DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20200125884; English translation of record in IDS filed September 4, 2023).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Lee teaches a fire extinguishing pack for lithium batteries (title), which may be used in a wide variety of fields such as smartphones, drones, and automobiles (par. 2). As seen in Figure 2, the entire system depicted comprises a box having a plurality of chambers separated by walls/partitions. The lithium battery 500 can be seen in one chamber of said box, and sealed box pack 100, containing fire extinguishing agent 200, comprises a distinct chamber of said box. These chambers are configured to communicate with each other when the battery cell is thermal-runaway. Lee teaches that when a fire occurs in the battery 500, flammable sheet 400 melts or burns, thus opening hole 300 so that the fire extinguishing agent 200 is poured into the surrounding area (par. 12 and Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, hole 300 constitutes a communication/injection port allowing the first chamber (housing the battery) to be communicated with the second chamber (housing the extinguishing agent) and for the fire extinguishing agent to be injected into the first chamber.
Regarding claim 12, the flammable sheet 400 melts away to enable communication of the two chambers. This constitutes the instantly claimed hot-melt member.
Regarding claim 17, the flammable sheet 400 is considered to act as a trigger, setting off and enabling the fire extinguishing agent 200 to extinguish the fire when triggered by thermal decomposition/the very fire itself.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200125884; English translation of record in IDS filed September 4, 2023) as applied to claim 3 above.
Lee teaches a box according to claim 3, as shown above.
Lee does not teach the use of an electric control valve to regulate a communication port between the two chambers.
The communication port of Lee opens in a relatively analog manner when the flammable sheet burns away enough to enable the fire extinguishing agent to flow into the battery compartment.
However, and regarding claim 4, use of an electrically actuated valve and sensors to otherwise detect thermal-runaway and “digitally” open communication between the two compartments as an alternative or redundant means would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling of the claimed invention insomuch as such sensors and valves are conventionally known and this would functionally achieve the same result of opening the communication between chambers upon detection of thermal-runaway.
Claim(s) 2, 6-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200125884; English translation of record in IDS filed September 4, 2023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 110600638 A; references herein are made with respect to the English translation, submitted herewith).
Lee teaches a box according to claim 1, as shown above.
Zhang, in a similar invention directed toward a battery having a fire-extinguishing system (title and abstract), teaches the use of high pressure carbon dioxide gas as the fire-extinguishing agent/medium. Injection pipe 401 may melt and/or fracture when the temperature within the battery cavity rises above the melting point of said injection pipe, filling the cavity with carbon dioxide (Fig. 4 and page 9/12, 2nd par.).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling of the claimed invention to utilize the fire suppression system of Zhang in place of or in addition to the fire suppression system of Lee in order to effectively prevent further damage and fire. When the two chambers are not in communication, the high pressure CO2 compartment would have a higher internal pressure than the battery-containing compartment.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, injection pipe 401 of Zhang constitutes the claimed conduit.
Regarding claim 7, said conduit is closed during normal operation of the battery.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches pressure valve 7 located within the conduit at the entrance of the CO-2 storage cavity 301 (Fig. 4 and page 9/12, 2nd par.). At least the portions of the conduit abutting the pressure valve are consider to be disposed opposite said pressure valve. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Zhang teaches that the injection pipe will melt and/or fracture during thermal-runaway, as discussed above.
Claim(s) 5, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200125884; English translation of record in IDS filed September 4, 2023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao et al (CN 109585715 A; references herein are made with respect to the English translation, submitted herewith).
Lee teaches a box according to claim 1, as shown above.
Lee does not teach the use of pressure sensitive closure to release the fire-extinguishing agent upon thermal-runaway.
Cao, in a similar invention directed toward fire mitigation in battery boxes (title and abstract), teaches the use of wall which opens when pressure exceeds a set value in the battery compartment, opening and connecting the cavity containing the fire extinguishing agent with the battery cavity to extinguish the fire (abstract).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, it would have been obvious to utilize a pressure release mechanism in the system of Lee in place of or in addition to the flammable sheet in order to effectively introduce fire-extinguishing agent into the battery compartment, as taught by Cao, in order to extinguish the fire.
Cao further teaches that after the extinguishing agent has been released into the battery compartment, if/when the pressure of the chamber continues to increase in the battery case and reaches opening or cracking pressure of the external explosion-proof valve, the external anti-explosion valve is opened, and the pressure of the battery shell is released, preventing the battery case from rupture or explosion (page 9/12, 7th par.).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling of the claimed invention to utilize such a pressure relief valve in the system of Lee in order to prevent rupture and/or explosion of the battery case during thermal-runaway, as taught by Cao. Such a pressure relief value would also constitute an exhaust port allowing any exhaust to pass from the battery compartment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732