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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Applicant elects Species C (Fig. 5)), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/19/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 5-7 in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following grounds.
The embodiments are disclosed as compatible and cooperative structural variations within the same overall fire extinguishing architecture and share substantial overlapping structure and operation, including the battery housing, fire extinguishing liquid inlet structure, and connection hose arrangement.
The identified embodiments do not appear to require materially different fields of search or unrelated inventive concepts, but instead concern related hose connection, routing, storage, and deployment configurations within the same vehicle-mounted fire extinguishing system
The examiner does not find This is not found persuasive because of the following.
The connection coupling of Species A, the bellows shaped portion of the connection hose of Species B, and the receiving unit of Species C do not require the structure of and would not infringe on each of the respected Species. Species may be either independent or related under the particular disclosure. Where species under a claimed genus are not connected in any of design, operation, or effect under the disclosure, the species are independent inventions (See MPEP § 806.04(b).). Furthermore, the species defining claims recite mutually exclusive characteristics as outlined in the Restriction Requirement and further because each of species are patentably distinct from each other (See MPEP § 806.04(h)), and no evidence of obvious variants has been supplied. Furthermore, for the case that generic claims 1-4 are allowable each of the species would be allowable (See MPEP § 806.04).
Serious search bourdon exists because the different species require a different field of search due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. (See MPEP § 808.02 C)
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are original. Claims 5-7 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-9 are currently pending and claims 1-4 and 8-9 have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows
“A disengagement portion” in line 10 of claim 8. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “portion” coupled with functional language “configured to apply an applied external pressure to the second receiving housing to disengage the second receiving housing from the first receiving housing so that the second receiving housing is separated from the first receiving housing” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “A disengagement portion” in line 10 of claim 8, because Figs. 5-6 of applicants PGPub (US 2024/0157182) shows a protruding portion of the connection coupling (8), and Para. 0051 states “the disengagement portion of the connection coupling 8 is inserted between the pair of stopper protrusions 711 to connect the connection pipe for injection of the fire extinguishing liquid to the connection coupling 8 outside of the vehicle body A”. The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a protruding portion of the connection coupling”, or equivalent thereof.
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.
Claim 1-4 and 8-9 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 1 recites the limitation “a battery housing” in line 2 of claim 1, but claim 1 also recites the limitation “a housing covering the battery module of an electric or hydrogen vehicle” in lines 9-10 of claim 1. It is unclear if there are separate “housings” or if these are the same “housing”.
Claims 2-4 and 8-9 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-4 and 8-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the connection coupling " in line 11 of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a disengagement portion … configured to apply an applied external pressure to the second receiving housing” in lines 10-12 of claim 8. It is unclear as to how the a designment portion can apply an applied pressure. The examiner will interpret this limitation as “configured to apply an external pressure to the second receiving housing.”
Claim 9 depends on claim 8, therefore claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bäder (US 2023/0181950).
Regarding claim 1, a fire extinguishing device (Fig. 1 & 3, all structural elements) for an electric or hydrogen vehicle battery (Fig. 1, 11), comprising:
a battery housing (Fig. 1, 13);
a fire extinguishing liquid inlet (Fig. 1, interface between 23b and 13 and a fire extinguishing liquid outlet (Fig. 1, 14) formed in the battery housing; and
a connection hose (Fig. 1, 23b) having a side (Fig. 1, side of 23b connected to 13) connected to the fire extinguishing liquid inlet and an opposite side (Fig. 1, side of 23b connected to 24) configured to be connected to a vehicle body,
wherein the fire extinguishing device is configured to directly spray a fire extinguishing liquid (Fig. 1, Extinguishing liquid inside of item 50; Para. 0051) between a battery module (Fig. 1, 12) and a housing covering the battery module (Fig. 1, exterior surface of 12) of an electric or hydrogen vehicle (Fig. 1, 1; Para. 0045), in an event of a fire in the battery module (Para. 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 2, Bäder discloses the fire extinguisher device of claim 1 further comprising:
a valve installed at each of the fire extinguishing liquid inlet (Fig. 1, 24) and the fire extinguishing liquid outlet (Fig. 1, 14; Para. 0055 – “The extinguishing agent outlet element 14 can be designed, for example, as …. a pressure relief valve.”), and configured to selectively inject the fire extinguishing liquid (Para. 0053), and in a normal situation (The examiner will interpret “a normal situation” as a situation in which “a fire did not occur” in light of Para. 0048 of US 2024/0157182 (PG Pub of applicant’s disclosure).), to prevent external moisture from entering the battery housing (Para. 0053; When a fire is not detected the valve is closed, preventing external moisture from entering the battery housing.).
Regarding claim 3, Bäder further the fire extinguisher device of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the valve is a pressure actuated valve configured to operate by a pressure (Para. 0055; A pressure relief valve is configured to operate by a pressure.)
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 Bäder.
Bäder discloses the fire extinguishing device of claim 3, and wherein the pressure actuated valve is configured to operate under an absolute pressure (Para. 0055; A pressure relief valve inherently operates under an absolute pressure to release pressure when over-pressurization occurs.).
Bäder discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the absolute pressure is 150 kPa or above. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the pressure actuated valve is configured to operate under an absolute pressure of 150 kPa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application (Para. 0011, 0033, and claim 4 of PGPub US 2024/0157182) applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The most relevant prior art includes Condemine (US 2025/0007029), Dunn (US 2024/0083376), Baeder (US 2023/0170552), Baeder (US 2022/0355138), and Yang (US 2021/0387031).
The combination of the prior arts teaches various features as presented above which alone and in combination are not found to teach the limitations of claim 8 along with the base claim and intervening claims.
Claims 9 depends on claim 8, and would also be allowable.
Conclusion
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 July 14, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights