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 .
The Applicant’s amendments were received on 8/15/23. Claims 1-7 are amended. Claims 8-9 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/24/26 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation, “the rack has a top cover” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claim 5 has been maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenince.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 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. The claim limitation and as originally filed on 8/15/23 states, “the battery module according to claim 1 4,” is unclear.
The limitations of amended claim 5 are disclosed below:
PNG
media_image1.png
258
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The amendment to claim 5 above was from another originally filed claim submitted on 8/15/23
PNG
media_image2.png
180
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
No other amendments were submitted as part of the record. Disregarding the limitations that were officially submitted of record is not an option per the Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on 5/28/26. Please amend the claims according to the originally filed claims. Appropriate corrections are required.
For purpose of compact prosecution and as best understood, the claim limitations will be interpreted as “the battery module according to claim 1.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak et al. (US Publication 2021/0074975) on claims 1-3, 5 are maintained in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak et al. (US Publication 2021/0074975) on claims 8-9 are withdrawn because the Applicant cancelled the claims.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak et al. (US Publication 2021/0074975).
Regarding claim 1, the Kwak et al. reference discloses a battery package comprising a rack (10) and a plurality of battery modules disposed in the rack (Fig. 5a). The battery modules comprise a housing (110) and a battery cell inside the housing, wherein the fire extinguishing sheet (150) is disposed on an upper surface side of the battery. The rack has a top cover (160 or 12) wherein the fire extinguishing sheet is disposed on a back side of the top cover, and the fire extinguishing sheet is disposed above the battery cell in the housing over a plurality of modules.
Regarding claim 2, the Kwak et al. reference discloses wherein a plurality of the battery cells are arranged inside the housing (110, 111, 112, 113) and a fire extinguishing sheet (150) is disposed on the upper surface side of the plurality of battery cells.
Regarding claim 3, the Kwak et al. reference discloses wherein the battery cell is a lithium-ion battery cell, a nickel-cadmium battery cell, a nickel-hydrogen battery cell, or a sodium-sulfur battery cell (P54).
Regarding claim 5, the Kwak et al. reference discloses wherein a plurality of the battery cells are arranged inside the housing, the fire extinguishing sheet covers only a portion of upper surfaces of the plurality of battery cells, and a path through which gas or smoke flows is formed in a region that is not covered with the fire extinguishing sheet on the upper surfaces of the plurality of battery cells inside the housing (Fig. 5b, Fig. 6, 150, 151).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. in view Yamamoto et al., on claims 4 is maintained in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. in view Yamamoto et al. in further view of Takumi et al., on claims 6 and 7 are maintained in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US Publication 2021/0074975) in view Yamamoto et al. (US Publication 2009/0098443).
Regarding claim 4, the Kwak et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Kwak et al. reference further does not explicitly disclose the fire extinguishing sheet to which a potassium or sodium compound is applied. However, the Yamamoto et al. reference discloses that it is well known to incorporate fire extinguishing agents such as sodium or potassium compounds to a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate known fire extinguishing agents such as sodium or potassium compounds disclosed by the Yamamoto et al. reference for the fire extinguishing agents in the Kwak et al. reference. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US Publication 2021/0074975) in view Lee (KR1020200125884) in further view of Takumi et al. (JP2020083297).
Regarding claim 6, the Kwak et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Kwak et al. reference further discloses wherein the plurality of battery cells are arranged inside the housing, and the fire extinguishing sheet covers the upper surfaces of the plurality of battery cells and coupled to the battery housing but is silent in disclosing the fire extinguishing sheet also covers side surfaces around the plurality of battery cells and attached to the housing. However, the Lee reference discloses a fire extinguisher material on the top and to the sides around the plurality of battery and the Takumi reference discloses a fire extinguisher material (refrigerant) and structure that covers a top and extends to the side of the battery that is coupled to the battery housing for temperature control functions (12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the fire extinguisher material on top and on the sides of the battery cells disclosed by the Lee et al. reference for the fire extinguisher structure that is coupled to the battery housing disclosed by the Takumi reference for battery that requires fire extinguishing functions disclosed by the Kwak et al. reference to prevent hazardous temperatures in a battery.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kwak et al. reference discloses wherein the fire extinguishing sheet is attached to an inner top surface of the housing and an inner side surface of the housing (P99).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 5/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s argue, “
PNG
media_image3.png
350
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Again, the limitations of amended claim 5 are disclosed below:
PNG
media_image1.png
258
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The amendment to claim 5 above was from another originally filed claim submitted on 8/15/23
PNG
media_image2.png
180
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
No other amendments were submitted as part of the record. Disregarding the limitations that were officially submitted of record is not an option per the Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on 5/28/26. Please amend the claims according to the originally filed claims. Appropriate corrections are required.
The Applicant argues, “
PNG
media_image4.png
140
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, there is a drawings objection to the claimed limitation for being unclear how to define the limitation, “rack having a top cover” and if the top cover being substantially close in proximity is within the scope of the invention or if the shelves (12) of the prior art covering the batteries and is a part of the rack considered a top cover. The limitation is very broad and will be interpreted as such. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights