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
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 3, 8 and 16 filed on 0803/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-16 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 8 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) previously set forth in the office action mailed on 05/01/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 3 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation previously set forth in the Office actioned mailed on 05/01/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2-4, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 in view of Jung under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jung et al. (US-20140186668-A1) under 35 U.S.C 103.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US-20140186668-A1).
With regards to claim 1, in Fig. 3, Jung teaches a battery pack (10) comprising: a battery module having one or more battery cells (11) (¶ 0054); a fire extinguishing chemical tank (200) holding a fire extinguishing chemical (201) (¶ 0054). In ¶ 0036, Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing chemical (201) may be a liquid. The fire extinguishing chemical tank (200) reads on the fire extinguishing tank while the fire extinguishing chemical reads on the fire extinguishing liquid. Jung teaches that the tank includes an outlet (210) connected to the inside of the pack (¶ 0054) which reads on the fire extinguishing tank having at least one through hole formed therein. Jung goes on to teach a cover (second outlet valve, 260) that opens or closes the through hole (outlet, 210) (¶ 0054). Jung teaches that the tank may include the fire extinguishing liquid in its inner space in a highly compressed state (¶ 0054). Jung goes on to teach that if the cover (second outlet valve) is opened, the fire extinguishing liquid may automatically discharge due to the high temperature in the fire extinguishing tank that causes the fire extinguishing liquid to have a pressure that allows the fire extinguishing liquid to be discharge. Since the fire extinguishing liquid is held in the tank, a change in temperature (high temperature) of the tank will cause a change in temperature of the fire extinguishing liquid. The second outlet valve reads on a cover installed in the at least one through hole (outlet) of the fire extinguishing tank and configured to open or close the at least one through hole (outlet, 210) when a force, resulting from a change in internal pressure of the fire extinguishing tank due to a temperature change of the fire extinguishing liquid, causes a control unit to open the cover (second outlet valve). Since the control unit opens the cover (second outlet valve) due to the force, the force indirectly acts on the cover (second outlet valve, 260) through the valve. Fig. 3 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig. 3 above, the tank is disposed on a side of the battery pack. Jung does not specifically teach that the fire extinguishing tank being located vertically above of the battery module. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to rearrange the fire extinguishing tank taught by Jung to be vertically above of the battery module with no unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With regards to claim 3, Jung teaches that the battery pack includes a control unit that may be implemented by means of a battery management system connected to the battery cells that controls overall charging/discharging operations of the battery pack (¶ 0038). This control unit reads on a controller connected to the battery module and configured to manage the battery module. Jung does not specifically teach that the fire extinguishing tank is mounted between the battery module and the controller (BMS).
However, since Jung teaches the tank, battery module and the controller all in one fire suppression apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to arrange the tank between the battery module and the control module as the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With regards to claim 4, as discussed earlier, Jung explains that the cover (second outlet valve, 260) plays a role of opening or closing the through hole (outlet) (¶ 0054). Jung teaches that when the cover (second outlet valve, 260) is opened, the fire-extinguishing liquid may be discharge due to the high temperature in the fire-extinguishing chemical tank (¶ 0054). Jung also explains that the fire-extinguishing tank may possess the fire-extinguishing liquid with a pressure that allows the fire-extinguishing liquid to discharge through the through hole (outlet). As this cover (second outlet valve, 260) opens and closes based on an increase in pressure within the tank to allow flow, it reads on the cover (second outlet valve) opening/closing in a direction compensating for a pressure change inside the fire extinguishing tank.
With regards to claim 5, as discussed earlier, Jung teaches that the cover (second outlet valve) is configured to be opened when the pressure inside the fire extinguishing tank increases (¶ 0054).
PNG
media_image2.png
800
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 6, as discussed earlier, Jung teaches that when a fire is detected, the valve is opened to automatically discharge the fire extinguishing liquid to the battery pack due to high pressure in the tank (¶ 0054). The claim does not specify what an outward direction is in relation to, thus any outward direction will satisfy this limitation of the claim. In Fig. 4, Jung shows the cover (260) in an opened state. As shown in Fig. 4, the cover (260) is opened in an outward direction which reads on the cover being configured to be openable in an outward direction. See Fig. 4 below.
With regards to claim 8, in Fig. 3 above, Jung shows that the cover is located on a side of the fire extinguisher. The side of the tank is interpreted as any side of the tank.
With regards to claim 13, as discussed earlier, Jung teaches that the cover (second outlet valve) opens or closes depending on a change in pressure (¶ 0054). In ¶ 0053, Jung teaches that the embodiment as shown in Fig. 3 may include identical or similar components not further described. The second outlet valve shown in Fig. 3 and the first outlet valve shown in Fig. 3, function in the same manner, opening or closing the through hole (210) (¶ 0047 and ¶ 0054). Jung teaches that the first outlet valve may be a check valve but may be implemented with various kinds of valves (¶ 0050). Jung also teaches that the second valve may be a solenoid valve but is not limited to a specific kind of the valve (¶ 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the second outlet solenoid valve taught by Jung with a check valve as taught by Jung as there are no unpredictable results. Through this modification, modified Jung teaches that the cover (valve, 260) may be a check valve that allows the fluid to move only in a direction from the tank to the battery pack (¶ 0050). Thus, once the pressure within the tank and the external air reaches a certain level where there may be backflow, the valve closes to ensure flow only in a direction from the tank to. This reads on the cover (valve, 260) being configured to switch from an open state to a closed state when the pressure difference between the pressure in the fire extinguishing tank and the external air pressure comes within a certain level.
With regards to claim 14, modified Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 1 and discusses the use of batteries in power storage systems (¶ 0006). This reads on an energy storage system comprising a battery pack according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US-20140186668-A1) as applied to claim 1 and 6, and in further view of Ryu et al. (US-20200038698-A1).
With regards to claim 2, modified Jung teaches the battery pack of claim 1. As discussed above, Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing tank may contain the fire extinguishing liquid in its inner space (¶ 0054). Jung also teaches that the fire extinguishing liquid may have a high pressure and may be automatically discharged due to high temperature in the tank (¶ 0054).
In a similar field of endeavor, Ryu teaches a fire extinguishing unit for a battery pack that ensures the safety of the battery by reducing the possibility of occurrence of an ignition and explosion of the battery cells within the battery pack (¶ 0020 and ¶ 0028). Ryu teaches a fire extinguishing unit that ejects a fire extinguishing agent at a reference temperature or above (¶ 0020). Ryu goes on to teach that the fire extinguishing unit includes an accommodation container in which the fire extinguishing agent is held (¶ 0076). This fire extinguishing unit reads on the fire extinguishing tank. Similar to Jung’s discussion in ¶ 0036, Ryu also teaches that the fire extinguishing agent may be a liquid (¶ 0076). The fire extinguishing agent taught by Jung reads on the fire extinguishing liquid. Ryu teaches that the accommodation container maintains a sealed state at a normal use temperature of the battery module and is melted and broken at a reference temperature or above (¶ 0076). Ryu teaches that at the reference temperature or above, the fire extinguishing liquid is evaporated to expand and be ejected with a high pressure (¶ 0076). Similar to Jung’s fire extinguishing tank, Ryu also teaches that the accommodation container may be pressurized so that the fire extinguishing agent may be ejected out of the broken accommodation container by strong pressure at the reference temperature or above (¶ 0079). This accommodation container reads on a rupture member configured to be ruptured under a predetermined condition to allow the outflow of the fire extinguishing liquid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the fire extinguishing tank taught by modified Jung to include the rupture member (accommodation container) included in the fire extinguishing tank as taught by Ryu as there are no unpredictable results. Through this modification, modified Jung renders obvious the fire extinguishing tank comprising a rupture member configured to be ruptured under a predetermined condition to allow the outflow of the fire extinguishing liquid.
With regards to claim 7, modified Jung teaches the battery pack according to claim 6. Jung teaches that the tank comprises an inner space that holds the fire extinguishing liquid (¶ 0011). The fire extinguishing tank taught by Jung reads on an outer tank that at least partially surrounds the inner space. As shown in Fig. 3 below, the cover is mounted outside of tank. However, Jung does not teach an inner tank holding the fire extinguishing liquid in an inner space and wherein the cover is mounted on the outer tank.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ryu teaches a fire extinguishing unit for a battery pack that ensures the safety of the battery by reducing the possibility of occurrence of an ignition and explosion of the battery cells within the battery pack (¶ 0020 and ¶ 0028). Ryu teaches a fire extinguishing unit that ejects a fire extinguishing agent at a reference temperature or above (¶ 0020). Ryu goes on to teach that the fire extinguishing unit includes an accommodation container in which the fire extinguishing agent is held (¶ 0076). This fire extinguishing unit reads on the fire extinguishing tank. Similar to Jung’s discussion in ¶ 0036, Ryu also teaches that the fire extinguishing agent may be a liquid (¶ 0076). The fire extinguishing agent taught by Ryu reads on the fire extinguishing liquid. Ryu teaches that the accommodation container maintains a sealed state at a normal use temperature of the battery module and is melted and broken at a reference temperature or above (¶ 0076). Ryu teaches that at the reference temperature or above, the fire extinguishing liquid is evaporated to expand and be ejected with a high pressure (¶ 0076). Similar to Jung’s fire extinguishing tank, Ryu also teaches that the accommodation container may be pressurized so that the fire extinguishing agent may be ejected out of the broken accommodation container by strong pressure at the reference temperature or above (¶ 0079). This accommodation container reads on an inner tank in which the fire extinguishing liquid is held.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the fire extinguishing tank taught by modified Jung to include the accommodation container included in the fire extinguishing tank as taught by Ryu as there are no unpredictable results. Through this modification, modified Jung renders obvious the fire extinguishing tank comprising an inner tank.
Although Jung teaches the cover is mounted outside the tank, Jung does not specifically tech the cover is mounted on the outer tank. However, it is within the ambit of one skilled in the art to mount the cover on the outer tank as the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lindstrom et al. (US 20080271903 A1).
With regards to claim 7, modified Jung teaches the battery pack according to claim 6. Jung teaches that the tank comprises an inner space that holds the fire extinguishing liquid (¶ 0011). As shown in Fig. 3, the cover (260) is mounted outside of tank. However, Jung does not specifically teach an outer tank at least partially surrounding an outer side of the inner tank and wherein the cover is mounted on the outer tank.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lindstrom teaches a fire protection system comprising an outer tank (14, casing) and an extinguishing medium container (1, inner tank) containing extinguishing medium (fire extinguishing liquid) (¶ 0073 and Fig. 1). Lindstrom teaches that the outer tank (casing) forms an outer cover for the fire protection system and may minimize unwanted external influences (¶ 0073). Fig. 1 is shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
895
863
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the fire extinguishing tank taught by Jung to form an outer cover or casing to surround the inner tank as taught by Lindstrom. This would predictably minimize any external influences in the tank. The resulting tank will have the cover mounted on the outer tank as it is also located outside the inner tank.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) as applied to claim 1 above an in further view of Philips et al. (US 20160256719 A1).
With regards to claim 9, the cover is interpreted as a different from the cover discussed in claim 1. Jung does not teach a cover configured to be opened when the pressure inside the fire extinguishing tank decreases.
However, it is well known that when fluid is displaced from a closed system, a vacuum is created in the closed system that leads to a decrease in pressure and affects flow behavior. In a similar field of endeavor, Philips teaches a fire suppression system that comprises a housing that includes inlet and outlet ports and a housing interior having a fluid passage (¶ 0006). Phillips teaches that the pressure decrease within the tank is due to the flow of the fluid from the tank into an enclosure (¶ 0051). To mitigate this issue, Phillips teaches a flow control assembly that mechanically regulates the flow of fire suppressing fluid via a poppet valve coupled to a pressure regulating spring (¶ 0052). Philips teaches that the valve may be in contact with fire suppressing fluid at a pressure matching the pressure within the fire suppressing fluid source (tank) when the flow activation assembly has fluidly connected the source (tank) to the fluid discharge assembly (¶ 0052). Phillips discloses that the pressure of the fluid may exert a force on the valve urging it towards a closed position. Phillips also teaches that the pressure regulating spring may be disposed so as to exert a force on the poppet valve urging the poppet valve toward a more open position (¶ 0052). So, if the pressure within the source (tank) is constant, these opposing forces may be in equilibrium, however, as the pressure within the source (tank) decreases, the closing force exerted on the poppet valve may decrease, thereby allowing the pressure regulating spring to urge the poppet valve to a more open position and thus maintain the flow rate of fire suppressing fluid (¶ 0052). The poppet valve reads on a cover configured to be opened when the pressure inside of the fire extinguishing tank decreases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the fire extinguishing tank taught by Jung to include a poppet valve as taught by Phillips as it would be reasonable to expect the same flow issue when a vacuum is created in the tank. Through the modification, the resulting tank includes a poppet valve which would predictably ensure effective flow behavior.
With regards to claim 10, as discussed by Phillips, the poppet valve is urged toward a closed position when the pressure the fluid exerts a force on it (¶ 0052). When the pressure in the tank decreases, the pressure drop pulls on the pressure regulating spring and urges the valve to be opened (¶ 0052). This reads on the valve or cover being openable in an inward direction.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) in view of Philips et al. (US 20160256719 A1) as applied to claims 9 and 10 above, and in further view of Lindstrom et al. (US 20080271903 A1).
With regards to claim 11, modified Jung teaches the battery pack according to claim 10. Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing tank comprises an inner tank holding the fire extinguishing liquid in an inner space and an outer tank at least partially surrounding an outer side of the inner tank (¶ 0011 and Fig. 3). However, modified Jung does not specifically teach that the cover is mounted on the inner tank.
PNG
media_image4.png
895
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In a similar field of endeavor, Lindstrom teaches a fire protection system comprising an extinguishing medium container (1, inner tank) containing extinguishing medium (fire extinguishing liquid) (¶ 0073). Lindstrom also teaches a pressure relief valve (33) for air supply that replaces the extinguishing medium during operation so that a vacuum is not created in the extinguishing medium container during emptying. As discussed earlier, Philips also mitigates the issue related to the vacuum created during emptying using the poppet valve. As shown in Fig. 1 below, Lindstrom teaches that the pressure relief valve is mounted on the inner tank. Fig. 1 is shown below.
The inner tank holds the fluid and is where the vacuum is created during emptying thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to mount the poppet valve (pressure relief valve/cover) taught by modified Jung on the inner tank as taught by Lindstrom as there are no unexpected results.
With regards to claim 12, modified Jung teaches the battery pack according to claim 9. Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing tank comprises an inner tank holding the fire extinguishing liquid in an inner space and an outer tank at least partially surrounding an outer side of the inner tank (¶ 0011 and Fig. 3). However, modified Jung does not specifically teach that the cover is located on an upper side of the fire extinguishing tank.
As discussed earlier, Philips teaches a poppet valve that resolves the flow issue associated with emptying the tank (closed system). In a similar field of endeavor, Lindstrom teaches a similar solution via a pressure relief valve (33) for air supply that replaces the extinguishing medium during operation so that a vacuum is not created in the extinguishing medium container during emptying. During emptying, the vacuum will form in the upper side of the holding tank. As shown in Fig. 1 above, Lindstrom shows that the pressure relief valve is located on the upper side of the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed mount the poppet valve taught by modified Jung on an upper side of the tank. As the vacuum will be formed at the upper side of the tank, it would be reasonable to mount the pressure relief valve there to effectively replace the vacuum with air when pressure decreases in the tank.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Philips et al. (US 20160256719 A1) and Lindstrom et al. (US 20080271903 A1).
With regards to claim 15, a first cover (valve, 260) that closes the hole under normal conditions and opens the outlet when the pressure in the tank increases (¶ 0049). In Fig. 3, the first cover is located on an exterior surface of the fire extinguishing tank. However, Jung does not teach a second cover on an interior surface of the tank.
It is well known that when fluid is displaced from a closed system, a vacuum is created in the closed system that leads to a decrease in pressure and affects flow behavior. In a similar field of endeavor, Philips teaches a fire suppression system that comprises a housing that includes inlet and outlet ports and a housing interior having a fluid passage (¶ 0006). Phillips teaches that the pressure decrease within the tank is due to the flow of the fluid from the tank into an enclosure (¶ 0051). To mitigate this issue, Phillips teaches a flow control assembly that mechanically regulates the flow of fire suppressing fluid via a poppet valve coupled to a pressure regulating spring (¶ 0052). Philips teaches that the valve may be in contact with fire suppressing fluid at a pressure matching the pressure within the fire suppressing fluid source (tank) when the flow activation assembly has fluidly connected the source (tank) to the fluid discharge assembly (¶ 0052). Phillips discloses that the pressure of the fluid may exert a force on the valve urging it towards a closed position. Phillips also teaches that the pressure regulating spring may be disposed so as to exert a force on the poppet valve urging the poppet valve toward a more open position (¶ 0052). So, if the pressure within the source (tank) is constant, these opposing forces may be in equilibrium, however, as the pressure within the source (tank) decreases, the closing force exerted on the poppet valve may decrease, thereby allowing the pressure regulating spring to urge the poppet valve to a more open position and thus maintain the flow rate of fire suppressing fluid (¶ 0052). The poppet valve reads on a cover configured to be opened when the pressure inside of the fire extinguishing tank decreases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the fire extinguishing tank taught by Jung to include a poppet valve as taught by Phillips as it would be reasonable to expect the same flow issue when a vacuum is created in the tank.
Modified Jung teaches a first (outlet valve) and second cover (poppet valve). Jung teaches that the fire extinguishing tank comprises an inner tank holding the fire extinguishing liquid in an inner space and an outer tank at least partially surrounding an outer side of the inner tank (¶ 0011 and Fig. 3). However, modified Jung does not specifically teach that the second cover is mounted on an interior surface of the tank.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lindstrom teaches a fire protection system comprising an outer tank (14, outer casing) and an extinguishing medium container (1, inner tank) containing extinguishing medium (fire extinguishing liquid) (¶ 0073). Similar to the poppet valve (second cover) taught by modified Jung, Lindstrom teaches a pressure relief valve (33) for air supply that replaces the extinguishing medium during operation so that a vacuum is not created in the extinguishing medium container during emptying. As shown in Fig. 1 below, Lindstrom shows that the pressure relief valve is located on the upper side of the inner tank. Fig. 1 is shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
895
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed mount the poppet valve taught by modified Jung on an upper side of the interior of tank as taught by Lindstrom. As the vacuum will be formed at the upper side of the tank, it would be reasonable to mount the pressure relief valve there to effectively replace the vacuum with air during emptying.
Through the modification, the tank taught by modified Jung includes a first cover on a side of the tank and a first cover located on the upper part of the inner tank. As these covers are in this manner, a first and second through hole is formed. Thus, the battery pack taught by modified Jung comprises at least one through hole that includes a first and second through hole wherein the cover comprises a first cover mounted on an exterior surface of the tank and a second cover mounted on an interior surface of the tank.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20140186668 A1) in view of Philips et al. (US 20160256719 A1) and Lindstrom et al. (US 20080271903 A1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Wierenga et al. (US-20040216903-A1).
With regards to claim 16, modified Jung does not teach that each of the first and second covers is maintained in a closed position by a biasing member.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wierenga teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a tank (¶ 0007). Wierenga discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize a spring biased release poppet or burst disk to close off solid propellant from the fluid fire suppressant in the tank (¶ 0004). In ¶ 0026, Wierenga teaches a tank burst disk used to close off the interior of the tank. Wierenga goes on to teach that this burst disk may be replaced with pressure relief valves such as a spring actuated release poppet (¶ 0026). This release actuated poppet reads on a cover maintained in a closed position by a biasing member.
As it is well known to use a cover comprising a biasing member, as taught by Wierenga, to maintain the cover in a closed position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the first and second covers taught by modified Jung with spring actuated release poppet taught by Wierenga as there are no unpredictable results. Through the modification, the resulting fire extinguishing tank of the battery pack taught by modified Jung includes the first and second cover maintained in a closed position by a biasing member.
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 HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
