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
The response filed on January 5th 2026 is acknowledged. Three pages of amended claims were received on 1/5/2026. Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 have been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the non-final rejection mailed 10/7/2025. Claim 1 is objected to as noted below and Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the product of Invention Group I, Halohydrocarbon Gas Species A, and Combustible Gas Species D in the reply filed on 9/2/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 7/2/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 10 was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 16, “the turning-on or turning-off” should be revised to “turning-on or turning-off” to ensure proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
The “fire-detection sensing device” in Claim 1, which uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure;
The “fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device” in Claims 1 and 4, which uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure; and
The “storage apparatus” in Claim 1, which uses the generic placeholder “apparatus” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “fire-detection sensing device” in Claim 1 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0062 of the Specification which states, “In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the fire-detection sensing device 10 includes one or a combination of two or more selected from the group consisting of a smoke-sensing component configured to detect a smoke, a temperature-sensing component configured to monitor a temperature, a combustible gas-detecting component configured to monitor a combustible gas, and a deformation-detecting component configured to monitor a deformation amount of a battery case. The combustible gas-detecting component can detect H2, CO, and CH4 simultaneously.”. Furthermore, Claim 6 states “wherein the fire-detection sensing device (10) comprises one or a combination of two or more selected from the group consisting of a smoke-sensing component configured to detect a smoke, a temperature-sensing component configured to monitor a temperature, a combustible gas-detecting component configured to monitor a combustible gas, and a deformation-detecting component configured to monitor a deformation amount of a battery case”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets “fire-detection sensing device” in Claim 1 to be a sensor and equivalents thereof.
The “fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device” in Claims 1 and 4 corresponds to Claim 1 which states “the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device (40) comprises a storage apparatus configured to store a fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium”, and the “storage apparatus” of the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device in Claim 1 corresponds to Fig. 2 which shows #40 as a structure that is equivalent to a container. Thus, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets “fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device” in Claim 1 and 4 and the “storage apparatus” in Claim 1 to both be a container 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-110270032-A to Dong et al. (“Dong”) in view of US PGPUB 2015/0041157 A1 to Mitchell et al. (“Mitchell”).
As to Claim 1, Dong discloses a passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system (See Fig. 2 and Machine Translation of Description Page 4 Paragraph 4), comprising:
a fire-detection sensing device (#6) configured to detect and locate a fire location in an energy storage battery compartment and send a fire signal (See Fig. 2 and Machine Translation of Description Page 5 Paragraph 2 disclosing that #6 has a temperature sensor, a CO gas sensor, a smoke sensor, an infrared sensor, and a shape variable sensor);
a fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device (#9, which is a storage container) configured to extinguish an open flame and prevent a battery from reignition and explosion (See Machine Translation of Description Page 1 Paragraph 4 disclosing explosion accidents and Machine Translation of Description Page 4 Paragraph 2 disclosing #9 having fire extinguishing agent, See Machine Translation of Description Page 5 Paragraph 9 disclosing extinguishing operation), wherein the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device comprises a storage apparatus (#9, which is a storage container) configured to store a fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium (See Machine Translation of Description Page 5 Paragraph 3 disclosing carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbon, FK-5112, or dry powder); and
a controller (#10) in communication with the fire-detection sensing device (See Fig. 2) and configured to:
receive the fire signal sent by the fire-detection sensing device (See Machine Translation of Description Page 5 Paragraph 7), and
control the turning-on or turning-off of the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device according to the fire signal (See Machine Translation of Description Page 5 Paragraphs 8-9).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong as applied to Claim 1 above, Dong does not specifically disclose wherein the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium is a combination of 90% to 99.8% of a lithium passivation gas and 0.2% to 10% of a halohydrocarbon gas, and the lithium passivation gas is one or a combination of two selected from nitrogen and carbon dioxide (See Machine Translation of Description Page 5 Paragraph 3 disclosing carbon dioxide or nitrogen, however a combination of a halohydrocarbon and carbon dioxide or nitrogen is not disclosed).
However, Mitchell discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire-extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002), a fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium (See #102 in Fig. 3 and See Paragraph 0076) that is a combination of a lithium passivation gas and a halohydrocarbon gas, and the lithium passivation gas is carbon dioxide (See Paragraph 0063 disclosing a fire suppressant mixture that is made up of CF3I and CO2. See Paragraph 0076 showing a mixture of CF3I and CO2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong as applied to Claim 1 above such that the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium is a combination of the lithium passivation gas CO2 and a halohydrocarbon gas CF3I of Mitchell, since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing an effective fire suppressant with limited ozone harm (See Mitchell Paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 1 above, Mitchell does not specifically disclose wherein the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium is a combination of 90% to 99.8% of a lithium passivation gas and 0.2% to 10% of a halohydrocarbon gas (See Mitchell Paragraph 0076 disclosing 25% lithium passivation gas and 75% halohydrocarbon gas).
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium be a combination of 90% to 99.8% of the lithium passivation gas of Mitchell and 0.2% to 10% of the halohydrocarbon gas of Mitchell, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a ratio of lithium passivation gas to halohydrocarbon gas which achieves the recognized result of controlling boiling point and fire suppressant properties as appropriate for a particular fire extinguishing application (See Mitchell Paragraphs 0059-0061) thus being effective in cold environments when needed (See Mitchell Paragraph 0049), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, it is noted that no criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraphs 0072-0080 of applicant’s Specification which disclose various gas mixtures, however the claimed range of percentages being critical is not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 1 above, Mitchell does not specifically disclose wherein the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium has a storage temperature ranging from -30°C to 20°C (See Mitchell Paragraph 0079 disclosing a temperature of 21°C).
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium have a storage temperature ranging from -30°C to 20°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a storage temperature of the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium which achieves the recognized result of having the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium stored at a temperature in a cold environment that can avoid solidifying and clogging (See Mitchell Paragraph 0085) and allow vaporization which improves fluid dispersion (See Mitchell Paragraphs 0054 and 0058), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, it is noted that no criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraphs Paragraph 0064 of applicant’s Specification which discloses “the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium has a storage temperature ranging from -30°C to 20°C and preferably -20°C to 0°C”, however the claimed range of temperatures being critical is not explicitly disclosed).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 1 above, Mitchell further discloses wherein the halohydrocarbon gas is a halohydrocarbon with two or more halogens (See Paragraph 0063 disclosing CF3I, which is a halohydrocarbon gas having three fluorine molecules and one iodine molecule, thus having multiple halogens).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 1 above, Mitchell further discloses wherein the halohydrocarbon gas is one or a combination of two or more selected from a group consisting of CBrF=CF2, CHF3, CF2=CHCF3, CF2=CFCF3, CClF=CF2, CF3-S-CF3, CF3CN, CH2=CHCF3, CF2=CF2, CF2=CHF, CH2=CF2,CCl3F, CCl2F2, CHClF2, CF3I, CF3Br, CH2=CHBr, and N(CF3) 3 (See Paragraph 0063 disclosing CF3I).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 1 above, Dong further discloses wherein the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression device is connected to a battery module (#3) through a connecting pipeline (#16); the battery module comprises a plurality of energy storage battery compartments (#5) stacked from top to bottom (See Fig. 2); the connecting pipeline has one end communicating with a main pipeline (#14) and the other end communicating with a plurality of branch pipelines (See Annotated Fig. 2); the plurality of branch pipelines extend into tops of the plurality of energy storage battery compartments in a one-to-one correspondence manner (See Annotated Fig. 2); and an outlet of each of the plurality of branch pipelines is provided with a nozzle (#4) configured to spray the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium on the plurality of energy storage battery compartments (See Fig. 2 and Machine Translation of Description Page 4 Paragraphs 4-9).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 1 above, Dong further discloses wherein the fire-detection sensing device comprises one or a combination of two or more selected from a group consisting of a smoke-sensing component configured to detect a smoke, a temperature-sensing component configured to monitor a temperature, a combustible gas-detecting component configured to monitor a combustible gas, and a deformation-detecting component configured to monitor a deformation amount of a battery case (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 2 at least disclosing a temperature sensor, a CO gas sensor, a smoke sensor, and a battery shape sensor).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 6 above, Dong further discloses wherein the fire-detection sensing device comprises a combustible gas-detecting component configured to monitor a combustible gas, and wherein the combustible gas is one or a combination of two or more selected from a group consisting of H2, CO, CO2, CH4, C2H4, SO2,C2H6, and C3H6 (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 2 at least disclosing a CO gas sensor).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 6 above, Mitchell further discloses wherein the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium has a storage pressure ranging from 1 MPa to 10 Mpa (See Paragraph 0078 disclosing pressures of between 800 psi and 1025 psi, which are more than 1 Mpa and less than 10 MPa).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Mitchell and US PGPUB 2014/0186668 A1 to Jung et al. (“Jung”).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 4 above, Dong further discloses wherein the main pipeline is provided successively with a turn-on control valve (#12) and a selection valve (#17) along a flow direction of the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium (See Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Dong does not specifically disclose the main pipeline being provided with a one-way flow valve.
However, Jung discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002), a passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0023) comprising a main pipeline (#210) that is provided with a one-way flow valve (#240, See Paragraphs 0049-0050 disclosing a check valve which is equivalent to a one-way valve) along a flow direction of a fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium (#201, See Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0049-0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passivation fire-extinguishing explosion-suppression system for a lithium battery energy storage system of Dong in view of Mitchell as applied to Claim 5 above such that the main pipeline #14 of Dong is provided with the one-way flow valve #240 of Jung between the turn-on control valve #12 and the selection valve #17 of Dong, since doing so would yield the predictable result of only allowing fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium to flow through the main pipeline beyond a threshold pressure (See Jung Paragraph 0049) while preventing fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium from flowing back towards the storage apparatus of Dong (See Jung Paragraph 0050).
PNG
media_image1.png
768
973
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended Claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being unpatentable over Dong in view of Mitchell, applicant argues that none of Dong, Mitchell, and Jung disclose the distinguishing technical feature of the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium being a combination of 90% to 99.8% of a lithium passivation gas and 0.2% to 10% of a halohydrocarbon gas. Applicant argues that although Mitchell discloses a technical solution for the combined use of the lithium passivation gas and the halohydrocarbon gas, Mitchell does not specifically disclose the claimed gas mixture ratio range between the lithium passivation gas and the halohydrocarbon gas. Applicant points to Paragraph 0081 of Applicant’s specification which states “It can be seen from the contrast test results that the halohydrocarbon fire-extinguishing gas with two or more halogens has the highest fire-extinguishing speed; the halohydrocarbon fire-extinguishing gas with only a single halogen has a significantly-reduced fire-extinguishing speed and cannot extinguish an open flame of a battery within 5 s; and when only the lithium passivation gas is adopted, the fire-extinguishing speed is the slowest, and a long fire-extinguishing time is required, which further verifies the rapidity and reliability of the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium of the present disclosure”, and states that compared to using the lithium passivation gas alone as the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium, simply adding 0.2% to 10% the halohydrocarbon gas to a mixture containing 90% to 99.8% lithium passivation gas can significantly enhance the fire suppression speed in lithium battery fire scenarios.
This argument is not found persuasive. The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Regarding Claim 1, Mitchell does not specifically disclose wherein the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium is a combination of 90% to 99.8% of a lithium passivation gas and 0.2% to 10% of a halohydrocarbon gas (See Paragraph 0076 disclosing 25% lithium passivation gas and 75% halohydrocarbon gas). However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium be a combination of 90% to 99.8% of the lithium passivation gas of Mitchell and 0.2% to 10% of the halohydrocarbon gas of Mitchell, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a ratio of lithium passivation gas to halohydrocarbon gas which achieves the recognized result of controlling boiling point and fire suppressant properties as appropriate for a particular fire extinguishing application (See Mitchell Paragraphs 0059-0061) thus being effective in cold environments when needed (See Mitchell Paragraph 0049), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a range of gas concentration percentages out of a finite number of solutions between 0% and 100%, and no criticality is explicitly apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraphs 0072-0080 of applicant’s Specification which disclose various gas mixtures, however the claimed range of percentages being critical is not explicitly disclosed. Paragraph 0081 of Applicant’s disclosure does not further provide any explicit criticality for the claimed range of percentages).
Regarding Claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant also argues that none of Dong, Mitchell, and Jung disclose the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium having a storage temperature ranging from -30°C to 20°C. Applicant states that in the claimed invention the storage temperature of the medium is set lower than the 21 °C disclosed in Mitchell, within the range of -30°C to 20°C, to simultaneously meet the storage requirements of both gases while ensuring that the two gases are contained within the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium in liquid form during storage. Applicant states that fire extinguishing agent storage tanks are typically pressurized, such as to 1 Mpa, and that under pressurized conditions halohydrocarbon gases remain in liquid form over a wide range, posing no operational issues, but that lithium passivation gases containing carbon dioxide exist in liquid form only within specific pressure and temperature limits. Applicant argues that the claimed storage temperature range for the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium of -30°C to 20°C falls entirely within the temperature range required for carbon dioxide to remain in liquid form. Applicant further states that a phase diagram indicates that within the range of -30°C to 20°C, the claimed temperature range solves a problem of storing the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium containing lithium passivation gas and halohydrocarbon gas in liquid form under low storage pressure conditions.
This argument is not found persuasive. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). It is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). Additionally, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Regarding Claim 1, Mitchell does not specifically disclose wherein the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium has a storage temperature ranging from -30°C to 20°C (See Paragraph 0079 disclosing a temperature of 21°C. Furthermore, Paragraph 0078 discloses pressurizing stored fluid at pressures between 800 psi and 1025 psi, which is about 5.5 Mpa to about 7 MPa). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium have a storage temperature ranging from -30°C to 20°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a storage temperature of the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium which achieves the recognized result of having the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium stored at a temperature in a cold environment that can avoid solidifying and clogging (See Mitchell Paragraph 0085) and allow vaporization which improves fluid dispersion (See Mitchell Paragraphs 0054 and 0058), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Mitchell discloses a storage temperature of 21°C , which is only 1°C higher than a temperature within the claimed range. Furthermore, it is noted that no criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0064 of applicant’s Specification which discloses “the fire-extinguishing and anti-reignition explosion-suppression medium has a storage temperature ranging from -30°C to 20°C and preferably -20°C to 0°C”, however the claimed range of temperatures being critical is not explicitly disclosed.). Applicant’s arguments with regard to Claim 1 do not overcome the rejections applied thereto, since applicant has not provide any convincing showing that these are nothing more than optimum or workable values as asserted by the examiner. Applicant has not provided any showing that such limitations are “critical”. In re Cole, 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964); In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Davies, 177 USPQ 381 (CCPA 1973). Mere arguments by counsel cannot take the place of evidence. In re Cole, 236 F.2d 769, 773, 140 USPQ 230, 233 (CCPA 1964); In re Walters, 168 f.2d 79, 80, 77 USPQ 609, 610 (CCPA 1948); et al. Thus, independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Mitchell as noted above. Furthermore, dependent Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Mitchell, and dependent Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Mitchell and Jung.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 O 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
January 23, 2026