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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-20 are as previously presented. Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10 and 17 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "determining that that the'' in line 21 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to -determining that the-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “closing, based on receiving the second one of the second information or the third information, the vent; and activating, the fire suppression system within the container in response to an activation condition being satisfied, the activation condition comprising: the determining that that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold, and subsequently receiving both the second information and the third information,” in lines 18-23 of claim 1, which appears to show the vent closing for a first condition (receiving the second one of the second information or the third information) and then activating the fire suppression system with a different second condition (receiving both the second information and the third information) (underline for emphasis). However, applicants’ specification only appears to describe the vent closing and the fire suppression activating with the same condition as outlined below.
Para 0009 recites, “closing, based on the receiving the second one of the second information or the third information, the vent; and activating, based on the receiving the second one of the second information or the third information, the fire suppression system within the container.” This describes closing the vent and activating the fire suppression with a same condition.
Para. 0012 recites, “The smoke and temperature detection system controller can be configured to close the vent and activate a fire suppression system within the container in response to detecting both the presence of smoke and the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature.” This describes closing the vent and activating the fire suppression with a same condition.
Para. 0041, recites, “The smoke and temperature detection system controller 410 can be configured to close the vent 126 (e.g., the economizer damper) and activate the fire suppression system (e.g., the fire suppression units 430) within the container 110 in response to detecting both the presence of smoke and the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature.” This describes closing the vent and activating the fire suppression with a same condition.
Para. 0056-0057 recites, “At 718 the second controller (the smoke and temperature detection system controller 410) can close the vent 126 of the container 110 in order to at least partially seal the container 110 from the exterior environment. For example, the second controller can close, based on the receiving the other of the second information or the third information … At 720, the second controller (the smoke and temperature detection system controller 410) can activate a fire suppression system. For example, the second controller can activate, based on the receiving the other of the second information or the third information.
Therefore, this limitation (the vent closing for a first condition and then activating the fire suppression system with a different second condition) includes is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the vent disposed in the first compartment.” However, Para. 0024 of the applicant’s specification recites “The HVAC system 120 can include an opening 125 adapted to introduce outside air into the container 110. The opening 125 can be opened and closed via a vent 126 that is controllable via an HVAC system controller 128 (the vent 126 and the HVAC system controller 128 are shown in dashed lines to reflect that they are inside the HVAC system 120 in the illustrated embodiment).” and Fig. 1 shows the vent (126) outside of the first compartment.
Therefore, this limitation (the vent disposed in the first compartment) includes is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second compartment comprises a sealed compartment of the container” in line 5 of claim 4, however, Para. 0031 of the applicant’s specification recites “The separated compartment 350 can but need not be sealed in a manner that prevents air circulation between the separated compartment 350 and the larger enclosed volume of the container 110.” Which appears to describe the second compartment is a sealed compartment and not that the second compartment comprises a (separate) sealed compartment.
Therefore, this limitation (the second compartment comprises a sealed compartment of the container) includes is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 8 depends from claim 4 therefore claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claims 4 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second compartment comprises a sealed compartment of the container” in line 5 of claim 4. It is unclear if the applicant intends this limitation to be “the second compartment is a sealed compartment” or if the second compartment comprises a separate sealed compartment.
Claims 8 depends from claim 4 therefore claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2024/0342528).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses a system (Fig. 1-4, all structural features), comprising:
a gas detection system comprising a gas detection system controller (The controllers of 150 excluding “the firefighting controller” as described in Para. 0063; Para. 0058) and a gas sensor (Fig. 1 & 4, 130),
wherein the gas detection system controller is configured to detect, via the gas sensor, a concentration of a gas within a container, in order to determine whether the concentration meets or exceeds a threshold concentration (Fig. 6, 601; Para. 0058, 0063, 0069), and
wherein the gas detection system controller is configured to open a vent (Fig. 1 & 4, 140; Fig. 2, 141; Para. 0054) in response to detecting that the concentration meets or exceeds the threshold concentration (Fig. 6, 603); and
a smoke and temperature detection system comprising a smoke and temperature detection system controller (Para. 0063 – “the fire fighting controller”), a smoke detector (Fig. 4, 160; Para. 0059), and a temperature sensor (Fig. 4, 170; Para. 0059),
wherein the smoke and temperature detection system controller is configured to detect, via the smoke detector, a presence of smoke within the container (Para. 0059, 0063, 0066-0067, 0074),
wherein the smoke and temperature detection system controller is configured to detect, via the temperature sensor, a temperature that meets or exceeds a threshold temperature (Para. 0059, 0063, 0071-0075), and
wherein the smoke and temperature detection system controller is configured to:
maintain a fire suppression system within the container in a deactivated state based on detecting one of the presence of smoke or the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature (Fig. 6, 602; Para. 0074 – “in addition to that the concentration of the flammable gas exceeds the first threshold and the temperature exceeds the temperature threshold, conditions for triggering a fire extinguishing operation may further include that the temperature exceeds the threshold and the concentration of the smoke exceeds the threshold”), and
close the vent and activate the fire suppression system within the container in response to an activation condition being satisfied (Fig. 6, 604), the activation condition comprising:
the detecting that the concentration meets or exceeds the threshold concentration (Fig. 6, 601), and
subsequently detecting both the presence of smoke, and the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature (Fig. 6, 602; Para. 0074).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses the system of claim 10.
Wu further discloses wherein the gas detection system controller is configured to notify the smoke and temperature detection system controller in response to detecting that the concentration meets or exceeds the threshold concentration (The first controller is configured to notify the second controller of the gas concentration as detected in step 601 of Fig. 6 to proceed to steps 602-604 to either open the vent or close the vent and activate the fire suppression system).
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses the system of claim 10.
Wu further discloses wherein, in response to detecting that the concentration meets or exceeds the threshold concentration, the gas detection system controller is configured to terminate a battery charge or discharge function that charges or discharges one or more batteries within the container (Para. 0075).
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses the system of claim 10.
Wu further disclose wherein the gas comprises a flammable gas (Para. 0050 – “flammable gas”).
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses the system of claim 10.
Wu further discloses the system comprising the fire suppression system, wherein the fire suppression system comprises one or more electrically activatable fire suppressant units (Fig. 4, 180; Para. 0073-0074), and wherein the smoke and temperature detection system controller is configured to activate the fire suppression system by switching an electrical circuit (Fig. 4, 150 and connection between 150 and 180) coupled with the one or more electrically activatable fire suppressant units in order to supply power to the electrically activatable fire suppressant units (Fig. 4, 180; Para. 0059, 0063, 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses a container (Fig. 1-4, all structural features), comprising:
at least one battery (Fig. 1, 110; Para. 0049) within an interior of the container (Fig. 1, inside of 120);
an input (Fig. 4, input of 190; Para. 0062; Para. 0048 –“the energy storage system 100 may be connected to a power generation system, a power transmission system, or a power grid through electrical devices such as a power converter and an electrical switch (for example, a circuit breaker or a disconnect switch), to receive and store electric energy generated by the power generation system” ) from which the at least one battery can be charged;
an output (Fig. 4, output of 190; Para. 0062; Para. 0048 – “output the electric energy to the power transmission system or the power grid as required”) from which the at least one battery can be discharged;
a ventilation system (Fig. 1, 140; Fig. 2, 141; Fig. 3, 142; Para. 0054); and
a fire hazard detection and suppression system (Fig. 4, {130, 150, 160, 170}), comprising:
a gas detection system (The controllers of 150 excluding “the firefighting controller” as described in Para. 0063; Para. 0058) configured to detect whether a concentration of a gas meets or exceeds a threshold concentration (Fig. 6, 601; Para. 0058, 0063, 0069), wherein the gas detection system is configured to activate the ventilation system (Fig. 6, 603) and terminate charge and discharge of the at least one battery in response to detecting that the concentration of the gas meets or exceeds the threshold concentration (Para. 0075); and
a smoke and temperature detection system (Para. 0063 – “the firefighting controller”) configured to:
maintain a fire suppression system within the container in a deactivated state based on detecting, subsequent to the detecting that the concentration of gas meets or exceeds the threshold concentration, one of a presence of smoke or a temperature that meets or exceeds a threshold temperature (Fig. 6, 602; Para. 0074 – “in addition to that the concentration of the flammable gas exceeds the first threshold and the temperature exceeds the temperature threshold, conditions for triggering a fire extinguishing operation may further include that the temperature exceeds the threshold and the concentration of the smoke exceeds the threshold”), and
activate the fire suppression system within the container in response to an activation condition being satisfied (Fig. 6, 604), the activation condition comprising:
detecting that the concentration of the gas meets or exceeds the threshold concentration (Fig. 1, 601), and
subsequently detecting both a presence of smoke, and a temperature that meets or exceeds a threshold temperature (Fig. 1, 602; Para. 0074 – “in addition to that the concentration of the flammable gas exceeds the first threshold and the temperature exceeds the temperature threshold, conditions for triggering a fire extinguishing operation may further include that the temperature exceeds the threshold and the concentration of the smoke exceeds the threshold”.)
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses the container of claim 17.
Wu further discloses wherein the gas detection system is configured to activate the ventilation system by causing the ventilation system to open an economizer damper (Fig. 3, 142; Para. 0057).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method (Fig. 6, 600), comprising:
receiving first information from a first sensor (Fig. 1 & 4, 130), the first information indicative of a concentration of a gas present within a container (Para. 0050);
determining, based on the first information, that the concentration is greater than or equal to a concentration threshold (Fig. 6, 601);
opening, based on determining that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold, a vent (Fig. 1 & 4, 140; Fig. 2, 141; Fig 3, 142; Para. 0054) in order to release the gas from the container (Fig. 6, 603);
receiving, while the vent is in an open position (Para. 0076 describes the ventilation remains on after activation until a gas concentration threshold below a lower explosion limit.), a first one of second information from a second sensor (Fig. 4, 170) or third information from a third sensor (Fig. 4, 160; Fig. 6, 602 & 603;), wherein:
the second information is indicative of smoke present within the container (Para. 0059), and the third information is indicative of a temperature within the container that is greater than or equal to a threshold temperature (Para. 0059; Fig. 6, 602); maintaining a fire suppression system in a deactivated state after receiving, and based on, the first one of the second information or the third information (Para. 0074 – “in addition to that the concentration of the flammable gas exceeds the first threshold and the temperature exceeds the temperature threshold, conditions for triggering a fire extinguishing operation may further include that the temperature exceeds the threshold and the concentration of the smoke exceeds the threshold”);
receiving a second one of the second information or the third information (Fig. 6, 602 & 604);
activating, the fire suppression system within the container in response to an activation condition being satisfied, the activation condition comprising:
the determining that that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold (Fig. 6, 601), and
subsequently receiving both the second information and the third information (Fig. 6, 602; Para. 0074).
Wu does not disclose closing, based on receiving the second one of the second information or the third information, the vent.
However, the examiner finds that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, namely selecting an appropriate trigger (Wu – Para. 0073, 0074; Triggers are disclosed the third information and second information together or the third information alone) to close the vent and prevent external air from entering the container so that a fire can be extinguished as soon as possible (Wu – Para. 0027, 0067), that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem (Triggering due to the second information alone, the third information alone, or the third information and the second information together.), and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, namely disabling the vent prior to the activation of the fire suppression system when a fire is detected.
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches the method of claim 1.
Wu further discloses the method receiving the first information and the determining, based on the first information, that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold are performed at least in part by a first controller (The controllers of 150 excluding “the firefighting controller” and “the ventilation controller” as described in Para. 0063; Para. 0058),
the receiving the first one of the second information or the third information, the receiving the second one of the second information or the third information, and the activating the fire suppression system are performed at least in part by a second controller (Para. 0063 – “the firefighting controller” and “the ventilation controller”) separate from the first controller,
the container comprises a first compartment (Fig. 1, inside of 120 excluding the second compartment), and a second compartment (Para. 0061 – “electronic devices in the ventilation apparatus 140 may be isolated from the energy storage device 110 by using a spacer such as a compartment and the spacer has a fire resistance capability”) partitioned from the first compartment such that air circulation between the first compartment and the second compartment is prevented (The spacer with fire resistance capability prevents the air circulation.).
the first controller is configured to notify the second controller in response to determining that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold (The first controller is configured to notify the second controller of the gas concentration as detected in step 601 of Fig. 6 to proceed to steps 602-604 to either open the vent or close the vent and activate the fire suppression system).
Wu does not teach the first controller and the second controller are disposed in the first compartment.
However, relocating the first controller and the second controller inside the first compartment is a mere rearrangement of parts, and, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0032-0045 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein:
one or more lithium-ion batteries (Fig. 1, 110; Para. 0049) are disposed within the first compartment of the container,
the vent is disposed in the first compartment (Fig. 1; The vent is disposed on the walls of the first compartment.),
the second compartment comprises a sealed compartment of the container (The second compartment is sealed from the external environment.),
the fire suppression system comprises a first fire suppression unit (Fig. 4, 180) disposed in the first compartment, and
the method further comprises terminating at least one of a charge function or a discharge function of the one or more lithium-ion batteries based on determining that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold (Para. 0075).
Wu does not disclose a second fire suppression unit disposed in the second compartment
However, with regards to a second fire suppression unit, “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0028-0031, 0033, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
However, with regards to the second fire suppression unit disposed in the second compartment, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0028-0031, 0033, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the fire suppression system comprises one or more electrically activatable fire suppressant units (Fig. 4, 180; Para. 0073), and wherein activating the fire suppression system comprises operating an electrical circuit (Fig. 4, 150 and connection between 150 and 180) coupled to the electrically activatable fire suppressant units to supply electrical power to the electrically activatable fire suppressant units.
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches the method of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the gas comprises hydrogen (Para. 0008), and a power converter (Fig. 4, 190; Para. 0062)
Wu does not teach the power converter disposed in the second compartment.
However, with regards to the power converter disposed in the second compartment, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0028-0031, 0037, 0051, 0057, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Jacoby (US 4,084,157).
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the method of claim 1.
Wu further discloses the method comprising an alarm (Para. 0063 – “fire alarm apparatus”)
Wu does not disclose activating, based on the receiving the first one of the second information or the third information, a first alarm mode of an alarm; and activating, based on the receiving the second one of the second information or the third information, a second alarm mode of the alarm.
However, Jacoby teaches a prior art comparable smoke and heat detector alarm system (Fig. 1, 10) comprising activating, based on the receiving the first one of the second information (Col. 5: Ln. 7-28 – “smoke”) or the third information (Col. 4: Ln. 24-41 – “temperature”), a first alarm mode of an alarm (Col. 5: Ln. 7-28; Col. 4: Ln. 24-41; Sounding either 26 or 34.); and
activating, based on the receiving the second one of the second information or the third information, a second alarm mode of the alarm (Col. 5: Ln. 37-43; Sounding both 26 and 34.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (activating, based on the receiving the first one of the second information or the third information, a first alarm mode of an alarm; and activating, based on the receiving the second one of the second information or the third information, a second alarm mode of the alarm) as taught by Jacoby, into the method disclosed by Wu to warn people when a relatively smoky fire did not generate sufficient heat, or wherein the heat of a fire builds up so quickly before sufficient quantities of smoke are generated to activate a usual smoke detection device and yielding the predictable result of activating an alarm when a fire is detected (Col. 2: Ln. 27-32).
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Zheng (US 2022/0131199).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches the method of claim 1.
Wu further teaches the vent is maintained in the open position after receiving the first one of the second information or the third information, and is closed after receiving the second one of the second information or the third information (Fig. 6, 600; The vent stays in the open position until receiving both the second information and third information as described in Para. 0074).
Wu does not teach the vent is closed after a predetermined period of time has elapsed without occurrence of the receiving one of the second information or the third information, and
However, Zheng teaches a prior art comparable control method (Fig. 3) for a container-type energy system (Fig. 2, 2) comprising a vent (Fig. 2, 2041) is closed after a predetermined period of time has elapsed (Para. 0091 – “turn off time”). without occurrence of the receiving one of the second information or the third information (Para. 0083; 0091; Para. 0076 – “sequentially control the ventilation system 204 to turn off the fan 2042 and the electric shutter 2041 when a condition for turning off the ventilation system 204 is met”; The closing of the vent is independent of the receiving one of the second information or the third information).
Therefore the examiner finds that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (programming), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (The method of Wu suppresses a fire and controls the opening/closing of the vent and the method of Zheng closes the vent after a predetermined time when no fire is detected.), and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found the results predictable, namely suppressing a fire when a fire is detected and closing the vent after a predetermined time when no fire is detected.
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses the container of claim 17.
Wu further discloses an alarm (Para. 0063 – “fire alarm apparatus”).
Wu does not disclose the alarm on an exterior of the container, wherein the smoke and temperature detection system is further configured to activate the alarm in response to the detecting both the presence of smoke and the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature.
However, Zheng teaches a prior art comparable container (Fig. 2, 2; Para. 0056 – “FIG. 2 is a schematic structural diagram of a container-type energy storage system”) comprising an alarm (Fig. 2, 208), wherein the smoke and temperature detection system is further configured to activate the alarm in response to the detecting both the presence of smoke and the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature (Para. 0069 – “If determining to perform a fire protection process, the environment control unit 203 instructs … and control the audible and visual alarm unit 207 to start an audible and visual alarm”; Para. 0066 ).
Wu in view of Zheng does not explicitly teach the alarm on an exterior of the container.
However, Zheng teaches that the alarm is an audible and visual alarm which is disposed outside the container (Para. 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the alarm on an exterior of the container to allow for easy visibility of the alarm with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, relocating the alarm on an exterior of the container is a mere rearrangement of parts, and the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of an alarm on an exterior of the container (Para. 0024, 0053), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Sandahl (US 2022/0401770).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach, wherein the determining that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold is further based on reference information received from a reference sensor.
However, Sandahl teaches a prior art comparable method (Fig. 7, 700) wherein determining that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold is further based on reference information received from a reference sensor (Fig. 1, 24B; Para. 0038 – “fire suppression system 10 includes air sampling detector 24a and an air sampling detector 24b. In some embodiments, air sampling detector 24a is configured to monitor or sense the presence of off-gas emitted by battery cells (e.g., lithium-ion battery cells of battery rack 16)… In some embodiments, air sampling detector 24b is configured to perform or facilitate off-gas detection of ambient air (e.g., at a location a distance from battery rack 16) to provide a reference or a baseline off-gas concentration for fire panel 12”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (wherein the determining that the concentration is greater than or equal to the concentration threshold is further based on reference information received from a reference sensor) as taught by Sandahl, into the method taught by Wu to provide a reference or a baseline off-gas concentration and yielding the predictable result of determining that a concentration is greater than or equal to a concentration threshold.
Regarding claim 12 Wu discloses the system of claim 10.
Wu further discloses the system further comprising an alarm (Para. 0063 – “fire alarm apparatus”) coupled with the smoke and temperature detection system controller (Para. 0063).
Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the smoke and temperature detection system controller is configured to activate the alarm in response to detecting one of the presence of smoke or the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature.
However, Sandahl teaches a prior art comparable alarm (Fig. 1, {“Alert and Alarm communication” & 14, 16}) coupled with the smoke and temperature detection system controller (Fig.1, 12), wherein the smoke and temperature detection system controller is configured to activate the alarm in response to detecting one of the presence of smoke (Para. 0044 – “fire panel 12 can provide alert and/or alarm communications/signals to a building management system (BMS) 14 and/or emergency personnel 26. In some embodiments, the alert/alarm signals are generated by fire panel 12 based on … the smoke detection signals (e.g., based on the presence of airborne particulate matter, based on the concentration of airborne particulate matter, etc.) received from smoke detector 22, etc.”) or the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature (Para. 0044 – “Fire panel 12 can use the measured temperature to generate the alert/alarm signals”; Para. 0002 – “an increase in ambient temperature beyond a predetermined threshold value”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (an alarm coupled with the smoke and temperature detection system controller, wherein the smoke and temperature detection system controller is configured to activate the alarm in response to detecting one of the presence of smoke or the temperature that meets or exceeds the threshold temperature) as taught by Sandahl, into the system disclosed by Wu to alert a building management system (BMS) 14 and/or emergency personnel (Para. 0044-0045) and yielding the predictable result of notifying emergency personnel in response to detecting that a fire has occurred (Para. 0045).
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses the system of claim 10.
Wu does not disclose wherein the gas sensor is positioned within an air intake of a container ventilation system
However, Sandahl teaches a prior art comparable modular fire suppression system (Para. 0003) wherein the gas sensor (Para. 0017 – “off-gas detector”) is positioned within an air intake (Para. 0017 –“Air Stream”) of a container ventilation system (Para. 0017 – “HVAC system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (wherein the gas sensor is positioned within an air intake (Para. 0017 –“Air Stream”) of a container ventilation system (Para. 0017 – “HVAC system”) as taught by Sandahl, into the system taught by Wu to reduce a number of off-gas detectors (Para. 0017) and yielding the predictable result of detecting a gas concentration within the container.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gil (US 2002/0036090).
Regarding claim 9 Wu teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein receiving the third information comprises detecting a failure of an electrical circuit adapted to conduct an electrical current at temperatures below the threshold temperature and adapted to fail at temperatures substantially at or above the threshold temperature
However, Gil teaches a prior art comparable method (Ti. – “Sprinkler Apparatus and Method for Controlling the Same”) comprising wherein receiving a third information (Para. 0012-0013 – “the self-diagnostic result and a temperature value sensed by the temperature sensing means”) comprises detecting a failure of an electrical circuit adapted to conduct an electrical current at temperatures below the threshold temperature (Para. 0040 – “The microcontroller C2 is further adapted to analyze the amount of current detected by the current supply/feedback circuit C1 and determine the presence of a fault in the thermal fuse F and an aged state thereof in accordance with the analyzed result”), and adapted to fail at temperatures at or above the threshold temperature (Clm. 22 recites “the thermal fuse melting under exposure to the second heat,” where the second heat is a threshold temperature.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (receiving the third information comprises detecting a failure of an electrical circuit adapted to conduct an electrical current at temperatures below the threshold temperature and adapted to fail at temperatures substantially at or above the threshold temperature) as taught by Gil, into the method taught by Wu to use the third information to determine if a threshold temperature has been reached and prevent the fire from being spread (Para. 0012-0013, 0040, 0061) and yielding the predictable result of determining if a threshold temperature has been reached and activating the system (Para. 0012).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Porterfield (US 2024/0204271).
Regarding claim 20, Wu discloses the container of claim 17.
Wu further discloses wherein fire suppression system comprises one or more electrically activatable fire suppressant units.
Wu does not teach but does not explicitly teach the one or more electrically activatable fire suppressant units adapted to spray an ionized potassium fire suppressant.
However, Porterfield teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti-–“Battery Outgassing Detector”) wherein a fire suppression system (Fig. 2, 100) comprises one or more electrically activatable fire suppressant units (Fig. 2, {114, 116 & 118}; Para. 0035 ) adapted to spray an ionized potassium fire suppressant (Para. 0198-0199 describes the fire suppressant (902) comprising “potassium bicarbonate” (904), which is an ionized potassium fire suppressant ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (one or more electrically activatable fire suppressant units adapted to spray an ionized potassium fire suppressant) as taught by Porterfield, into the system taught Wu to allow for the system to respond to a second latent fire event (Porterfield: Para. 0049) with an environmentally fire suppressant (Porterfield: Para. 0212) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments against the modification of Zheng with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the modification of Zheng but instead the new primary reference Wu and its modification presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
May 26, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights