function.
This would result in the at least one interior surface being a top wall/ceiling that can be viewed as an enclosure cover of the enclosure assembly.
Murray also teaches that the at least one interior surface can be part of an enclosure tray of the enclosure assembly (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Murray teaches the battery pack of Claim 11. Modified Murray teaches that multiple panels can be used in an enclosure (0131 – aerosol panels may not be in contact with each other, indicating the presence of multiple panels; Claim 5 – “at least one”) and that the panels can be present on multiple walls of the enclosure (0134: Figs 2, 3, and 5 – part 14). Specifically, Murray discloses an embodiment where a panel (aerosol device) is attached to the top wall/ceiling of an enclosure and the interior wall of an enclosure tray (Fig. 5 – part 14) but does not disclose if the top wall/ceiling is removable or that the panel comprises two separate panels where one panel is attached to the top wall/ceiling and a second panel is attached to an interior wall of an enclosure tray.
However, Murray teaches an embodiment of an enclosure where the top wall/ceiling is removable (0158 – the top plate 92 is fastened using screws and would be removable by unscrewing the screws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the top wall/ceiling of the enclosure removable as Murray teaches it as a possible structure for an enclosure and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an enclosure with a structure known to function.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire suppression panel of Murray to be separate panels as Murray teaches that multiple panels can be used within an enclosure and separate panels would allow the removable top (enclosure cover) to be removed in an easier manner. This would result in at least a first aerosol device of the plurality of aerosol devices mounted to an enclosure and a second aerosol device of the plurality of aerosol devices mounted to an enclosure tray.
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20220016459 A1) in view of Tanabe (US 20240299794 A1) and Honjo (US 20240131374 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood in light of the claim objection presented above, Murray teaches the traction battery pack of Claim 1 (0085 – the batteries are used in a vehicle). Murray does not teach that the polymeric encapsulating material includes a laminated pouch.
Tanabe teaches a fire extinguisher that can be installed on the inner wall of a housing for electrical equipment (Abstract). The fire extinguisher comprises a fire extinguishing agent configured to aerosolize through combustion (0032) contained in a polymeric laminated pouch (0023; Fig. 2). The fire extinguishing agent can be a potassium salt (Claim 5).
Tanabe does not disclose that the electrical equipment includes batteries.
Honjo teaches a fire extinguishing body that can comprise a polymeric laminated pouch (0065, Fig. 5) and a potassium salt (0049, 0050). The fire extinguishing body can be used with any object that may catch fire, which specifically includes lithium batteries (0068).
Murray, Tanabe, and Honjo are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely fire extinguishing/thermal suppression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the aerosol device (fire suppression panels) of Murray with the aerosol device (fire extinguisher) of Tanabe as it is a known aerosol device that can suppress/extinguish fires that can be used with batteries (Honjo: 0068). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a battery array with aerosol devices suitable for suppressing fire (See MPEP 2143 B).
Regarding Claim 21, Murray teaches a thermal suppression system comprising a battery array including a plurality of battery cells (bank of batteries) and a battery support structure arranged to surround the plurality of battery cells (the batteries are enclosed in an enclosure) (0077, 0085, 0134). An aerosol device comprising a potassium aerosol (0079) is bonded to the battery array support structure in a manner that spaces the aerosol device from the plurality of battery cells (Figs. 2-5 – the fire suppression panels 14 are spaced apart from the fire hazard 12, which can be batteries) using an adhesive (0143 – an adhesive is used to mount the fire suppression panels to the enclosure).
Murray does not teach that the aerosol device comprises a polymeric laminated pouch encapsulating the potassium aerosol.
Tanabe teaches a fire extinguisher that can be installed on the inner wall of a housing for electrical equipment (Abstract). The fire extinguisher comprises a fire extinguishing agent configured to aerosolize through combustion (0032) contained in a polymeric laminated pouch (0023; Fig. 2). The fire extinguishing agent can be a potassium salt (Claim 5).
Tanabe does not disclose that the electrical equipment includes batteries.
Honjo teaches a fire extinguishing body that can comprise a polymeric laminated pouch (0065, Fig. 5) and a potassium salt (0049, 0050). The fire extinguishing body can be used with any object that may catch fire, which specifically includes lithium batteries (0068).
Murray, Tanabe, and Honjo are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely fire extinguishing/thermal suppression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the aerosol device (fire suppression panels) of Murray with the aerosol device (fire extinguisher) of Tanabe as it is a known aerosol device that can suppress/extinguish fires that can be used with batteries (Honjo: 0068). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a battery array with aerosol devices suitable for suppressing fire (See MPEP 2143 B).
Modified Murray teaches that the potassium salt in the aerosol device combusts to produce an aerosol that would contain potassium radicals (Tanabe: 0032, Claim 5; Murray: 0055, 0123 – potassium salts produce potassium radicals when exposed to flame or high heat), which can be viewed as being heat-activated to release a potassium aerosol containing potassium radicals upon reaching a predefined temperature threshold.
Although modified Murray does not disclose whether the potassium radicals are capable of binding to oxygen, it has been held that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, both the claimed invention and modified Murray teach an aerosol device that releases potassium radicals. As the potassium radicals have the same chemical composition, they would necessarily have the same properties (being capable of bonding with gaseous oxygen).
Applicant is invited to provide evidence showing any differences between the potassium radicals of the claimed invention and the potassium radicals of modified Murray that would result in the potassium radicals of modified Murray not bonding with oxygen.
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 ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752