DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 12/19/2025 was received. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
2. This section was previously provided and is repeated here. The instant application is a CIP of Application No. 17/014,034 (“parent application”). The instant application claims the subject matter within independent claim 1 of:
“an extinguisher sheet structure between the top cover and the top plate, the extinguisher sheet structure being configured to emit a fire extinguishing agent at a reference temperature, and
wherein the extinguisher sheet structure comprises an extinguisher sheet and a heat spread plate between the extinguisher sheet and the battery cells.”
The quoted language is not found in the parent application. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis and not an application-by-application basis. When applicant files a continuation-in-part (CIP) application, none of whose claims are supported by the parent application under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph, the effective filing date is the filing date of the child CIP.
Any claim that contains a limitation that is only supported as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph by the disclosure of the CIP application will have the effective filing date of the CIP application. See, e.g., Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (patent issuing from parent application was relied upon as prior art against the claims in CIPs that did not find support in the parent application); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, the disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/014,034, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for all claims of this application in view of the quoted language above. The effectively filed date of the claimed subject matter is thus that of the instant application, 8/14/2023.
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure filed 12/19/2025 remains objected to. The abstract has the same written description issues outlined below that are found in the amended claim. Appropriate correction is required. A suitable correction is recommended below by the Examiner below.
Claim Objections
4. The objection to claim 3 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed.
5. Claim 15 is objected to for failure to superscript the “3” in each of the “g/cm3” presented in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The prior Office Action rejection of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-3, 5-19, 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 is maintained. 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.
The amendments necessitate additional rejections against claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-3, 5-19; claim 2, and thus dependent claim 18; claim 10, and thus dependent claim 11; claim 17; claim 18, and thus dependent claim 19; and claim 19 under this heading.
A)1 Claim 1 defines at least an energy storage module including a plurality of battery cells, each of the battery cells comprising a vent. There are thus, intrinsically, a plurality of vents corresponding to the plurality of battery cells. Claim 1 as amended recites:
“a top plate coupled to a top of the cover member and comprising a plurality of ducts respectively corresponding to the vent of each of the battery cells…;
The plurality of ducts do not all respectively correspond to the vent of each of the battery cells. The instant claim includes a construct that fails the written description requirement, as there is not a plurality of ducts corresponding to vent of each of the battery cells. The Examiner recommends the following correction found in some of the allowed parent application claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For compact prosecution purposes, the Examiner will use the above language for claim examination purposes.
B) The above issue carries over to claim 2 as amended reciting the similar language with respect to “the vent of each of the battery cells.”
C) Claim 1 was amended to recite, “wherein the heat spread plate is a grid-like mesh.” The language is not supported. The original language pertaining to this feature is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
66
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is described at P94 which states, “…in some embodiments, the heat spread plates 156a, 156b may be formed to have a grid-like mesh structure inside, thereby making it easier for gases to escape…”
D) Claim 10 depends on claim 7, wherein claim 7 defines that the there is a fire extinguishing agent in a receiving space defined by the outer cover. The feature describes the embodiment is shown in Figs. 9B and 9C. Claim 10 then recites, “wherein the receiving space comprises a plurality of receiving spaces in capsule shapes.” This embodiment is that of Fig. 9A in which the fire extinguishing capsule(s) “define the receiving space 152” (P86). Accordingly, there is no embodiment or disclosure in which the combined features of claims 7 and 10 are simultaneously met (i.e., if the claim 7 requires the receiving space to be defined by the outer cover,” then it is not clear how it is possible for there to be a plurality of receiving spaces in capsules shapes (that are not defined by the outer cover).
E) Claim 17 is a result-obtained limitation that is not supported without a time reference: the fire extinguishing agent only moves along [respective] surface[s] of the insulation spacers after the fire extinguishing agent is emitted by the extinguisher sheet (P104). Given the feature is not met until after the fire extinguishing agent has been emitted from the extinguisher sheet, without a clarifying time value, the full scope of the claim is not supported at the fire extinguishing agent does not move along [respective] surface[s] of the insulation spacers prior to this time.
Additionally, claim 17 recites “the surface of the insulation spacers.” There is not a singular surface corresponding to plural insulation spacers. An appropriate correction is proposed above to this issue (i.e., “[respective] surface[s] of the insulation spacers”).
F) Claims 18 and 19 have no written description basis that the Examiner can find; however, assuming the intent is to claim proper antecedent basis to “the grid-like mesh” of claim 1, such an entity would intrinsically have holes formed by the grid-like mesh (claim 18 would be supported by such a correction).
Even with this assumption in claim 19 for “the grid” being “the grid-like mesh,” claim 19 is not considered supported. The Examiner has reviewed the cited support (“at least FIGS. 9E-9F and the corresponding text and the original claim 4”) and no such language exists in the application as filed such that applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported. A text search for the language within the UGPGUB of the instant application produces zero hits:
PNG
media_image3.png
315
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the above analysis is sufficient to make such a rejection:
Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.")
It is noted that the disclosure does not teach the drawings are to scale.
Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
7. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-6, claim 2; and claim 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
8. Newly added claims 18 and 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
Claims 18 and 19 each recite, “the grid.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Each will be examined as if this recited “the grid-like mesh” in each instance for compact prosecution purposes.
Claim 19 does not make clear if “a size of the holes” is the collective size thereof or individual sizes relative to the collective/individual size(s) of the openings. Claim 19 also does not make clear if “the openings” is in reference to:
the openings of the extinguisher sheet,
the openings of the heat spread plate, or
the openings of the extinguisher sheet and the openings of the heat spread plate.
Accordingly, claim 19 is highly indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0074973) in view of Choi (KR 102413926) (published 06-28-2022) (using US 2023/0261281 family member as an English language translation and copy thereof with citation thereto) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed.
10. Rejection A: Claims 1, -3, 5, and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0074973) in view of Choi (KR 102413926) (published 06-28-2022) (using US 2023/0261281 family member as an English language translation and copy thereof with citation thereto) and Sayed et al., “Performance evaluation of wire mesh heat exchangers” Applied Thermal Engineering, 169 (2020) 114891 (copy provided).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an energy storage module 100 (Figs. 1, 3, 8A; entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
a cover member 110 accommodating a plurality of battery cells in an internal receiving space, the battery cells being arranged in a first direction, each of the battery cells comprising a vent;
a top plate 140 coupled to a top of the cover member 110 and comprising a plurality of ducts 141 respectively corresponding to the vent[s] of 2;
a top cover 160 coupled to a top of the top plate 140 and having a plurality of discharge openings 161, each of the ducts being aligned with at least one of the discharge openings; and
an extinguisher sheet 150 between the top cover 160 and the top plate 140, the extinguisher sheet 150 being configured to emit a fire extinguishing agent at a reference temperature (claim 1; entire disclosure relied upon).
Kim fails to teach the extinguisher sheet is an extinguisher sheet structure comprising a heat spread plate in addition to the extinguisher sheet, the heat spread plate being between the
the extinguisher sheet and the battery cells.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches analogous art of a heat dissipation cushion fire extinguishing pad 100 (“extinguisher sheet structure”) installed in a battery pack (abstract; entire disclosure relied upon), wherein the heat dissipation cushion fire extinguishing pad 100 (“extinguisher sheet structure”) includes both of a fire extinguishing cushion layer 110 in which fire extinguishing capsules 111 are provided that are configured to emit a fire extinguishing liquid 113 (“fire extinguishing agent”) at a reference temperature (P14, 33), as well as a heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) that may be provided on each side thereof, Kim teaching that the heat dissipation layer 120 serves to maintain a stable state of the battery cells by quickly dissipating heat generated by the cell (P34), wherein the overall construct of the pad 100 (“extinguisher sheet structure”) achieves the advantage of effectively dissipating heat generated in the cell of the battery pack and releasing the fire extinguisher liquid when the cell is over heated, thereby suppressing and delaying a fire and minimizing damage to property and human life (P22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the extinguisher sheet 150 of Kim to have the taught configuration of Choi including the heat dissipation layer(s) (“heat spread plate”) on one or both sides thereof such in order to achieve the predictable, advantageous, taught results of effectively dissipating heat generated in the cell of the battery pack and releasing the fire extinguisher liquid when the cell is over heated, thereby suppressing and delaying a fire and minimizing damage to property and human life (P22, 34).
In the instance both layers 120 are provided on upper and lower sides of extinguisher sheet 150, the lower heat dissipation layer 120 (“heat spread plate”) will be between the extinguisher sheet 150/110 and the battery cells as claimed; in the instance only one heat dissipating layer 120 is applied to the extinguisher sheet 150 of Kim, providing it to the lower side closer to the cells would be an obvious design choice given Choi teaches that when the pad is in close contact with the cells, the heat generated by the cells may be quickly transmitted thereto (P66) such that if only applying one of two layers, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to locate it on the bottom closer to the cells.
Kim as modified by Choi fails to explicitly teach the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 is a grid-like mesh. The courts have held (MPEP § 2144.07):
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Looking to known heat dissipation layer materials/constructs, Sayed teaches that the use of grid-like mesh layers (see Fig. 2B) for a heat exchanger (i.e., a heat spread plate/ heat dissipation layer) is a suitable material for such an entity (title; entire disclosure relied upon), wherein “wire mesh heat exchangers are promising for enhancing the heat transfer rate at lower cost and simpler manufacturing, when compared to other enhanced heat exchangers…” and that the wire mesh heat exchange provides a high heat transfer coefficient (p. 8). Sayed is considered reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which is considered to be determining an appropriate material for the heat spread plate 156 such that when heat generated by an event in the battery cell reaches the extinguisher sheet, the heat can be adequately absorbed by the heat spread plate 156 and the extinguisher sheet (P93 of the instant application PGPUB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize or substitute as the material of the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 of modified Kim that of a grid-like mesh given Sayed teaches wire mesh heat exchanger layers having a grid-like mesh construct are suitable for use as a heat exchanger, the courts holding that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (Id.), the use thereof providing the advantageous and predictable results of a heat dissipation layer 120 made of a material with a high heat transfer coefficient that is lower cost and simple to manufacture than other enhanced heat exchangers (p. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by Choi teach wherein the heat spread plate 120 is on the extinguisher sheet 150 (Fig. 1). Kim teaches the extinguisher sheet 150 has opening holes 151 respectively corresponding to the vents of the battery cells such that the gases discharged from the vents may be discharged via the corresponding duct 141 of the top plate 140 and the corresponding discharge hole 161 of the top cover 160 (P56-57) such that movement of gases through the ducts will not be influenced by the extinguisher sheet 150.
Accordingly, when applying the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) of Choi to the extinguisher sheet 150 of Kim, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to configure the applied heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) to also have a corresponding opening matching that of the extinguisher sheet 150 in order to maintain the desired effect of Kim in that movement of gases through the ducts will not be influenced by the extinguisher sheet 150.
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified by Choi teaches wherein the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) has an area equal to or larger than the analogous fire extinguishing cushion layer 110 in which fire extinguishing capsules 111 are provided that are configured to emit a fire extinguishing liquid 113 (“fire extinguishing agent”) at a reference temperature (P14, 33). It is noted that both are met (equal to or larger than) given the claim does not specify what area of one entity has to be compared to an area of the another entity.
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified by Choi teaches said heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) comprises metal (copper, aluminum, silver, etc.) or ceramic (Al2O3) (P20, 56).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the extinguisher sheet has an outer cover comprising polyurea or polyurethane and a fire extinguishing agent in a receiving space defined by the outer cover (P9, 80-85; Figs. 10B-10D).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the receiving space is a tube shape (P83; Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the fire extinguishing agent comprises halogenated carbon (P80).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the receiving space comprises a plurality of receiving spaces in capsule shapes (Fig. 10A-10D; P80-85).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches wherein the fire extinguishing agent comprises halogenated carbon (P80).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the extinguisher sheet comprises a plurality of sheets respectively configured to emit the fire extinguishing agent at different temperatures (Fig. 10D; P85).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches wherein the sheets of the extinguisher sheet are stacked on each other (Fig. 10D; P85).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches wherein a proportion of the fire extinguishing agent contained in the extinguisher sheet to the total weight of the extinguisher sheet is in a range from 30% to 50% (P81).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches wherein the fire extinguishing agent is contained in the extinguisher sheet in an amount of 0.12 g/cm3 to 0.82 g/cm3 (P82).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the energy storage module further comprising a plurality of insulation spacers 130 respectively between adjacent ones of the battery cells (P34, 53, 79, 88-97; Figs. 8A, 9B, 11)
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches wherein the fire extinguishing agent moves along the surface of the insulation spacers (P94).
Regarding claim 18, Kim as modified by Sayed teaches wherein the heat spread plate comprises holes formed by the grid-like mesh (see Fig. 2B of Sayed).
Regarding claim 19, Kim as modified by Sayed teaches wherein a size of the holes formed by the grid-like mesh (Fig. 2B of Sayed is a microscopic scale at 200x magnification) is smaller than a size of the openings of Kim (which are not microscopic in nature).
11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0074973) in view of Choi (KR 102413926) (published 06-28-2022) (using US 2023/0261281 family member as an English language translation and copy thereof with citation thereto) and Sayed et al., “Performance evaluation of wire mesh heat exchangers” Applied Thermal Engineering, 169 (2020) 114891 (copy provided) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0023598).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified by Choi fails to explicitly wherein the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 comprises aluminum nitride. It is noted that Choi teaches examples of the heat dissipation filler used in the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 including alumina Al2O3 (“aluminum oxide”) and boron nitride (BN) (P20, 56), among others.
Lee teaches analogous art of a battery pack including a heat dissipation sheet and that the heat dissipation filler utilized therein can be aluminum nitride, boron nitride, aluminum oxide, etc. (P35, 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize as the specific heat dissipation filler within the applied heat dissipation layer(s) 120 that of aluminum nitride given Lee not only teaches such a material is suitable for the intended use, but also teaches its functional equivalency to the heat dissipation fillers that are explicitly taught by Choi (P20, 56). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); MPEP § 2144.07.
12. Rejection B: (at least) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2023/0231266).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches an energy storage module 100 comprising:
a housing body 111 (“cover member”) accommodating a plurality of battery cells 120 in an internal arrangement space “SM” (“receiving space”) (P46; Figs. 1-2), the battery cells 120 being arranged in a first direction, each of the battery cells comprising a vent (Fig. 3; P81-83);
a supporting plate 151 (“top plate”) coupled to a top of the housing body 111 (“cover member”) and comprising a plurality of openings 151 (“ducts”) respectively corresponding to the vent(s) of the battery cells 120 (Fig. 2);
a cover plate 115 (“top cover”) coupled to a top of the supporting plate 151 (“top plate”) and having a plurality of discharge openings 116, each of the openings 151 (“ducts”) (selecting the eight corresponding openings that align with the eight of 116) being aligned with at least one of the discharge openings 116; and
a blocking member 160 (“an extinguisher sheet structure”) between the cover plate 115 (“top cover”) and the supporting plate 151 (“top plate”), the blocking member 160 (“extinguisher sheet structure”) being configured to emit a fire extinguishing agent at a reference temperature (P74), and
wherein the extinguisher sheet structure comprises a heat spread plate as it is formed of a metal foam or metal mesh such as stainless steel or copper – P71, or other porous materials including ceramic materials, and it may include the fire extinguishing material that is capsule form and is emitted (P74).
Figure 2 of Jeon is reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image4.png
767
505
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The blocking member 160 (“an extinguisher sheet structure”) of Jeon is not a multilayer structure of a heat spread plate and an extinguisher sheet; however, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the materials (metal mesh + fire extinguishing agent) of the blocking member 160 (“an extinguisher sheet structure”) of Jeon such that they exist as two layers (e.g., an extinguisher sheet and the metal mesh layer) versus a single, combined layer given it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Jeon to explicitly teach the wire mesh is grid-like; however, the feature is considered “Obvious to try” – Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale E).
At the effective filing date of the invention, there isa design need in terms of what specific type or format of metal mesh to utilize for Jeon, there are a finite number of predictable solutions to the design need including grid-like mesh or randomly oriented mesh, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art “…to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, wherein if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.”
Double Patenting
13. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over each of the following claims of the corresponding U.S. Patents cited below (individually):
U.S. Patent No. 12,300,848, claims 1-18, specifically claim 1 (=17/014,853)
U.S. Patent No. 11,799,167, claims 1-21, specifically claim 1 (=16/901,522)
U.S. Patent No. 11,764,438, claims 1-22, specifically claim 1 (=17/014,034)
U.S. Patent No. 11,735,788, claims 1-15, specifically claim 1 (=16/901,538)
U.S. Patent No. 11,728,541, claims 1-16, specifically claim 1 (=16/901,541)
U.S. Patent No. 11,569,546, claims 1-21, specifically claims 1 or 21 (=16/844,914)
U.S. Patent No. 11,735,795, claims 1-24, specifically claim 1 (=16/801,474)
U.S. Patent No. 11,848,461, claims 1-17, specifically claim 1 (=16/901,527)
U.S. Patent No. 11,145,933, claims 1-14, specifically claim 1 (=16/901,547)
U.S. Patent No. 12,288,895, claims 1-19, specifically claim 1 ( =17/014,061)
U.S. Patent No. 11,764,430, claims 1-19, specifically claim 1 (=17/014,089)
U.S. Patent No. 12,090,354, claims 1-21, specifically claim 1 (=17/014,970)
U.S. Patent No. 12/057,598, claims 1-16, specifically claim 1 ( =17/014,900),
each individually in view of Choi (KR 102413926) (published 06-28-2022) (using US 2023/0261281 family member as an English language translation and copy thereof with citation thereto) is updated to further include the teaching reference to Sayed et al., “Performance evaluation of wire mesh heat exchangers” Applied Thermal Engineering, 169 (2020) 114891 (copy provided) in view of the amendments filed, with the rejection being applied to the newly presented claims of 18-19.
Regarding claim 1, each of the above patents within their respective independent claims includes the same/similar subject matter with respect to claim 1, lines 7-8 of the instant claim, along with at least an extinguisher sheet claimed between the top cover and the top plate that is configured to emit a fire extinguishing agent at a reference temperature.
None of the above US Patents within the claims requires the extinguisher sheet to be an extinguisher sheet structure comprising a heat spread plate in addition to the extinguisher sheet, the heat spread plate being between the extinguisher sheet and the battery cells.
In the same field of endeavor as claimed, Choi teaches analogous art of a heat dissipation cushion fire extinguishing pad 100 (“extinguisher sheet structure”) installed in a battery pack (abstract; entire disclosure relied upon), wherein the heat dissipation cushion fire extinguishing pad 100 (“extinguisher sheet structure”) includes both of a fire extinguishing cushion layer 110 in which fire extinguishing capsules 111 are provided that are configured to emit a fire extinguishing liquid 113 (“fire extinguishing agent”) at a reference temperature (P14, 33), as well as a heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) that may be provided on each side thereof, Kim teaching that the heat dissipation layer 120 serves to maintain a stable state of the battery cells by quickly dissipating heat generated by the cell (P34), wherein the overall construct of the pad 100 (“extinguisher sheet structure”) achieves the advantage of effectively dissipating heat generated in the cell of the battery pack and releasing the fire extinguisher liquid when the cell is over heated, thereby suppressing and delaying a fire and minimizing damage to property and human life (P22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the extinguisher sheet of each of the above US Patents to have the taught configuration of Choi including the heat dissipation layer(s) (“heat spread plate”) on one or both sides thereof such in order to achieve the predictable, advantageous, taught results of effectively dissipating heat generated in the cell of the battery pack and releasing the fire extinguisher liquid when the cell is over heated, thereby suppressing and delaying a fire and minimizing damage to property and human life (P22, 34).
In the instance both layers 120 are provided on upper and lower sides of extinguisher sheet, the lower heat dissipation layer 120 (“heat spread plate”) will be between the extinguisher sheet and the battery cells as claimed; in the instance only one heat dissipating layer 120 is applied to the extinguisher sheet 150 of Kim, providing it to the lower side closer to the cells would be an obvious design choice given Choi teaches that when the pad is in close contact with the cells, the heat generated by the cells may be quickly transmitted thereto (P66) such that if only applying one of two layers, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to locate it on the bottom closer to the cells.
None of the above US Patents within the claims or Choi teaches that the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 is a grid-like mesh. The courts have held (MPEP § 2144.07):
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Looking to known heat dissipation layer materials/constructs, Sayed teaches that the use of grid-like mesh layers (see Fig. 2B) for a heat exchanger or heat spread plate/ heat dissipation layer is a suitable material for such an entity (title; entire disclosure relied upon), wherein “wire mesh heat exchangers are promising for enhancing the heat transfer rate at lower cost and simpler manufacturing, when compared to other enhanced heat exchangers…” and that the wire mesh heat exchange provides a high heat transfer coefficient (p. 8). Sayed is considered reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which is considered to be determining an appropriate material for the heat spread plate 156 such that when heat generated by an event in the battery cell reaches the extinguisher sheet, the heat can be adequately absorbed by the heat spread plate 156 and the extinguisher sheet (P93).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the material of the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 of the claims that of a grid-like mesh given Sayed teaches wire mesh heat exchanger layers having a grid-like mesh construct are suitable for use as a heat exchanger, the courts holding that
the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (Id.), the use thereof providing the advantageous and predictable results of a heat dissipation layer 120 made of a material with a high heat transfer coefficient that is lower cost and simple to manufacture than other enhanced heat exchangers (p. 8).
Regarding claim 2, the above US Patents claims in view Choi teach wherein the head spread plate 120 is on the extinguisher sheet 150, and the extinguisher sheet 150 has openings 151 corresponding to vent(s) of the battery cells (see corresponding claim sets).
Furthermore, when applying the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) of Choi to the extinguisher sheet of the referenced US Patent claims, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to configure the applied heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) to also have a corresponding opening matching that of the extinguisher sheet as claimed in order to maintain the desired effect of Kim in that movement of gases through the ducts will not be influenced by the extinguisher sheet 150.
Regarding claim 3, the above US Patents claims as modified by Choi teaches wherein the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) has an area equal to or larger than [[to]] the analogous fire extinguishing cushion layer 110 in which fire extinguishing capsules 111 are provided that are configured to emit a fire extinguishing liquid 113 (“fire extinguishing agent”) at a reference temperature (P14, 33). It is noted that both are met (equal to or larger than) given the claim does not specify what area of one entity has to be compared to an area of the another entity.
Regarding claim 5, the above US Patents claims as modified by Choi teaches said heat dissipation layer(s) 120 (“heat spread plate”) comprises metal (copper, aluminum, silver, etc.) or ceramic (Al2O3) (P20).
Regarding claim 18, the above US Patents claims as modified by Sayed teaches wherein the heat spread plate comprises holes formed by the grid-like mesh (see Fig. 2B of Sayed).
Regarding claim 19, the above US Patents claims as modified by Sayed teaches wherein a size of the holes formed by the grid-like mesh (Fig. 2B of Sayed is a microscopic scale at 200x) is smaller than a size of the openings (which are not microscopic in nature).
14. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over each of the claims of the corresponding U.S. Patents cited above and not repeated here, each corresponding rejection being individually made in view of Choi (KR 102413926) (published 06-28-2022) (using US 2023/0261281 family member as an English language translation and copy thereof with citation thereto) and Sayed et al., “Performance evaluation of wire mesh heat exchangers” Applied Thermal Engineering, 169 (2020) 114891 (copy provided), and each rejection further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0023598).
Regarding claim 6, the above US Patents claims as modified by Choi fails to explicitly wherein the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 comprises aluminum nitride. It is noted that Choi teaches examples of the heat dissipation filler used in the heat dissipation layer(s) 120 including alumina Al2O3 (“aluminum oxide”) and boron nitride (BN) (P20, 56), among others.
Lee teaches analogous art of a battery pack including a heat dissipation sheet and that the heat dissipation filler utilized therein can be aluminum nitride, boron nitride, aluminum oxide, etc. (P35, 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize as the specific heat dissipation filler within the applied heat dissipation layer(s) 120 to the above US Patent claims that of aluminum nitride given Lee not only teaches such a material is suitable for the intended use, but also teaches its functional equivalency to the heat dissipation fillers that are explicitly taught by Choi (P20, 56). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); MPEP § 2144.07.
15. Claims 7-17 are is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over each of the claims of the corresponding U.S. Patents cited above and not repeated here, each corresponding rejection being individually made in view of Choi (KR 102413926) (published 06-28-2022) (using US 2023/0261281 family member as an English language translation and copy thereof with citation thereto) and Sayed et al., “Performance evaluation of wire mesh heat exchangers” Applied Thermal Engineering, 169 (2020) 114891 (copy provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and optionally in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0074973).
Regarding claims 7-17, either the US patent claims referenced above include a claim corresponding to the instantly claimed limitation(s), and if not, each of the claimed features is met by Kim et al. (US 2021/0074973) (see corresponding citations in prior art rejection).
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant canceled original claim 4 (reproduced below):
PNG
media_image2.png
66
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Original claim 4 is described at P94 which states, “in some embodiments, the heat spread plates 156a, 156b may be formed to have a grid-like mesh structure inside, thereby making it easier for gases to escape…”
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite the limitation of, “...the heat spread plate is a grid-like mesh.” Accordingly, the prior art rejections have been updated to reflect this change given the prior art to Lee et al. (KR 10-2022-0021518) as previously applied addressed the construct of a heat dissipating device/structure for a battery pack and the known technique to provide a grid-type metal mesh as a reinforcing structure within the heat dissipating structure to reduce external deformation and damage that occur to the overall heat dissipation device/structure (abstract).
Now that the claims require the heat spread plate to be a grid-like mesh, the best prior art to this construct has been applied above in the updated rejection of record. It is noted that Jeon et al. (US 2023/0231266) (previously cited in the conclusion section) is now also applied in a prior art rejection (see “Rejection B”) against claim 1 as it is now also applicable based on the amendments filed.
The arguments of record challenge the use of Lee in the combination, and are thus rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments filed. All comments are respectfully submitted.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (KR 10-2022-0021518) (copy provided) teaches a heat dissipating device/structure for a battery pack and teaches it is a known technique to provide a grid-type metal mesh as a reinforcing structure within the heat dissipating structure to reduce external deformation and damage that occur to the overall heat dissipation device/structure (abstract).
Son et al (US 2024/0216733) teaches a flame arrestor 100 (“an extinguisher sheet structure”) for a battery pack, the flame arrestor 100 (“extinguisher sheet structure”) including:
a heat dissipating member 150 (“heat spread plate”) and
a fire extinguishing member 190 held with a case 190a that houses the fire extinguishing (see Figs. 1-2).
Kang et al. (US 2024/0313288) teaches a battery module including a case 110 to which a cooling and fire extinguishing module 120 (“C&FEM”) is coupled, the C&FEM 120 including a fire extinguishing fluid in first space 140 that is held by lower body 201 having openings coupled with sealing member 211 which break/melt to release the fire extinguishing fluid at a temperature limit (i.e., “a fire extinguisher sheet”), where at least one heat dissipating pad (“heat spread plate”) is disposed between the first plate 210 and the batteries 111 in order to allow the heat to be transferred between the batteries 111 and the cooling and fire extinguishing module 120 (P61).
Yasui et al. (US 2011/0274951) teaches a battery module including a heat-absorbing member 50 that encloses heat absorbing agent 60 by fusing two sets of outer films 58, each film 58 including first and second resin films 54, 56 with a metal film 52 therebetween (Fig. 2C):
PNG
media_image5.png
172
337
media_image5.png
Greyscale
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Section A is the maintained rejection from prior Office Action.
2 See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/first paragraph