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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 7-9 remain withdrawn. Claims 1,4-6 and 10-13 are pending review in this Office action. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 09/03/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (US20070068686A1) in view of Jiang et al. (WO2022012449A1 cited 12/11/2023 IDS, machine translation in 05/09/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 10, 13, Bennet discloses a battery module (FIG. 21) comprising a housing (2112, “battery enclosure”), and a plurality of battery cells (2116) inside the housing (2112) and arranged in a first (horizontal) direction ([0091-0092], FIG. 21).
Bennet further discloses a hazard control system (100), an embodiment thereof being configured to respond to a fire by discharging fire-extinguishing agent (104) and being recognized as a fire-extinguishing sheet ([0087], FIGs. 1, 2, 20.). However, Bennet fails to disclose the battery module with this fire-extinguishing sheet, the embodiment of the hazard control system (100, 2110) in the battery module instead configured to neutralize chemical leakage ([0091-0092], FIG. 21).
Jiang is directed to an analogous battery module (100, “fire extinguishing device”, Jiang [0044], FIG. 1). Jiang teaches that battery modules pose risks of thermal runaway, necessitating a means of extinguishing a battery fire ([0004-0005]). Addressing this problem, Jiang teaches disposing a fire-extinguishing sheet (10, “fire extinguishing device housing”) on vents (330, “safety valve”) of battery cells (310, 320) ([0045], FIG. 1). During thermal runaway, the gas released from the battery cell vents (330) melts an insulating film (131) of the fire-extinguishing sheet (10), causing it to release a fire extinguishing agent (110) to quickly and efficiently extinguish fires ([0045-0048], [0050], FIGs. 1, 2).
As such, a skilled artisan would recognize the utility of controlling potential fire hazards of Bennet’s battery module, and it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a fire-extinguishing sheet as the hazard control system inside Bennet’s battery module housing as taught by Jiang. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, being within Bennet’s scope of use of the hazard control system to extinguish fire (Bennet [0049]).
It would further be obvious to improve the speed and efficacy of extinguishing the fire by providing modified Bennet’s battery cells with vents and providing the fire-extinguishing sheet inside the housing and covering the vents of the battery cells as taught by Jiang. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Bennet discloses a suitability of placing the hazard control system (e.g., the fire-extinguishing sheet) adjacent or above (i.e., covering) the hazard source (Bennet [0076]).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
1057
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Bennet FIGs. 1-2
Modified Bennet further discloses the fire-extinguishing sheet (100) comprises a main body portion (112, “core”) as a metal (aluminum) plate extending in the first (horizontal) direction (Bennet [0048], FIGs. 1, 2) and having a plurality of pores (“compartments”) extending between first and second surfaces thereof in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see Annotated Bennet FIGs. 1, 2 above; [0048]), and a fire-extinguishing agent (104, “control material”) accommodated within the pores ([0049]) (claim 1).
The main body portion is made out of aluminum ([0048]) (claim 10).
An insulating film (106, “face sheet”) covers the first and second surfaces of the main body portion (112) and fixes the fire-extinguishing agent (104) within the pores ([0047-0048]; see Annotated Bennet FIGs. 1, 2 above), the insulating film (106) being configured to melt in response to a fire among the plurality of battery cells ([0088]) (claim 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
1240
1981
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Jiang FIG. 1
While modified Bennett fails to explicitly indicate that the vents of the battery cells face toward the fire-extinguishing sheet in the second direction (i.e., perpendicular to the first stacking direction), a skilled artisan would recognize that facing the battery cell vents in the first (stacking) direction would cause the cells to vent into each other instead of the fire-extinguishing sheet, rendering the function of the fire-extinguishing sheet inoperable (see Annotated Jiang FIG. 1 above) (claim 13)
Regarding claim(s) 11, 12, modified Bennet discloses the battery module as claimed in claim 1. While Bennet discloses that the insulating film (106, “face sheet”) may be suitably formed of a plastic material (Bennet [0045]) configured to melt when exposed to heat above a selected threshold ([0088]), Bennet fails to further specify the insulating film comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), and polypropylene (PP) (claim 11) or that the threshold is a melting point of 300 °C or less (claim 12).
Jiang, teaching the fire-extinguishing sheet (10) further comprising an insulating film (131, “first supporting film layer”), teaches the selection of PE and PC having a melting point of 70-110 °C as an insulating film material (Jiang [0049-0050], FIG. 2), this insulating film having the same function of sealing the fire extinguishing agent (110) until exposure to heat ([0050-0052], FIG. 2).
As such, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select an insulating film comprising at least PE and PC (claim 11) and having a plastic material having a melting point of 70-110 °C, within the claimed range of 300 °C or less (claim 12) as taught by Jiang. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Jiang teaches a suitability of these materials and properties for an insulating film material configured to melt when exposed to heat to release the fire extinguishing agent (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (US20070068686A1) in view of Jiang (WO2022012449A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yamazaki (WO2021149778A1, see attached machine translation)
Regarding claim(s) 4, 5, modified Bennet discloses the battery module as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly indicate a mass of fire-extinguishing agent or a thickness of the main body portion.
Yamazaki is directed to an analogous fire-extinguishing sheet (20, “fire extinguishing element”) containing a main body portion (1, “fire-agent containing layer”) accommodating a fire-extinguishing agent (Yamazaki [0009], [0021], FIG. 3) usable in a battery module ([0039]).
Yamazaki teaches increasing the amount of extinguishing agent improves the extinguishing speed and efficacy of the fire-extinguishing sheet, but this requires a larger volume to and may limit the space available for the fire-extinguishing sheet ([0030]). While Yamazaki fails to numerically indicate a mass ratio of fire-extinguishing agent to battery cell volume, a skilled artisan would need to select at least some weight of fire extinguishing agent relative to some volume of battery cells such that it would be obvious to optimize the mass ratio thereof in modified Bennet’s battery module according to Yamazaki’s teachings, and in doing so, reasonably utilize at least a portion of the claimed range of 35-100 g/m3 (claim 4).
Yamazaki further teaches optimizing the amount of fire-extinguishing agent through varying the main body portion thickness within a suggested range of 30-1000 µm (0.03-1 mm) ([0030]). As such, in seeking to optimize the amount of extinguishing agent, it would likewise be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a thickness modified Bennet’s main body portion within a thickness of 0.03-1mm, overlapping with a portion of the claimed range (0.1-5mm, claim 5) between 0.1-1mm such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization under Yamazaki’s teaching with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (US20070068686A1) in view of Jiang (WO2022012449A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Paik et al. (The strength characteristics of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels; see copy provided with this Office action)
Regarding claim(s) 6, modified Bennet discloses the battery module as claimed in claim 1. Bennet’s main body portion (112) is provided as an aluminum honeycomb having a plurality of compartments (i.e., pores) (Bennet [0048], FIGs. 1, 2), which comprises at least some degree of porosity between 0% to 100%; while Bennet describes the main body portion (112) as being both lightweight and rigid, necessitating some balance between these properties ([0048]), Bennet fails to teach optimizing a porosity of the main body portion to achieve this or numerically indicate a porosity between 50% to 95%.
Paik, directed to mechanical considerations of a honeycomb-cored panel composite analogous to Bennet’s main body portion (Paik P207/¶3, P210 FIGs. 2-3), teaches that modifying the cell size and wall thickness to increase a density of the main body portion improves the strength at the expense of weight per unit volume (i.e., density) (P229/¶2, P228 FIGs. 21-22). Paik does not numerically indicate a porosity range of the main body portion, but a skilled artisan would recognize that these changes to cell size and wall thickness would affect the ratio of wall material volume to open space, i.e., the porosity (P210 FIGs. 2-3) alongside the weight of the main body portion.
As such, in seeking to balance the weight and rigidity of modified Bennet’s main body portion, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the porosity through varying the cell size and wall thickness of the main body portion as taught by Paik in a range of at least 0-100%, encompassing the claimed range (50-95%, claim 6) such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Paik’s teaching with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Jiang (WO2022012449A1), Kim (KR101209241B1), Murray (US20220016459A1), and Hendrickx (US20220140435A1) (Remarks filed 11/03/2025 P5-P7) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/3/2026