DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/04/2026. Claims 1-19 were pending. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 14-16, 18 and 19 have been amended. Claims 20 and 21 and have been added. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are now pending. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are presented for examination. Applicant's arguments have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 11,16,18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 b set forth in the Office Action of 03/16/2026 is withdrawn in response to the Amendments filed on 06/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3, 5,712, 18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021054625 to Lee (Lee’25, US 20220359947 is used as English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Lee’25 discloses a battery pack (claim 1) comprising: at least one battery module (claim,1) comprising a module case and one or more battery cells in the module case (Fig.2), a control module connected to the module case to manage the at least one battery module (350, Fig. 3) and a fire extinguishing tank (320, Fig. 2) containing a fire extinguishing agent (claim 10) and coupled to at least one of the module case and the control module( Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee’25 discloses wherein the fire extinguishing tank is mounted between the module case and the control module (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Lee’25 discloses wherein the control module is detachably provided on at least one side of the module case (Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 5: since Lee’25 discloses the valve 340 may be actively opened by the controller 350. In this case, the controller 350 may be located on a battery module located at an uppermost side among the plurality of battery modules 200, limitations of claim 5 inherently present.
Regarding claim 7, Lee’25 discloses concentrated solution of an inorganic salt (para 49).
Regarding claim 12, Lee’25 discloses wherein the at least one battery module is two or more battery modules, and wherein the fire extinguishing tank is configured to separately inject the fire extinguishing agent into each of the two or more battery modules (Fig. 2,8).
Regarding claim 13, Lee’25 discloses an energy storage system (Para 5)
Regarding claim 15, Lee’25 discloses a fire extinguishing system comprising a control valve (para 68, control module), comprising a first connector on a top surface of the at least one battery module; a second connector on a top surface of the fire extinguishing tank (see market Fig. 2) and the third connector is configured to couple to either the first connector or second connector (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Lee’25 discloses a first connector on a top surface of the module case; and a second connector on a top surface of the fire extinguishing tank (Fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 20, Lee’25 discloses wherein the one or more battery cells is a plurality of battery cells in the module case (Fig. 5, Fig. 6)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 ,8, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021054625 to Lee (Lee’25, US 20220359947 is used as English language equivalent) in view of US 2021/0060369 to Kim (Kim).
Regarding claim 6, Lee’25 discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Lee’25 does not expressly disclose wherein the fire extinguishing tank is located over the module case such that the fire extinguishing agent freely falls toward the module case.
Kim teaches a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 5), wherein the fire extinguishing tank which comprises a rupture member (para 31 re claim 8) is located over the module case. Therefore the limitation “ the fire extinguishing agent freely falls toward the module case” is inherently present.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Lee’25 with the fire extinguishing tank is located over the module case such that the fire extinguishing agent freely falls toward the module case, as taught by Kim, because such modification the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee’25 discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 8 and incorporated therein .In addition, Kim teaches an extinguishing capsule (Abstract) comprising a rupture member (para 31). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Lee’25 with the extinguishing capsule comprising a rupture member as taught by Kim, because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding claim 11, Lee’25 discloses wherein a venting path through which venting gas discharged from the opening is formed in the fire extinguishing tank (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 21, Lee’25 discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Lee’25 does not expressly disclose wherein the fire extinguishing tank is stacked on a top surface of the at least one battery module and the control module is stacked on a top surface of the fire extinguishing tank.
Kim teaches a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 5), I addition, Kim teaches wherein the fire extinguishing tank is stacked on a top surface of the at least one battery module (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Lee’25 with the fire extinguishing tank is located over the module case such that the fire extinguishing agent freely falls toward the module case, as taught by Kim, because such modification the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Regarding the limitation the control module is stacked on a top surface of the fire extinguishing tank: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the control module is stacked on a top surface of the fire extinguishing tank, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2021054625 to Lee (Lee’25, US 20220359947 is used as English language equivalent) in view of WO 2021177759 to Jo (Jo, US 20220359947 is used as English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 14, Lee’25 discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporating therein. Lee’25 does not expressly disclose wherein a sidewall of the fire extinguishing tank extends below a bottom surface of the fire extinguishing tank and contacts a side wall of the at least one battery module.
Jo teaches a battery module includes at least one battery cell; and a module case configured to accommodate the at least one battery cell, wherein a fire extinguishing agent supply channel connected to a fire extinguishing tank containing a fire extinguishing agent to directly inject the fire extinguishing agent into the module case when a thermal runaway or fire occurs at the at least one battery cell is provided to an inside of at least one side of the module case (Abstract). Jo also teaches wherein a sidewall of the fire extinguishing tank extends below a bottom surface of the fire extinguishing tank and contacts a side wall of the at least one battery module (See marked Fig. 6, part of frame is interpreted as a side wall of the of the fire extinguishing tank). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing tank of Lee’25with the shape wherein the sidewall of the fire extinguishing tank extends below a bottom surface of the fire extinguishing tank and contacts a side wall of the at least one battery module, as taught by Jo, to providing a battery module capable of more rapidly extinguishing thermal runaway or fire at an early stage when thermal runaway occurs in the battery module or fire occurs due to the thermal runaway (Jo, para 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 4, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021054625 to Lee (Lee’25, US 20220359947 is used as English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 4, Lee’25 discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. In addition, Lee’25 discloses a tank fastening portion( 340, Fig. 2 on upper end of the fire extinguishing tank and another fastening portion (320, Fig. 2) on a top of an extinguishing line. Also, Lee’25 discloses that members 340 and controlled by controller (para 55). Lee does not expressly, disclose that the fastening portion disposed on a lower end of the fire extinguishing tank it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place a fastening portion on the lower end of the fire extinguishing tank, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 16, Lee’25 discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 15 and incorporated therein. Lee’25 does not expressly disclose a fourth connector on a bottom surface of the fire extinguishing tank. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a on a bottom surface of the fire extinguishing tank , since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B).
Regarding claim 17, Lee’25 discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 15 and incorporated therein. Lee’25 does not expressly disclose a fourth connector on a bottom surface of the fire extinguishing tank, wherein the fourth connector is configured to couple to the first connector. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a on a bottom surface of the fire extinguishing tank , since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B). Regarding the limitation: the fourth connector is configured to couple to the first connector:
Since the criticality of configuring the forth connector to couple to the first connector- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such configuration in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Lee’25, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to configuring the fourth the forth connector to be able to couple to the first connector as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Lee’25 discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 15 and incorporated therein. Lee’25 does not expressly disclose a third connector on a bottom surface of the control module; and a fourth connector on a bottom surface of the fire extinguishing tank. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a third connector on a bottom surface of the control module, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection Lee’25 reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : JPO Decision to grant a Patent for JP 2023554849.
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 ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights