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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 16-30 are pending, claims 16-30 are new, claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the baffle plate must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16-30 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 16 recites the limitation "each case" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the gas" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the diameter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 27, 28, and 20 the phrases "preferably" and “particularly preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “is permeable to hydrogen gas and substantially impermeable to an extinguishing gas of the extinguishing system, and the claim also recites “preferably to long-chain carbon compounds, particularly preferably to the gas of perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation the gas permeability to hydrogen is at least 5 times, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 10 times greater than to the extinguishing gas” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 27 recites the broad recitation “an extinguishing agent metering which is designed to meter an amount of extinguishing agent,” and the claim also recites “preferably perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 27 recites the broad recitation “which extinguishing agent metering generates an atmospheric overpressure of at least 25 mbar,” and the claim also recites “preferably of at least 35 mbar and particularly preferably of at least 40 mbar” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation “the membrane is designed to maintain the overpressure for at least 3 minutes,” and the claim also recites “preferably for at least 5 minutes and particularly preferably for at least 12 minutes” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 29 recites the broad recitation “a concentration of the extinguishing agent in the event of extinguishing is at least 5%,” and the claim also recites “preferably at least 6% and particularly preferably at least 8%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 29 recites the broad recitation “the membrane is designed to maintain the concentration preferably for at least 3 minutes,” and the claim also recites “preferably for at least 5 minutes and particularly preferably for at leastl2 minutes” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 16-20 and 22-25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (U.S. 2011/0253413) in view of Shin (U.S. 2023/0166142)
With respect to claim 16, Lu discloses a switch cabinet arrangement comprising at least one housing (housing of 10) and at least one electrochemical energy storage accommodated therein (power supply within 10, see figure 2a and abstract), wherein at least one gas-permeable membrane (30) is arranged in each case on at least two outer walls of the at least one housing, diametrically opposite one another (as shown in figure 2a), via which a gas atmosphere in the interior of the at least one housing is fluidically connected to a gas atmosphere in the surroundings of the at least one housing (as the membranes are breathable, paragraph 0021), which has larger molecules than hydrogen, cannot pass through the membrane (as molecules larger than hydrogen such as water molecules can’t pass in but oxygen can). Lu fails to disclose an extinguishing system or wherein a gas permeability of the membrane is set such that the gas of an extinguishing agent of the extinguishing system.
Shin discloses the use of a fire extinguishing system (figure 1 at 170) being used with a case with a waterproofing membrane (117), further noting that the membrane is a film made of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), known by the trade name Gore-Tex®, and a film-shaped member may be used. Further disclosing the use of a fire extinguishing system to put out a fire quickly within a casing to prevent unwanted thermal runaway from occurring (paragraph 0045).
The examine notes that Lu, paragraph 0021, discloses the use of such Gore-Tex. TM. as being their membrane coating, which is the same as that disclosed in Shin
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fire extinguishing system of Shin into that of Lu, allowing Lu to extinguish a fire if it does occur before any unwanted thermal runaway occurs, and also to prevent fires in general.
With respect to claim 17, Lu discloses the gas- permeable membranes are permeable to at least hydrogen gas (H2) and impermeable to liquid, in particular water (as the membrane prevents water and not gas, abstract).
With respect to claim 18, Lu discloses the membrane comprises or consists of a microporous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) (expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), known by the trade name Gore-Tex, being disclosed by Lu and Shin).
With respect to claim 19, Lu discloses the gas- permeable membrane comprises a plurality of fibrils having a diameter which is many times smaller than the diameter of a water droplet (disclosing the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), being understood to be a fiber structure that prevents water droplet movement across the membrane).
With respect to claim 20, Lu discloses the at least one membrane and the switch cabinet with an interior and surroundings, but fails to disclose the at least one membrane has a gas permeability to air of at least 14 1/min at an overpressure of 10-12 mbar in the interior of the switch cabinet arrangement with respect to the surroundings of the switch cabinet arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a gas permeability to air of at least 14 l/min at an overpressure of 10-12 mbar in the interior of the switch cabinet arrangement with respect to the surroundings of the switch cabinet arrangement, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (in this instant case using the exact same membrane), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05. Please note in the instant application, applicant has failed to disclose any specific criticality for the claimed limitations stating only “The at least one membrane can have a gas permeability to air of at least 14-16 1/min at an overpressure of 10-12 mbar in the interior of the switch cabinet arrangement with respect to the surroundings of the switch cabinet arrangement.”
With respect to claim 22, Lu discloses there being gas permeability, but fails to disclose the gas permeability to hydrogen is at least 5 times, preferably at least 10 times greater than to the extinguishing gas. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill I the art to utilize a gas that has a permeability to hydrogen of at least 5 times as being a matter of selecting a known extinguishing gas with such properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (extinguishing gas) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note in the instant application, applicant fails to give any criticality for the at least 5 times permeability claimed.
With respect to claim 23, Lu as modified discloses the gas permeable membrane is arranged in a fluidic transition of a pressure compensation valve (as the use of such a membrane to control the fluid flowing therethrough as it relates to pressure is disclosed by Shin, where an over pressurization will remove the valve when needed for the extinguishing to leave the casing, Shin further discloses a pressure balancing element to balance the pressure in the case, paragraphs 0059 and 0064).
With respect to claim 24, Lu discloses in which the fluidic transition from the interior of the at least one housing to the surroundings of the at least one housing is gas-permeable and gas-impermeable in the opposite direction (as disclosed by Shin allowing for the move of pressure in one direction and not another by use of a ventilation valve 120, which would be obvious to include to allowing venting of the gas out of the system without any unwanted inclusion into the vent).
With respect to claim 25, Lu discloses the housing but fails to disclose a plurality of housings form a switch cabinet row with housings connected fluidically to one another, wherein the two microporous membranes are arranged in the outer wall of different housings of the switch cabinet row. It would have been obvious to duplicate the system of Lu and thus having a plurality of housings form a switch cabinet row with housings connected fluidically to one another, wherein the two microporous membranes are arranged in the outer wall of different housings of the switch cabinet row (as the membranes being on different outer walls of the housing is already disclosed in the single housing), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI-B). Where such duplicated housings and membranes would result in having 2 ore more of the power supplies found in Lu being used together in a stack.
With respect to claim 27, Lu as modified discloses the extinguishing system has an extinguishing agent metering which is designed to meter an amount of extinguishing agent (Shin discloses that the agent is metered into the casing, via valve 182), preferably perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone), into the interior of the switch cabinet arrangement in the event of extinguishing (as the agent would be metered in via the valve 182), but fails to disclose the extinguishing agent metering generates an atmospheric overpressure of at least 25 mbar, preferably of at least 35 mbar and particularly preferably of at least 40 mbar in the interior of the at least one housing with respect to the surroundings of the switch cabinet arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the extinguishing agent metering generates an atmospheric overpressure of at least 25 mbar, preferably of at least 35 mbar and particularly preferably of at least 40 mbar in the interior of the at least one housing with respect to the surroundings of the switch cabinet arrangement of Lu, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Please note in the instant application applicant has failed to disclose any crictaitly for the ranges of over pressurization. One of ordinary skill would recognize such over pressurization of the housing would allow for the fire within to be sufficiently extinguished and kept from spreading.
With respect to claim 28, Lu discloses the membrane but fails to disclose the membrane is designed to maintain the overpressure for at least 3 minutes, preferably for at least 5 minutes and particularly preferably for at least 12 minutes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize holding the overpressure for at least 3 minutes, preferably for at least 5 minutes and particularly preferably for at least 12 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Please note in the instant application applicant has failed to disclose any crictaitly for the ranges of holding the over pressurization. One of ordinary skill would recognize such over pressurization holding within the housing would allow for the fire within to be sufficiently extinguished and kept from spreading.
With respect to claim 29, Lu as modified discloses the extinguishing agent, but fails to disclose a concentration of the extinguishing agent in the event of extinguishing is at least 5%, preferably at least 6% and particularly preferably at least 8%, wherein the membrane is designed to maintain the concentration preferably for at least 3 minutes, preferably for at least 5 minutes and particularly preferably for at least 2 minutes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a concentration of the extinguishing agent in the event of extinguishing is at least 5%, preferably at least 6% and particularly preferably at least 8%, wherein the membrane is designed to maintain the concentration preferably for at least 3 minutes, preferably for at least 5 minutes and particularly preferably for at least 2 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Such an application of a concentration over a duration of time of an extinguishing agent has a resulting suppressive effect on a fire, and finding the optimal/workable range of the extinguishing agent in a system to extinguishing a fire would have been an obvious optimization of a system.
Claim(s) 21 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu and Shin as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhang (U.S. 2022/0193471).
With respect to claims 21 and 26, Lu discloses the gas- permeable membrane is permeable to hydrogen gas (H2), but fails to disclose and substantially impermeable to an extinguishing gas of the extinguishing system, preferably to long- chain carbon compounds, particularly preferably to the gas of perfluoro(2-methyl-3- pentanone) (C6F120), nor disclosing the extinguishing agent is or comprises perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone).
Zhang discloses perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone) as a known suppressant agent for a battery pack (title, abstract, paragraphs 0011 and 0041-0042) where such an agent is effective at extinguishing a fire within a housing to suppress a fire. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize such an agent as perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone) disclosed by Zhang into the system of Lu to effectively suppress a fire in a system. Furthermore, since Lu discloses the same membrane as applicant, such a membrane would also have the property of being “substantially impermeable” to the gas claimed.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu and Shin as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hack (U.S. 2019/0060690)
With respect to claim 30, Lu discloses the housing, but fails to disclose a baffle plate is arranged in the interior of the housing upstream of an extinguishing agent outlet of the extinguishing system.
Hack, paragraph 0019, discloses the use of a baffle plate within the system for the gaseous medium to flow through as this allows for a more uniform distribution of the gaseous medium into the chamber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the baffle plate of Hack being upstream of the outlet (as the gas then would be leaving the plate to the chamber and thus forming the outlet) into the system of Lu, allowing for a uniform distribution of the gaseous medium into the chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights