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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 25, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. At the time of this Office action, no foreign reference can be found in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “PACK-level” in line 7. The capital letters suggest that “PACK” is an acronym. The specification fails to disclose the meaning of “PACK-level.” A cursory search of “PACK level” in class 169 (Fire Protection Art) failed to provide any guidance to the interpretation of “PACK.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Pack” in line 31. The specification fails to disclose the meaning of “Pack.” A cursory search of “Pack” in class 169 (Fire Protection Art) failed to provide any guidance to the interpretation of “Pack.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Pack-level” in line 31. The specification fails to disclose the meaning of “Pack-level.” A cursory search of “Pack level” in class 169 (Fire Protection Art) failed to provide any guidance to the interpretation of “Pack.”
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 contains two parenthetical expressions that do not constitute reference characters in the drawings. It is uncertain whether the parenthetical expressions are positively recited limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “(referring to a system comprising three distinct levels of subsystems)” in lines 5-6. It is uncertain what is being referenced by the term “referring.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a system” in lines 5-6. It is uncertain whether the recitation is a double inclusion of the “fire extinguishing system” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a hierarchical…fire extinguishing system” in lines 5-6. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “system” recited in line 6 (first term).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a battery cluster” in line 12. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “energy storage container” recited in line 10.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a perfluorohexanone fire extinguishing agent” in line 15. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “perfluorohexanone” recited in line 14.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cabin-level fire detectors" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the high-voltage" in line 23. The term “high” is a relative term and requires subjective interpretation. What may be constitute high voltage to one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute high voltage to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one cluster-level fire detector” in lines 24-25. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “cluster-level fire detector” recited in line 11.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a plurality of battery cabinets, and for each of the battery cabinets, at least one cluster-level fire detector is provided on an outside of a frame above a front door of a cabinet body” in lines 24-26. The claim requires only one cluster-level fire detector. Yet the claim must have a plurality of battery cabinets. It is uncertain how one cluster-level fire detector can be on more than one battery cabinet.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each battery cabinet” in line 27-28. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of battery cabinets” in line 24.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a respective battery cluster” in line 28. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “battery cluster” recited in line 12. The claim requires one battery cluster. The recitation “a respective battery cluster” makes no sense when there is only one battery cluster.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “packs of batteries” in line 29. It is uncertain how many batteries constitute a “pack.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Pack-level" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “packs of batteries (abbreviated as “Pack”, corresponding to the Pack-level)” in line 29. The parenthetical expression appears to indicate that “packs of batteries” is abbreviated as “Pack.” If each battery box (of the plurality of battery boxes) has packs of batteries (abbreviated as “Pack”), how can each battery box correspond to the Pack-level when there appears to be only one “PAPCK-level water fire subsystem?”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each battery box” in line 31. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of battery boxes” recited in line 28.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the spray nozzle” in line 36. It is uncertain which of the “one or more spray nozzle” is being referenced.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “perfluorohexanone” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “perfluorohexanone” recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a first-class fire inhibitor pipeline” in lines 4-5. It is uncertain what constitutes “first-class.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a first-class branch pipe” in line 6. It is uncertain what constitutes “first-class.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a first-class zoned solenoid valve” in lines 7-8. It is uncertain what constitutes “first-class.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a first-class fire communication pipeline” in lines 4-5. It is uncertain what constitutes “first-class.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the perfluorohexanone nozzles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first-class zoned solenoid valves" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first-class branch pipes" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “provided with a plurality” in line 5. Plurality of what?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the cabin-level fire units" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “corresponding to the converging cabinet” in lines 6-7. What is “corresponding to the converging cabinet?”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the converging cabinet" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the high-pressure cabinet" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “high” is a relative term and requires subjective interpretation. What may be constitute high pressure to one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute high pressure to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the battery cabinet” in line 7. It is uncertain which of the plurality of battery cabinets is being referenced.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the cabin-level fire units" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “second-class” multiple times. It is uncertain what constitutes second class.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “municipal tap water” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “municipal tap water” recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the control" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the PACK-level fire detector” in line 6. It is uncertain which PACK-level fire detector is being referenced.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the signal" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the battery box control valves" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “provided with a plurality” in line 5. Plurality of what?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the PACK-level fire units" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “corresponding to each of the battery boxes” in lines 6-7. What is “corresponding to the converging cabinet?”
Claim 9 recites, in the preamble, “A fire pre-warning control method.” Claim 9 also recites “using the fire extinguishing system according to claim 1.” The preamble is directed to a fire pre-warning control method. Yet the body of the claim recites using the system of claim 1. It is uncertain whether the claim is directed to a fire pre-warning control method or the method of using the system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the “energy storage container” recited in claim 1 is a double inclusion of the “energy storage container” recited in claim 9, lines 1-2.
Claim 9 recites “adopts” in line 5. It is uncertain what constitutes “adopts.”
Claim 9 is directed to a method. Yet the claim does not appear to set forth any method steps.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "monitoring signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each detector" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "battery thermal runaway characteristic quantity" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 10, step 1 appears to be grammatically incorrect. In line 3, “when” is preceded by a comma. Therefore, the entirety of step 1 following when has no relation to the “obtaining monitoring signal of each detector.” If “when” refers to the “obtaining monitoring signal of each detector,” the last clause of step one, “a first-class warning is triggered and a first-class fire operation is made” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 10, steps 2 and 3 fail to provide method steps.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a standard value” in line 5. It is uncertain what constitutes a “standard” value.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "monitoring signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "monitoring signal" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 10, step 2 appears to be grammatically incorrect for the same reasons stated for step 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "monitoring signal" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, step 3 appears to be grammatically incorrect for the same reasons stated for steps 1 and 2.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the battery thermal runaway" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the pre-warning information" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “relevant” in line 15. The interpretation of “relevant” is subjective. What may constitute “relevant” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute “relevant” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
In claim 10, the claim fails to define “BMS” and “PCS.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the linkage of BMS" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the linkage of PCS" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a PACK-level fire extinguishing and a space level fire extinguishing” in lines 24-25. It is uncertain what constitutes “a PACK-level fire extinguishing” and “a space level fire extinguishing.”
Claim 11 fails to provide a method step.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "monitoring signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "its number" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the fire detector” in line 6. It is uncertain which fire detector is being referenced.
Claim 11 appears to be grammatically incorrect for the same reasons stated for steps 1 and 2 in claim 10.
Claim 12 appears to be grammatically incorrect for the same reasons stated for steps 1 and 2 in claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "monitoring signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "monitoring signal" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "monitoring signal" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "battery thermal runaway characteristic quantity" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a standard value” in lines 5 and 9. It is uncertain what constitutes a “standard” value.
Claim 12, steps 2 and 3 fail to provide method steps.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the standard value” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It cannot refer to the “standard valve” in line 5 because the claim provides for a different definition.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the battery thermal runaway" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 12, line 15, the recitation “a H2” is grammatically incorrect.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Limited time for examination precludes a complete editorial review of all of the claims. The above listing is only exemplary. Applicant is required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant should not misconstrue the lack of art rejection as an indication of allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s clarification/explanation of the subject matter rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant’s clarification/explanation cannot be read into the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 O 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK