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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 17 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 2, 4-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are as previously presented. Claims 17-20 remain withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-2, and 4-20 are currently pending and claims 1-2, and 4-16 have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
35 USC § 112(b) Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each capsule comprising a wall configured to rupture in response to… (b) an exterior surface of the wall (emphasis) contacting a particular fluid, or (c) the presence of a particular gas at the exterior surface of the wall (emphasis)” in lines 3-6 of claim 1, however the examiner could not find any support for the limitation “exterior surface of the wall.” The examiner further notes that the applicant submits that support for the added limitation could be found in Claim 3, which does not recite “external surface of the wall”, Para. 0070-0071 which does not describe “the external surface of the wall,” and Figs. 5-7 which show an external surface of a wall, but not the external surface contacting a fluid or gas. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2 and 4-8 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2 and 4-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a wall configured to rupture at a location along the wall in response to … absorbing a particular amount of heat at an exterior of the wall (emphasis),” in lines 5-7 of claim 9, and the examiner could not find any evidence for “absorbing a particular amount of heat at an exterior of the wall.” The examiner further notes that the applicant submits that support for the added limitation could be found in Claim 3 and Para. 0070-0071, but the examiner could not find any evidence for this limitation. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9, therefore claims 10-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lian (US 10,912,963).
Regarding claim 1, Lian discloses a system for providing fire suppression (Fig. 2, 150 including a plurality item 130 shown in Fig. 1B), the system comprising:
a plurality of capsules (Fig. 1B, 144) positioned proximate a hazard (Fig. 2, 160A & 160B; The capsules are located inside of 130), each capsule comprising a wall (Fig. 1B, wall of 144) configured to rupture in response (c) the presence of a particular gas at the exterior surface of the wall (Annotated Fig. 1B; Col. 8: Ln. 25-45 describes sodium azide as a propellant which converts to nitrogen gas upon decomposing at approximately 275 degrees Celsius, with or without the thermoelectric generator, and ruptures the wall. Therefore, when there is a presence of a particular gas (nitrogen), the wall ruptures; Col. 9: Ln. 33-35.), each capsule configured to store a suppressant agent within the wall of the capsule; and
a suppression system (Fig. 2, {110, 116, 120}; Fig 1 & 2 130 omitting the plurality of capsules 144 shown in Fig. 1) configured to discharge a fluid (Col. 9: Ln. 27-28 describes water (fluid) with various additives contained within the aqueous cells(142)) to the hazard in response to a thermal condition at the hazard (Col. 11: Ln. 61 to Col. 12: Ln.43), wherein the fluid is configured to react with the
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
629
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lian discloses the system of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the hazard comprises a battery cell (Li-ion batteries of 160A & 160B; Col. 11: Ln. 28-30).
Regarding claim 5, Lian discloses the system of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of capsules have a pill shape (Fig. 2, 144) and encapsulate a discrete amount of the suppressant agent (Col. 8: Ln. 9-11).
Regarding claim 6, Lian discloses the system of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of capsules are positioned above the hazard such that the suppressant agent falls onto the hazard when the wall ruptures (Fig. 2 shows 4 instances of 130 nearest 156A and 156B which includes a plurality of capsules shown in Fig. 1B positioned above the hazard such that the suppressant agent falls onto the hazard when the wall ruptures).
Regarding claim 9, Lian discloses a container system (Fig. 2, 150 including a plurality item 130 shown in Fig. 1B), the container system comprising:
a container (Fig. 2, 152) defining an inner volume (Fig. 2, 154A & 154B), a plurality of modules (Fig. 2, Li-ion batteries of 160A & 160B; Col. 11: Ln. 28-30) positioned within the inner volume, the plurality of modules comprising a plurality of battery cells (Col. 11: Ln. 28-30; Each Li-ion battery has at least one battery cell.); and
a plurality of capsules (Fig. 1B, 144) positioned proximate the plurality of battery cells, each capsule comprising a wall (Fig. 1B, wall of 144) configured to rupture (Col. 8: Ln. 25-35; Col. 12: Ln. 34-39) at a location along the wall (Annotated Fig. 1B) in response to the location along the wall reaching a particular temperature (Col. 8: Ln. 27-45; The propelling charge (136) is in direct contact with the location along the wall as shown in Fig. 1B and is detonated when the propelling charge, which is sodium azide, reaches approximately 275 degrees by the temperature alone and thus when the temperature of the wall reaches a particular temperature (approximately 275 degrees) sodium azide detonates and ruptures the wall. Additionally, the capsules and thus the capsule walls are made out of polyethylene as described in col. 9: ln. 30-36 which will rupture at a particular temperature when the polyethylene melts, and when placed above battery cells with 134 facing toward the battery cells, will rupture and provide the suppressant agent to the battery cells.) each capsule configured to store a suppressant agent (Col. 9: Ln. 13-21 – “foaming agent”) within the wall of the capsule, wherein the plurality of capsules are configured to provide the suppressant agent to the plurality of battery cells when the wall ruptures (Col. 9: Ln. 30-36).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
629
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lian discloses the container system of Claim 9, and further discloses wherein the wall of each of the plurality of capsules is further configured to rupture in response to fluidic contact (Col. 8: Ln. 25-35 describes sodium azide as a propellant which converts to nitrogen gas, which is a fluid, upon detonation and fluidically contacts the wall causing it to rupture.).
Regarding claim 11, Lian discloses the container system of Claim 9, and further discloses the system comprising a suppression system configured to discharge a fluid to the plurality of battery cells in response to a thermal condition at the plurality of battery cells (Col. 12: Ln. 49-60 – “thermal runaway”), wherein the fluid is configured to react with the suppressant agent to provide fire suppression to the plurality of battery cells (Col. 9: Ln. 30-36).
Regarding claim 13, Lian discloses the container system of Claim 9, and further discloses wherein the plurality of capsules have a pill shape (Fig. 2, 144) and encapsulate a discrete amount of the suppressant agent (Col. 8: Ln. 9-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 7-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian in view of Ozkutan (US 2025/0205531).
Regarding claim 4, Lian discloses the system of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the fluid and the suppressant agent mix and foam to provide the fire suppression (Col. 8: Ln. 9-11).
Lian does not disclose wherein the suppressant agent comprises a dry or a gelled additive.
However, Ozkutan teaches a fire art comparable suppressant agent (Ti. – Fire-Retardant Foam Concentrate) comprising a gelled additive (Para. 0013 – “The gelling component is selected from the group of a carbohydrate (e.g., monosaccharides, disaccharides, polysaccharides, etc.), a synthetic hydrocolloid, or combinations thereof.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (the suppressant agent comprises a gelled additive) as taught by Ozkutan, into the system disclosed by Lain to create a polymer rich barrier near the fuel surface to act as a vapor barrier over the combustible fuel surface (Para. 0023) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Regarding claim 7, Lian discloses the system of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of capsules are a first plurality of capsules (Annotated Fig. 2; Capsules located within 130) and the suppressant agent is a first type of suppressant agent (Col. 9: Ln. 13-21 – “foaming agent”), wherein the system further comprises a second plurality of capsules (Annotated Fig. 2; Capsules located within 130 as 144 as shown in Fig. 1B) positioned proximate the hazard, the second plurality of capsules (Annotated Fig. 2; Capsules located within 130 as 144 as shown in Fig. 1B) each comprising a wall (Fig. 1B, wall of 144 facing 137) configured to rupture in response to the condition.
Lian does not disclose the second plurality of capsules configured to store a second type of suppressant agent within the wall of the capsule.
However, Ozkutan teaches a second type of suppressant agent (Para. 0024 – “foam forming concentrate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (second type of suppressant agent) with a known function (extinguishing a fire) taught by Ozkutan, by performing a simple substitution with another element (suppressant agent located within the second plurality of capsules) disclosed by Lian, yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image3.png
521
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lian modified by Ozkutan teaches the system of Claim 7.
Lian modified by Ozkutan further teaches wherein the first plurality of capsules and the second plurality of capsules are positioned proximate each other and proximate the hazard (Lian: Annotated Fig. 2 of or associated with claim 7) such that the first type of suppressant agent and the second type of suppressant agent are configured to discharge onto the hazard when a temperature at the first plurality of capsules and the second plurality of capsules reaches a particular temperature (Lian: Col. 12: Ln. 34-39 – “threshold temperature”).
Regarding claim 12, Lian teaches the container system of Claim 11, and further discloses wherein the fluid and the suppressant agent mix and foam to provide the fire suppression (Col. 8: Ln. 9-11).
Lian does not disclose wherein the suppressant agent comprises a dry or a gelled additive.
However, Ozkutan teaches a fire art comparable suppressant agent (Ti. – Fire-Retardant Foam Concentrate) comprising a gelled additive (Para. 0013 – “The gelling component is selected from the group of a carbohydrate (e.g., monosaccharides, disaccharides, polysaccharides, etc.), a synthetic hydrocolloid, or combinations thereof.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (the suppressant agent comprises a gelled additive) as taught by Ozkutan, into the system disclosed by Lain to create a polymer rich barrier near the fuel surface to act as a vapor barrier over the combustible fuel surface (Para. 0023) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian in view of Li (WO 2022012465).
Regarding claim 14, Lian discloses the container system of Claim 9, and discloses wherein the plurality of modules are a first plurality of modules (Fig. 2, Li-ion batteries of 160A & 160B; Col. 11: Ln. 28-30) and the container comprises a plurality of packs (Fig. 2, 160A & 160B).
Lian does not teach a pack with a plurality of subpacks each pack of the plurality of packs comprising a plurality of subpacks positioned within the pack, each subpack of the plurality of subpacks comprising a plurality of modules positioned within the subpack, and each module of the plurality of modules comprising a subset of the plurality of battery cells positioned within a module.
However, Li discloses a pack (Fig. 8, 100) with a plurality of subpacks (Cavities 101 shown in Fig. 8) each pack of the plurality of packs comprising a plurality of subpacks positioned within the pack, each subpack of the plurality of subpacks comprising a plurality of modules (Fig. 8, 102; Para. 0115 – “Two battery modules 102 are disposed in any cavity 101”) positioned within the subpack, and each module of the plurality of modules comprising a subset of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 6, 111-116) positioned within a module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (pack) with a known function (storing a plurality of modules), taught by Li, by performing a simple substitution with another element (plurality of packs) disclosed by Lian yielding the predictable result of storing a plurality of modules.
Regarding claim 15, Lian in view of Li teaches the container system of Claim 14.
Lian in view of Li does not teach wherein the plurality of capsules is a first plurality of capsules positioned within the plurality of modules proximate the plurality of battery cells, the container system further comprising a second plurality of capsules positioned within the plurality of subpacks, and a third plurality of capsules positioned within the plurality of packs.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try wherein the plurality of capsules is a first plurality of capsules positioned within the plurality of modules proximate the plurality of battery cells, the container system further comprising a second plurality of capsules positioned within the plurality of subpacks, and a third plurality of capsules positioned within the plurality of packs, because at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art including the fire suppression of batteries/modules, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (locations of the capsules in the container system), that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success (suppressing a fire).
Regarding claim 16, Lian in view of Li teaches the container system of Claim 15.
Lian further discloses wherein the first plurality of capsules, the second plurality of capsules, and the third plurality of capsules each include a first subset of capsules (Annotated Fig. 1B) configured to store and discharge a first type of suppressant agent, and a second subset of capsules (Annotated Fig. 1B) configured to store and discharge a second type of suppressant agent (A first type of suppressant agent and a second type of suppressant agent are not positively recited and device is capable of having a first type of suppressant agent in the first subset of capsules and a second type of suppressant agent in the second subset of capsules.).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image4.png
617
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim rejections 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on pages 8-9 that Lian does not teach “each capsule comprising a wall configured to rupture in response to (a) the wall reaching a particular temperature, (b) an exterior surface of the wall contacting a particular fluid, or (c) the presence of a particular gas at the exterior surface of the wall,” the examiner respectfully disagrees because, with regards to (b) and (c) col. 8: Ln. 25-45 describes sodium azide as a propellant which converts to nitrogen gas, which is a particular fluid and a particular gas, upon decomposing at approximately 275 degrees Celsius, with or without the detonator circuit, and ruptures the wall. Therefore, when there is a presence of a particular gas (nitrogen), the wall ruptures. Secondly, with regards to (a), the propelling charge (136) is in direct contact with the location along the wall as shown in Fig. 1B and is detonated when the propelling charge, which is sodium azide, reaches approximately 275 degrees by the temperature alone and thus when the temperature of the wall reaches a particular temperature (approximately 275 degrees) sodium azide detonates and ruptures the wall. Additionally, the capsules and thus the capsule walls are made out of polyethylene as described in col. 9: ln. 30-36 which will rupture at a particular temperature when the polyethylene melts, and when placed above battery cells with 134 facing down will rupture and provide the suppressant agent to the battery cells.
The applicant further argues “Lian provides an explosive system that requires sending an active signal in order to drive explosion of foam from the internal of the applicators,” The examiner respectfully disagrees because firstly as described in col. 8: Ln. 25-45 a detonator circuit is not required and secondly the detonation is internal to the applicator, but when detonated produces a presence of nitrogen gas at the exterior of the wall of the capsules causing the wall to rupture.
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 21, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights