DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on January 31, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 9 and 11-12 are withdrawn.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A (Fig. 3, Claims 1-8, 10, 13-18) in the reply filed on March 09, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 7-8, 10 and 15-17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claim 7, it is unclear if one or more of the claimed “a first cavity” or “a second cavity” are included in the aforementioned “at least one cavity” set forth in Claim 1 or are in addition to the aforementioned at least one cavity. As such, it is not clear how many cavities are required by the claim.
As to Claim 8, “the battery isolation unit according to claim 7” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “battery isolation unit” refers to the entirety of the battery disconnect unit set forth in Claim 7, or only a portion of its elements forming an “isolation” unit. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected indefinite claim 8.
As to Claim 15, “connecting the relays to each other” renders the claim indefinite because plural “the relays” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Previously, “one or more relays” is set forth in Claim 14; as such, claim 14 only requires one relay. Claim 15 does not clarify whether one or more relays must include multiple relays. As such, the claim language raises question as to how many relays are required and it is not clear if “the relays” in Claim 15 would require (i) all of the “at least one relays” should they be more than one (e.g., 3 of 3); or (ii) two relays of the at least one relays (e.g., 2 of 3). As such, the metes and bounds covered by the claim are unclear.
As to Claim 16, “approximately 300 °C” and “approximately 400 °C” in claim 16 render the claim indefinite because “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide an adequate standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification merely states throughout the descriptions herein, terms such as “about,” “approximately,” and “substantially” are used to describe a range of numerical values or a degree, or a close meaning thereto in consideration of an inherent manufacturing and material tolerances, and are intended to prevent infringers from unfairly taking advantage of the present disclosure that describes precise or absolute numerical values to aid the understanding of the present disclosure. However, it is not apparent how a “preset temperature” (which is a subjective selection) would be modified by inherent manufacturing and material tolerances and as such the specification does not provide an adequate standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (specifically, not apprised of the actual metes and bounds of the range). Here, it is not clear what values outside of 300-400°C would be covered (e.g., 250°C, 275°C, 295°C?; 405°C, 425°C, 450°C? and so on)
As to Claim 17, “a fire extinguishing liquid” at lines 6-7 renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if this fire extinguishing liquid is (i) different from and in addition to or (ii) the same as, the aforementioned fire extinguishing liquid set forth in lien 5 that is stored in the cavity.
Claim 18 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected indefinite claim 17.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following Foreign patent documents and/or Publications:
FOREIGN
DOCUMENT NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
*WO-2022004972-A1
“CHO”
A copy of WO-2022004972-A1 is provided, but is not in English; US family member (US-20220328906-A1) is relied upon herein as a translation of ‘972 to English and therefore paragraph numbers cited with respect to ‘972 in the rejections correspond to the English translation.
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20160043368-A1
“KIM-D”
US-20170179548-A1
“LEE”
US-20170165513-A1
“LI”
US-9153800-B2
“JUNG”
US-20070164711-A1
“KIM-K”
US-20210206971-A1
“TAO”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CHO.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1668
978
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, CHO teaches a battery disconnect unit (Figure 2 or Figure 8) comprising: a housing [inter alia 110, 120, 210 in Fig. 2; inter alia 110’, 120’, 210’, 260, 260’ in Fig. 8] designed to accommodate an electrical component 101 therein; and at least one cavity [annotated “cavity a” / “cavity b” in Image 1] formed in a body [110 in Fig. 2; 110’ in Fig. 8] of the housing for storing a fire extinguishing liquid [220 in Fig. 2; 262/262’ in Figure 8], wherein the fire extinguishing liquid stored in the cavity is prevented from being ejected to an outside of the housing [outside to location onto battery cells] under a condition below a preset temperature [below melting temperature of sealing member 240 in Figure 2; that of 268, 268’ in Figure 8], and is ejected to the outside of the housing at the preset temperature or higher (¶¶0062-0063, 0101; temperature is preset by material selection).
Re Claim 2, CHO teaches battery disconnect unit according to claim 1, wherein in the housing, a passage [230 in Figure 2; 267/267’ in Figure 8] is further formed as a channel that extends from the cavity storing the fire extinguishing liquid to communicate with the outside of the housing (¶¶0062-0063, 0101), and the housing further includes a cover [240 in Fig. 2; 268/268’ in Figure 8] disposed in the passage to prevent the fire extinguishing liquid from being ejected to the outside of the housing under the condition below the preset temperature (¶¶0062-0063, 0101).
Re Claim 3, CHO teaches battery disconnect unit according to claim 2, wherein the cover forms flow paths therein, through which the fire extinguishing liquid passes at the preset temperature or higher (along each side upon melting; see Figure 2 & Figure 8).
Re Claim 6, CHO teaches battery disconnect unit according to claim 2, wherein the housing includes a first housing portion [110 & 210 in Figure 2; 110’ & 260 in Figure 8], and a second housing portion [120 & 210 in Figure 2; 120’ & 260’ in Figure 8] coupled to the first housing portion (via 130) to accommodate the electrical component (See Figure 1).
Re Claim 7, CHO teaches battery disconnect unit according to claim 6, wherein the fire extinguishing liquid includes a first fire extinguishing liquid [annotated “liquid a” in Image 1] stored in a first cavity [annotated “cavity a” in Image 1] formed in the first housing portion, and a second fire extinguishing liquid [annotated “liquid b” in Image 1] stored in a second cavity [annotated “cavity b” in Image 1] formed in the second housing portion.
Re Claim 8, CHO teaches a battery isolation unit according to claim 7, wherein in the first housing portion, a first passage is formed as a channel [annotated “channel a” in Image 1] that extends from the first cavity storing the first fire extinguishing liquid to communicate with the outside of the housing, and in the second housing portion, a second passage is formed as a channel [annotated “channel b” in Image 1] that extends from the second cavity storing the second fire extinguishing liquid to communicate with the outside of the housing (See Image 1).
Re Claim 10, CHO teaches a battery disconnect unit according to claim 8, wherein the first housing portion includes a first cover [annotated “cover a” in Image 1] disposed in the first passage to prevent the first fire extinguishing liquid from being ejected to the outside of the housing under the condition below the preset temperature (See Image 1), and the second housing portion includes a second cover [annotated “cover b” in Image 1] disposed in the second passage to prevent the second fire extinguishing liquid from being ejected to the outside of the housing under the condition below the preset temperature (See Image 1). See also ¶¶0062-0063, 0101.
Re Claim 17, CHO teaches battery disconnect unit (Figures 1 & 8; ¶¶0097-0104) comprising: an electrical component 101; and a housing [inter alia 110’, 260], wherein the housing includes
a cavity [annotated “cavity a” in Image 1 above at Figure 8] that stores a fire extinguishing liquid 262, and a cover 263 that forms crevices [crevices form in/along sealing member(s) 268 passing through 267] therein at a preset temperature or higher [melting temperature of that of 268], wherein a fire extinguishing liquid 262 moves from the cavity toward an outside of the housing [onto battery cells 101/103] through flow paths formed along the crevices (along sides of crevices). See ¶¶0099-0101.
Re Claim 18, CHO teaches secondary battery pack 100 comprising the battery disconnect unit of claim 1 (¶¶0005, 0051)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO as applied above further in view of KIM-D.
Re Claim 13, CHO teaches the battery disconnect unit according to claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the housing is made of any one of aluminum, a stainless steel, and an alloy.
KIM-D teaches a housing is made of any one of aluminum, a stainless steel, and an alloy (¶¶0049-0050). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the housing made of any one of aluminum, a stainless steel, and an alloy, in order to select for known material properties of the same such as toughness, hardness, weight, stress/strain, melting point, cost and so on as is well known to those of skill in the art. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO as applied above further in view of LEE.
Re Claims 14-15, CHO teaches the battery disconnect unit according to claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the electrical component accommodated by the housing includes one or more relays that open and close an electric circuit connected to a battery module, wherein the electrical component further includes a busbar connecting the relays to each other.
LEE teaches a battery assembly wherein an electrical component accommodated by the housing includes battery cells and one or more relays that open and close an electric circuit connected to a battery module (¶0020), wherein the electrical component further includes a busbar [440 being a busbar] connecting the relays to each other (¶0020; see also ¶¶0018-0019 and Figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery disconnect unit wherein the electrical component accommodated by the housing includes one or more relays that open and close an electric circuit connected to a battery module, wherein the electrical component further includes a busbar connecting the relays to each other, in order to provide charging and/or selective coupling of the battery pack via a main battery circuit (LEE ¶0020).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO as applied above further in view of LI.
Re Claim 16, CHO teaches battery disconnect unit according to claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the preset temperature is in a range of approximately 300 °C or higher and approximately 400 °C or lower.
CHO teaches one example wherein the predetermined temperature is about 200 °C (¶0063). Given that about 200 °C in CHO suggests predetermined temperatures may include values above 200 °C and it is not clear what range of values approximately 300 °C in the claimed invention covers below 300 °C, it may be the case that CHO overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Additionally, LI teaches the predetermined temperature is a result effective variable routinely optimized and set according to a determined fire risk for a given battery module (having given battery chemistry, operating temps, etc.). See LI ¶¶0033, 0034. In view of the above the prior art discloses the general conditions of the claim and recognizes the preset temperature as a result-effective variable that achieves desired timing to release a fire extinguishing agent based on risks associated with a battery module. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the unit of CHO wherein the preset temperature is in a range of approximately 300 °C or higher and approximately 400 °C or lower in order to achieve recognized result of desired timing to release a fire extinguishing agent based on risks associated with a battery module occur at approximately 300 °C, since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 1-2 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG in view of KIM-K.
PNG
media_image3.png
1321
905
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, JUNG teaches a battery disconnect unit (2:61-67) comprising:
a housing [100, 130] designed to accommodate an electrical component [battery & terminals] therein (2:61 to 3:7); and
at least one cavity [cavity or cavities formed within tank 150 and/or ones of tube(s) 160] formed in a body [tank 150 and/or tube(s) 160] of the housing for storing a fire extinguishing liquid (3:22 to 4:26; note it will be appreciated the fluid can be liquid from at least 4:14-26, and 2:20-28),
wherein the fire extinguishing liquid stored in the cavity is prevented from being ejected to an outside of the housing [outside of tank 150 and/or cover 130] under a condition and is ejected to the outside of the housing when the condition is longer met (3:46-54; 4:4-14). However, JUNG fails to teach the condition is one below a preset temperature, and is ejected to the outside of the housing at the preset temperature or higher.
KIM-K teaches wherein a fire extinguishing liquid stored in a cavity is prevented from being ejected to an outside of a housing under a condition below a preset temperature, and is ejected to the outside of the housing at the preset temperature or higher (¶¶0033-0034; fire extinguishing agent and material are selected such that expected increased pressure of the fire extinguishing agent will breaks cover member 220 at a desired critical temperature level). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the fire extinguishing liquid stored in the cavity is prevented from being ejected to the outside of the housing under a condition below a preset temperature, and is ejected to the outside of the housing at the preset temperature or higher, in order to respond to directly to increased temperatures indicative of fire, accurately within locations of the battery housing by a known increase in vapor pressure of a fire extinguishing agent (KIM-K ¶¶0011, 0013-0016).
Re Claim 2, JUNG in view of KIM-K teaches the battery disconnect unit according to claim 1. JUNG further teaches wherein in the housing, a passage 155 is further formed as a channel that extends from the cavity [extends from cavity of tank 150] storing the fire extinguishing liquid to communicate with the outside of the housing (at outside cover 130; Fig. 3, 3:30-45), and the housing further includes a cover [end of filling hole 155 that projects and includes a check valve; Fig. 3, 3:38-45] disposed in the passage to prevent the fire extinguishing liquid from being ejected to the outside of the housing under the condition below the preset temperature (3:30-45).
Re Claim 17, JUNG teaches a battery disconnect unit (2:61-67) comprising: an electrical component [battery & terminals]; and a housing 100, wherein the housing includes a cavity [cavity formed within tank 150] formed in a body [tank 150] that stores a fire extinguishing liquid (3:22 to 4:26; fluid can be liquid from at least 4:14-26, and 2:20-28), and a cover 130 that forms narrow passages (along tubes 160; 3:55 to 4:13) that form crevices under predetermined condition (discussed below), wherein a fire extinguishing liquid moves from the cavity toward an outside of the housing [onto battery fire] through flow paths formed along the passages (3:55 to 4:13). Notably, where some tubes 160, forming long narrow passages, break in part, as taught by JUNG at 4:4-13, they will form crevices (i.e., narrow openings). However, JUNG fails to teach that the crevices that are formed therein are formed at a preset temperature or higher.
KIM-K teaches wherein a fire extinguishing liquid that increased pressure so as to be ejected to the outside of the housing at the preset temperature or higher (¶¶0033-0034; fire extinguishing agent and material are selected such that expected increased pressure of the fire extinguishing agent will breaks cover member 220 at a desired critical temperature level). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the unit of JUNG such that the cover forms the crevices therein at a preset temperature or higher, wherein a fire extinguishing liquid moves from the cavity toward an outside of the housing through flow paths formed along the crevices (i.e., along the tubes of JUNG to the burst portions from the cavity), in order to respond to directly to increased temperatures indicative of fire, accurately within locations of the battery housing by a known increase in vapor pressure of a fire extinguishing agent (KIM-K ¶¶0011, 0013-0016).
Re Claim 18, JUNG in view of KIM-K the battery disconnect unit of claim 1 as discussed above. JUNG and KIM-K further teach a secondary battery pack comprising the battery disconnect unit of claim 1 (JUNG 1:19-36, 4:38-41; KIM-K ¶¶0001-0003, 0008).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG in view of KIM-K as applied above, further in view of TAO.
Re Claim 4, JUNG in view of KIM-K teaches the battery disconnect unit according to claim 2, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the cover is made of a fire-resistant silicone.
TAO teaches a battery cover made of a fire-resistant silicone (¶¶0012, 0038; see also ¶¶0002-0009, 0029-0032 for relevant materials). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cover so it is made of a fire-resistant silicone, in order to provide chemical and and/or heat resistance material while being dimensionally stable (¶¶0001, 0010). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Re Claim 5, JUNG in view of KIM-K and TAO teaches the battery disconnect unit according to claim 4 as discussed above but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the fire-resistant silicone hardens while expanding at the preset temperature or higher, thereby forming crevices therein, and the fire extinguishing liquid passes through.
The recited limitation “wherein the fire-resistant silicone hardens while expanding at the preset temperature or higher, thereby forming crevices therein, and the fire extinguishing liquid passes through” is a functional recitation and is accorded little patentable weight because it does not distinguish the claimed invention in terms of structure. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) and “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2114.
Notably, in JUNG in view of KIM-K, the tubes and tank expand in response to fire condition thereby forming crevices therein, and the fire extinguishing liquid passes through as discussed above in Claim 1. Since battery pressure and vapor pressure and temperature increase on both sides prior to burst, tank/tubes will also increase in firmness prior to burst. Further, as noted in TAO the silicone may expand in view of high temperatures at the preset temperature or higher (TAO ¶0036) and it is known that silicone would be expected to harden/embrittle under such high temperatures and additionally may harden/ceramize (TAO ¶¶0003-0008). Therefore, JUNG in view of KIM-K and TAO (as modified in Claim 4) is capable of the functional limitation “wherein the fire-resistant silicone hardens while expanding at the preset temperature or higher, thereby forming crevices therein, and the fire extinguishing liquid passes through” in the course of the units normal operation.
Conclusion / Pertinent Art
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference
Pertinence
US-20140170447-A1
Lithium ion battery having a housing containing cavity with fire extinguishing liquid in which a cover 4 permits flow of the liquid at a predetermined temperature.
US-20220045386-A1
Battery having a housing containing cavity with fire extinguishing fluid in which a cover 122 permits flow of fluid along crevices formed bya rupture part
US-20140342201-A1
Battery having a housing containing cavity with fire extinguishing liquid in which a cover 210, 220 permits flow of the liquid at a predetermined condition
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
April 4, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights