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 June 12th, 2026 is acknowledged. Four pages of amended claims were received on 6/12/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-9, 12-14, and 20-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Invention Group I and Gaseous Fluid Species A in the reply filed on 7/15/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 7/11/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 15-19 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 10-11 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the species election requirement in the reply filed on 7/15/2025. The examiner responded to the traversal arguments in the non-final rejection mailed 7/24/2025.
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 1-9, 12-14, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-102307536-B1 to Jeong (“Jeong”) in view of US PGPUB 2011/0203813 A1 to Fenton et al. (“Fenton”).
As to Claim 1, Jeong discloses a fire suppression system (See Figs. 1-9) for mitigating a thermal runaway event (See Machine Translation of Description Page 2 which states “In this case, if the fire is not extinguished, the fire gradually spreads to the battery rack and battery tray, and uncontrollable thermal runaway proceeds, causing the entire battery energy storage system (BESS) to be destroyed by fire” and See Machine Translation of Description Page 4 which states “In particular, the gas detection sensor 220 can detect a gas leaking due to an increase in battery internal pressure or damage to a cell due to thermal runaway of the battery cell, and provides a very important fire clue for early suppression of a fire”), the system comprising:
a battery pack (See Figs. 1-2 showing two battery packs that are tray systems #100) having a housing defining a volume (See Annotated Fig. 5, the trays #110 are assembled together to form one housing for each battery pack, with each housing having a volume), a battery module arranged within the housing (See Annotated Fig. 2 showing multiple battery modules that are columns having #121 in each housing of each battery pack), and a plurality of battery cells arranged within the battery module (See Annotated Fig. 2 showing each battery module column having multiple battery cells #121), wherein the plurality of battery cells are configured to provide an electrical output (See Machine Translation of Description Page 2 which states “Recently, as interest in new and renewable energy has rapidly increased due to imbalance in power supply and demand, the development of technology to store electricity produced by using renewable energy through BESS and use it at the required time continues”, thus each battery cell stores electrical energy and can provide electrical output); and
a suppression system (#410, #411, #412, #413, #414, #450, #451, and connected nozzles) coupled with the battery pack (See Figs. 2-3 and 5-8, the suppression system is coupled with each battery pack by #413 and #414), the suppression system comprising a nozzle configured to receive a fluid (See Machine Translation of Description Page 10 which discloses “a fire extinguishing agent spray nozzle attached to the end of the fine fire extinguishing pipe to spray the fire extinguishing agent into the battery module”),
wherein the nozzle is configured to deliver a suppressant from the end of the nozzle to the battery pack to mitigate the thermal runaway event (See Machine Translation of Description Page 5 which states “the fire extinguishing agent injection nozzle is installed through the upper part of the battery module installed inside the battery rack, the fire extinguishing agent is sprayed into the battery module to have an immediate fire suppression effect”).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong as applied to Claim 1 above, Jeong does not specifically disclose wherein the nozzle is configured to receive a gaseous fluid and a liquid fluid, the nozzle defining a longitudinal axis extending from a base proximate at least one inlet of the nozzle and an end proximate an outlet of the nozzle, wherein the liquid fluid is a non-mist liquid fluid, wherein the nozzle comprises:
a first fluid passage configured to receive the liquid fluid;
and a second fluid passage configured to receive the gaseous fluid,
wherein the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage converge at a third passageway defined at an inner surface of at the end of the nozzle such that the gaseous fluid entrains the liquid fluid in the third passageway to form a mist suppressant, the third passageway defining an outlet concentric with the longitudinal axis of the nozzle,
wherein the nozzle is configured to deliver the mist suppressant from the end of the nozzle to the battery pack to mitigate the thermal runaway event (See Machine Translation of Description Page 9 disclosing “fire extinguishing agent”, however a gaseous fluid and a liquid fluid are not specifically disclosed and specific nozzle structure details are not shown).
However, Fenton discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002), a fire suppression system (See Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle (See #1000 in Fig. 11) that is configured to receive a gaseous fluid (See Paragraph 0200 disclosing a second fluid that is a gas which can be nitrogen) and a liquid fluid, wherein the liquid fluid is a non-mist liquid fluid (See Paragraph 0199 disclosing a first fluid that is a liquid that is water, which is not a mist), the nozzle defining a longitudinal axis (See L in Fig. 11) extending from a base proximate at least one inlet of the nozzle (See #1012 in Fig. 11) and an end proximate an outlet of the nozzle (See #1074 in Fig. 11)
wherein the nozzle comprises:
a first fluid passage (#1080) configured to receive the liquid fluid (See Paragraph 0199 and Fig. 12A); and
a second fluid passage (#1090) configured to receive the gaseous fluid (See Paragraph 0200 and Fig. 12A),
wherein the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage converge at a third passageway defined at an inner surface of the end of the nozzle (See a passageway inside #0176 in Annotated Fig. 12A, which is contained by an inner surface #1078 that fluid flows along per Paragraph 0215. Therefore the third passageway defined by #1078, which fluid travels along.) such that the gaseous fluid entrains the liquid fluid in the third passageway to form a mist suppressant (See Paragraph 0123 and See Annotated Fig. 12A), the third passageway defining an outlet concentric with the longitudinal axis of the nozzle (See the outlet in Annotated Fig. 12A which is concentric with longitudinal axis L),
wherein the nozzle is configured to deliver the mist suppressant from the end of the nozzle to a battery pack to mitigate a thermal runaway event (See Fig. 12A and Paragraphs 0120, 0189, and 0204-0205. The nozzle is arranged such that it is capable of delivering the mist suppressant #1200 from an end of #1076 to various targets, including a battery pack in an enclosed space to mitigate a thermal runaway event by helping cool a fire).
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 fire suppression system of Jeong as applied to Claim 1 above to use the nozzle of Fenton sized appropriately in place of the nozzle of Jeong such that the nozzle is configured to receive the gaseous fluid and the non-mist liquid fluid of Fenton so that the gaseous fluid entrains the liquid fluid in the third passageway to form the mist suppressant of Fenton, wherein the nozzle is configured to deliver the mist suppressant from the end of the nozzle to the battery pack of Jeong to mitigate the thermal runaway event, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to provide effective fire protection to an enclosed space in an efficient manner (See Fenton Paragraphs 0189-0190)
As to Claim 2, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Fenton further discloses wherein the gaseous fluid is nitrogen (See Paragraph 0200. Furthermore, the nozzle of Fenton is capable of providing various gaseous fluids).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Fenton further discloses wherein the liquid fluid is water (See Paragraph 0199. Furthermore, the nozzle of Fenton is capable of providing various liquid fluids that are not mist).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Fenton further discloses wherein the mist suppressant is delivered to the battery pack such that the liquid fluid mitigates the thermal runaway event for a longer period of time than the gaseous fluid (See Paragraph 0152 disclosing a liquid to gas mass flow ratio that can be 1 to 1. The nozzle of Fenton is capable of delivering mist suppressant at other ratios, including various ratios where liquid fluid mitigates thermal runaway for a longer period of time than gaseous fluid.).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Jeong as modified by Fenton further discloses wherein the mist suppressant is delivered to the battery pack such that the gaseous fluid inerts the volume within the housing to mitigate the thermal runaway event (See Jeong Figs. 1-2 and Fenton Paragraph 0122. If the mist suppressant of Fenton, which contains inert gas, is delivered to the battery pack, the inert gas will inert the volume within the housing to mitigate the thermal runaway event).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Fenton further discloses wherein the nozzle is a venturi nozzle (See Figs. 11 and 12A, the nozzle #1000 of Fenton has a tube with constricted flow sections along #1080 and #1090 such that a velocity of fluid flow can be increased, thus the nozzle #1000 is equivalent to a venturi nozzle).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Jeong further discloses wherein the plurality of battery cells arranged within the battery module define a plurality of passages arranged adjacent to the plurality of battery cells (See Annotated Fig. 4, a passage exists in each battery pack for each battery cell #121) and wherein the mist suppressant is delivered to the battery pack such that the mist suppressant is provided to the plurality of passages (See Figs. 1-6 and Annotated Fig. 4. The suppressant system is arranged such that mist suppressant will be provided to each passage when mist suppressant is delivered to each battery pack).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Jeong further discloses wherein the battery module is a first battery module of a plurality of battery modules arranged within the housing (See Annotated Fig. 2, each battery pack has eight battery modules), wherein the plurality of battery modules are arranged within the housing to define a plurality of passages arranged adjacent to the plurality of battery modules (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 4), and wherein the mist suppressant is delivered to the battery pack via the plurality of passages (See Figs. 1-6 and Annotated Fig. 4. The suppressant system is arranged such that mist suppressant will be provided to each passage when mist suppressant is delivered to each battery pack).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Jeong further discloses wherein the mist suppressant is delivered to an exterior surface of the housing of the battery pack (See Annotated Fig. 2, the suppressant system is arranged such that mist suppressant will be delivered to an exterior of the housing of each battery pack).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Fenton further discloses wherein a concentration of the gaseous fluid relative to a total volume of the mist suppressant is greater than a concentration of the liquid fluid relative to the total volume of the mist suppressant (See Paragraph 0152 disclosing a liquid to gas mass flow ratio that can be 1 to 1. Nitrogen gas is less dense than water, thus if the masses of gas and liquid are equal, the volume of gas will be greater than the volume of water. Furthermore, more the fire suppression system if capable of delivering mist with varying concentrations of gas and fluid.).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Fenton further discloses wherein an amount of the gaseous fluid in the mist suppressant is greater than an amount of liquid fluid in the mist suppressant (See Paragraph 0152 disclosing a liquid to gas mass flow ratio that can be 1 to 1. Nitrogen gas is less dense than water, thus if the masses of gas and liquid are equal, the volume of gas will be greater than the volume of water. Furthermore, more the fire suppression system if capable of delivering mist with varying concentrations of gas and fluid, including a concentration where the mass of gas is higher than the mass of water).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Fenton further discloses wherein the mist suppressant is delivered to the battery pack such that the liquid fluid is vaporized by heat generated by the battery pack, wherein the vaporized liquid fluid inerts the volume of the housing to mitigate the thermal runaway event (See Fenton Paragraph 0127. When the mist suppressant of Fenton is applied to the battery pack of Jeong, the liquid fluid will be vaporized and will inert the housing, which will help mitigate a thermal runaway event).
As to Claim 20, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Jeong discloses the fire suppression system further comprising:
a container defining an inner volume (See Annotated Fig. 2),
wherein the battery pack is arranged within the container (See Annotated Fig. 2) and wherein the suppression system is coupled with the container (See Annotated Fig. 2, the pipes and nozzles of the suppression system are fluidly coupled with the container), and the nozzle is configured to deliver the mist suppressant (See Machine Translation of Description Pages 4-5 which state “a fire extinguishing agent spraying nozzle attached to the end of the fine fire extinguishing pipe and spraying the fire extinguishing agent into the battery module”).
As to Claim 21, in reference to the fire suppression system of Jeong in view of Fenton as applied to Claim 1 above, Fenton further discloses wherein the second fluid passage has a first portion having a first cross-sectional size (See an inlet of #1090 at #1092 in Annotated Fig. 12A) and a second portion toward an end of the nozzle having a second cross-sectional size (See an outlet of #1090 at #1094 in Annotated Fig. 12A), the first cross-sectional size smaller than the second cross-sectional size (See Annotated Fig. 12A).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
603
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
646
999
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
816
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Claims 1-9, 12-14, and 20-21 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement in the non-final rejection mailed 3/12/2026, applicant argues that the limitation of “wherein the liquid fluid is a non-mist liquid fluid” is supported by Paragraph 0058 of the Specification.
This argument is found persuasive. Therefore Claims 1-9, 12-14, and 20-21 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding Claims 1-9, 12-14, and 20-21 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Fenton, applicant argues that Fenton does not disclose a nozzle structured such that “the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage converge at a third passageway defined at an inner surface of the end of the nozzle such that the gaseous fluid entrains the liquid fluid in the third passageway to form a mist suppressant, the third passageway defining an outlet concentric with the longitudinal axis of the nozzle” as required by Claim 1. Applicant argues that Fenton makes no reference to a third passageway and that the chamber formed by #1078 of Fenton is not a “third passageway defined at an inner surface of the end of the nozzle such that the gaseous fluid entrains the liquid fluid in the third passageway to form a mist suppressant, the third passageway defining an outlet concentric with the longitudinal axis of the nozzle” as claimed. Applicant argues that the streams #1200 and #1220 of Fenton are not contained within a defined passageway but rather define a trajectory of fluids being expelled from the nozzle of Fenton.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). Claim 1 requires “wherein the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage converge at a third passageway defined at an inner surface of the end of the nozzle such that the gaseous fluid entrains the liquid fluid in the third passageway to form a mist suppressant, the third passageway defining an outlet concentric with the longitudinal axis of the nozzle”. Fenton discloses wherein the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage converge at a third passageway that is a passageway contained inside #0176 as shown in Annotated Fig. 12A, which is contained by and defined within an inner surface #1078 that fluid flows along per Paragraph 0215. Therefore the third passageway is defined by the surface #1078, which fluid travels along. Gaseous fluid entrains the liquid fluid in the third passageway to form a mist suppressant as disclosed in See Paragraph 0123 and shown in Annotated Fig. 12A. The third passageway defines an outlet shown in Annotated Fig. 12A which is concentric with longitudinal axis L. Claim 1 does not require that an additional structure delineate the third passageway other than the third passageway being “defined at an inner surface of the end of the nozzle”. Thus, the nozzle of Fenton reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations of the first fluid passage, second fluid passage, and third passageway, and Claims 1-9, 12-14, and 20-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights