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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are 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.
Regarding claim 6 and its dependent, recitation “the fire-extinguishing liquid or water inside the fire extinguishing case” render the claim indefinite because claim 1 only defines, “… supply the fire-extinguishing liquid to the fire extinguishing case”, and thus, it is unclear whether the water inside the fire extinguishing case claimed in claim 6 means i) the fire-extinguishing liquid supplied in the fire extinguishing case previously claimed in claim 1 is water; or ii) the fire-extinguishing liquid supplied in the fire extinguishing case previously claimed in claim 1 and water as an additional fluid are both supplied to the fire extinguishing case.
Regarding claim 7, term "check valve" renders claim 7 indefinite. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. V. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "check valve" is used by the claim to mean "an electronical on-off/Solenoid valve", see claims 1 and 6 (which claim the supply valve and the discharge valve are both controlled by the controller) and [0038 and 0044] of the specification, while the accepted meaning is "a mechanical non- return valve". The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FIEDLER 20220285794.
Regarding claim 1, FIEDLER teaches the invention as claimed: A system (Fig. 1) for extinguishing a fire of a high voltage battery (6, see title and Figs. 102), the system comprising:
a battery cell assembly (6, Fig. 2 and [0057]);
a fire extinguishing case (1) to accommodate the battery cell assembly therein (6; see Fig. 2);
a fire-extinguishing liquid tank (2, Fig. 1 and [0053]) connected to the fire extinguishing case (1; see Fig. 1), wherein a fire-extinguishing liquid (2a, [0052]) is stored in the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (2);
a supply valve (5) provided between the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (2) and the fire extinguishing case (1; see Fig. 1) and configured to supply or block the fire-extinguishing liquid (2a) from the fire extinguishing liquid tank (2) to the fire extinguishing case (1, [0053]); and
a controller (per [0037 and 0055], valve 5 is controlled by receiving a single 15 when the fire is detected by temperature detector, and thus, an electric controller is required to perform such teaching function) electrically connected to the supply valve (5) and configured to open the supply valve (5) to supply the fire-extinguishing liquid (2a) to the fire extinguishing case (1) when the controller concludes that the fire occurs (when a detected temperature at the battery cell 6a exceed a limit, see [0037]) in the battery cell assembly (6),
wherein an upper end of the fire extinguishing case (1) is configured to open (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and [0031], the case 1 has an upper opening), and
wherein the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (2) is located higher than the fire extinguishing case (1, see Fig. 1 and [0031-0031]).
Regarding claim 2, FIEDLER further teaches wherein a supply pipe (3) is provided to connect the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (2) to the fire extinguishing case (1) so that the fire-extinguishing liquid (2a) is supplied from the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (2) to the fire extinguishing case (1), and wherein the supply valve (5) is provided at the supply pipe (3, valve 5 is at inlet of pipe 3, see Fig. 1 and [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, FIEDLER further teaches wherein a pump (the pump per [0029]) is provided at the supply pipe (3) to pressurize the fire-extinguishing liquid (2a) and supply the fire-extinguishing liquid (2a) to the fire extinguishing case (1; per [0029], the pump is provided at least one line 3 in order to pump the liquid 2a from tank 2 to case 1, also see [0032 and claim 7]).
Regarding claim 8, FIEDLER further teaches a sensor (the temperature detector per [0037]) configured to detect the fire of the battery cell assembly (6) and output a fire detection signal (when the detected temperature at the battery cell 6a excess a limit) to the controller (see [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, FIEDLER further teaches wherein the sensor includes a temperature sensor (the temperature detector per [0037]) configured for measuring a temperature (the detected temperature of 6) of the battery cell assembly (see [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, FIEDLER further teaches wherein when the temperature (the detected temperature measured by the temperature detector per [0037]) of the battery cell assembly (6) is higher than or equal to a thermal runaway temperature (the limit per [0037]), the controller (such controller is required in order to receive feedback from the temperature detector and determine whether the fire occurs) is configured to conclude that the fire occurs in (when the detected temperature excess the limit) the battery cell assembly (6; see [0037]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FIEDLER 20220285794 in view of KIM 20230364455, refers as KIM’ 455 thereafter.
Regarding claim 6, FIEDLER further teaches a discharge opening (8, Fig. 2) of the fire extinguishing case (1) configured to discharge the fire-extinguishing liquid (2a) inside the fire extinguishing case (1) to the outside of the fire extinguishing case (1, see [0058]).
FIEDLER does not teach a discharge pipe and a discharge valve, wherein the discharge pipe is connected to the fire extinguishing case to discharge the fire-extinguishing liquid or water inside the fire extinguishing case to the outside of the fire extinguishing case, wherein the discharge valve is provided at the discharge pipe, and wherein the controller is configured to close the discharge valve when the fire of the battery cell assembly is detected.
However, KIM’ 455 teaches a discharge pipe (annotated Fig. 1) and a discharge valve (102), wherein the discharge pipe (annotated Fig. 1) is connected to the fire extinguishing case (100) to discharge the fire-extinguishing liquid inside the fire extinguishing case (100) to the outside of the fire extinguishing case (100; [0029 and 0036]), wherein the discharge valve (102) is provided at the discharge pipe (see annotated Fig. 1), and wherein the controller (130) is configured to close the discharge valve (130) when the fire of the battery cell assembly (annotated Fig. 1) is detected (see Fig. 3 and [0044-0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
833
1134
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide FIEDLER with KIM’ 455’s discharge pipe and discharge valve controlled by the controller, such that
wherein the discharge pipe is connected to the fire extinguishing case to discharge the fire-extinguishing liquid or water inside the fire extinguishing case to the outside of the fire extinguishing case, wherein the discharge valve is provided at the discharge pipe, and wherein the controller is configured to close the discharge valve when the fire of the battery cell assembly is detected
in order to control the discharging of the fire-extinguishing liquid inside the fire extinguishing case to outside according to the temperature of the battery cell assembly and prevent re-ignition (KIM’ 455, [0029 and 0061]).
Regarding claim 7, FIEDLER in view of KIM’ 455 further teaches wherein each of the supply valve (FIEDLER’s 5) and the discharge valve (KIM’ 455’s 102) includes an electronic solenoid valve (see FIEDLER’s [0037 and 0055] and KIM’ 455’s [0029]).
The motivation of the combination is the same with the reason for applying KIM’ 455 for the rejection of claim 6, see above.
Regarding claim 11, FIEDLER does not teach wherein the sensor includes an off-gas sensor configured to detect a gas generated from the battery cell assembly during thermal runaway.
However, KIM’ 455 teaches the sensor (110) includes a temperature sensor (the temperature sensor per [0032]) and an off-gas sensor (the smoke sensor per [0033]) configured to detect the fire of the battery cell assembly (annotated Fig. 1 in claim 6) and output a fire detection signal to the controller (130, see Fig. 3 and [0031-0033]), wherein off-gas sensor (the smoke sensor per [0033]) configured to detect a gas generated from the battery cell assembly (annotated Fig. 1 in claim 6) during thermal runaway (see [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide FIEDLER with KIM’ 455’s using a temperature sensor and an off-gas sensor to detect fire of the battery cell assembly, such that
the sensor includes an off-gas sensor configured to detect a gas generated from the battery cell assembly during thermal runaway (the modification is to provide KIM’ 455’s off-gas sensor in addition to FIEDLER’s temperature sensor to detect fire)
because it is noted that a simple substitution of one known element, in this case, using a temperature sensor, for another, in this case, using a temperature sensor and an off-gas sensor as taught by KIM’ 455, to obtain predictable results, in this case, detecting fire occurs in the battery cell assembly, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, MPEP 2141 III(B).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM 20180289996, refers as KIN’ 996 thereafter, in view of JUNG 20240266629.
Regarding claim 1, KIM’ 996 teaches the invention as claimed: A system (Figs. 1-2) for extinguishing a fire of a high voltage battery, the system comprising:
a battery cell assembly (the battery cell per [0005-0006]);
a fire extinguishing case (the case of the battery 30, see annotated Fig. 1) to accommodate the battery cell assembly therein (see [0005-0006]);
a fire-extinguishing liquid tank (70) connected to the fire extinguishing case (thermally connected via cooling channel, see annotated Fig. 1), wherein a fire-extinguishing liquid (cooling water) is stored in the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (70);
a supply valve (300) provided between the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (70) and the fire extinguishing case (annotated Fig. 1) and configured to supply or block the fire-extinguishing liquid from the fire-extinguishing liquid tank to the fire extinguishing case ([0033]); and
a controller (400) electrically connected to the supply valve (300, see Fig. 1) and configured to open the supply valve (300) to supply the fire-extinguishing liquid (the cooling water) to the fire extinguishing case (annotated Fig. 1) when the controller (400) concludes that the fire occurs in the battery cell assembly ([0042]),
wherein the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (70) is located higher than (as shown in Fig. 2, the cooling system 100 that includes the tank 70 in Fig. 1 is located higher than battery 30 in the car body) the fire extinguishing case (the case of the battery 30, see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
835
925
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KIM’ 996 does not teach wherein an upper end of the fire extinguishing case is configured to open.
However, JUNG teaches an upper end (annotated Fig. 2) of the fire extinguishing case (battery case 21, see Figs. 1-2) is configured to open (per [0068-0069], pace 23 formed inside of the case 21 is an open space and an opening 22 is formed on the case 21) in order to discharge gas or flames to outside of the fire extinguishing case for sensors (210) to detect the fire occurs in the battery cell assembly (20) in early stage ([0066-0067 and 0070]).
PNG
media_image3.png
488
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify KIM’ 996 with JUNG’s fire extinguishing case having an upper end that is configured to open in order to accurately and reliability detect the fire occurs in the battery cell assembly in the early stage (JUNG, [0001 and 0066-0067]).
Regarding claim 2, KIM’ 996 further teaches wherein a supply pipe (part 200 and 230, see annotated Fig. 1) is provided to connect the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (70) to the fire extinguishing case (annotated Fig. 1) so that the fire-extinguishing liquid (the cooling water) is supplied from the fire extinguishing liquid tank (70) to the fire extinguishing case (see annotated Fig. 1), and wherein the supply valve (300) is provided at the supply pipe (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
835
925
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, KIM’ 996 further teaches wherein a pump (annotated Fig. 1) is provided at the supply pipe (see annotated Fig. 1) to pressurize the fire-extinguishing liquid and supply the fire-extinguishing liquid to the fire extinguishing case (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
854
925
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, KIM’ 996 further teaches wherein the supply pipe (see annotated Fig. 1 in claim 3) is connected to an external supply line (710 in Figs. 1-2) which supplies the fire-extinguishing liquid or water ([0035]) from the outside (where 730 is, see Fig. 2) thereof, between the supply valve (300) and the fire-extinguishing liquid tank (70, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, KIM’ 996 further teaches an external supply valve (720) mounted on the external supply line (710, see Fig. 2), wherein the external supply valve (720) is controlled by the controller (400) to open or close the external supply valve (720; see Fig. 1 and [0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to i) the new reference, and ii) the new combination of the previously applied reference and the new reference being used in the current office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant's arguments have been addressed above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights