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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/15/2026. These drawings overcome the drawing objection applied in the Office Action mailed 01/15/2026 and are accepted.
Specification
The amendment filed 04/15/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the added material from p. 2, l. 25 to p. 3, l. 17 are the definition of the fire extinguishing patch, which contains new matters that are not supported by the original disclosure filed 04/18/2024, e.g., the fire extinguishing patch comprise a plurality of microcapsules, the patch shape may be square, circular, and/or rectangular, and the patch may comprise adhesive and/or magnetic elements that permit the patch to be attached to another element, etc.. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is also objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., the claimed fire extinguishing patch. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities, term “a coolant” is believed to be in error for - - [[a]]the coolant - - and term “an inner portion of the battery system” is believed to be in error for - - [[an]]the inner portion of the battery system - -
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, recitation “wherein the controlling of the fire hazard response sequence comprises: based on a triggering condition, of the at least one triggering condition, mapped to the cooling operation being satisfied, controlling a fire extinguishing patch activation operation” is not supported by the disclosure because:
i) according to the specification filed 04/18/2024, from p. 19, l. 20 to p. 21, l. 23 and Figs. 5-6, the fire hazard respond sequence is firstly activating the fire extinguishing patch 530 and secondly spraying fire extinguishing agent 540 or injecting coolant 560 after the fire extinguishing patch 530 was activated, wherein the spraying fire extinguishing agent 540 and injecting coolant 560 are the cooling operation;
ii) however, the claim limitation of claim 6 requires firstly operating the cooling operation and secondly activating the fire extinguishing path operation after the cooling operation was activated, which is conflicting with the disclosure;
iii) therefore, claim 6 is rejected as new matter.
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.
Claims 3-6, 9, 12-13, and 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 3 and 18, it is unclear whether “the fire hazard state of the at least one battery cell set being detected” refers to the at least one triggering condition previously claimed in claim 1/claim 15; or a different triggering condition.
Regarding claims 4 and 19 and its dependent, it is unclear whether “an intensity of the fire hazard state reaching a first threshold intensity” refers to the at least one triggering condition previously claimed in claim 1/claim 15; or a different triggering condition.
Regarding claim 4 and its dependent, term "fire extinguishing patch" is indefinite because said term is not a term of art and the specification generally discloses the fire extinguishing patch release fire extinguishing fluid to cut-off oxygen and cool the battery cell by passively or actively control based on a temperature (p. 9, II. 20-25, p. 19, II 5-20, and p. 21, 5-8) without any further details, and thus, it is unclear what is the definition of term "fire extinguishing patch", i.e., what device or structure can be called "fire extinguishing patch". The same rejection is also applied to claim 6, claim 12, and claim 19 and its dependent.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, it is unclear whether “the intensity of the fire hazard state reaching a second threshold intensity higher than the first threshold intensity” refers to the at least one triggering condition previously claimed in claim 1/claim 15; or a different triggering condition.
Regarding claim 6,
I. recitations “wherein each triggering condition, of the at least one triggering condition, is mapped to a different operation of the series of operations and is satisfied upon execution of a proceeding operation in the fire hazard response sequence” is indefinite because: i) it is unclear whether “each triggering condition of the at least one triggering condition” requires only one triggering condition or a plurality of triggering conditions; ii) it is unclear whether “a different operation” refers to any of the previously claimed operations in claim 1 or a different operation in addition to the previously claimed operations in claim 1; and iii) it is unclear whether “a proceeding operation” refers to any of the previously claimed operations in claim 1 or a different operation in addition to the previously claimed operations in claim 1.
II. it is unclear whether “a triggering condition … mapped to the cooling operation” refers to any of the previously claimed triggering conditions in claim 1 and claim 6, or a different triggering condition.
III. it is unclear whether “a duration of the fire hazard state reaching a threshold time” refers to any of the previously claimed triggering conditions in claim 1 and claim 6; or a different triggering condition.
Regarding claim 9,
I. recitations “wherein each triggering condition, of the at least one triggering condition, is mapped to a different operation of the series of operations” is indefinite because: i) it is unclear whether “each triggering condition of the at least one triggering condition” requires only one triggering condition or a plurality of triggering conditions; and ii) it is unclear whether “a different operation” refers to any of the previously claimed operations in claim 1 or a different operation in addition to the previously claimed operations in claim 1.
II. it is unclear whether “a triggering condition, of the at least one triggering condition, that is mapped to the cooling operation” refers to any of the previously claimed triggering conditions in claim 1 and claim 9, or a different triggering condition.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear whether “a preceding operation” in claim 13 refers to any of the previously claimed operations in claim 1 or a different operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, and 14-17 are allowable.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection.
Claims 3-5, 9, 12-13, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
It is noted that claim 6 contain new matter and is rejected under 35 USC 112(a), see above.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Examiner further considered at least the references listed below.
Shelton 20210402231 and DELAPAZ 20230211195 teaches a system comprising: a plurality of fire hazard detection sensors configured to detect a fire hazard; a battery system comprising a plurality of battery cell sets; a controller; a flame-retardant sheet configured to be movable by the controller; memory storing instructions that, when executed by the controller, cause the system to: monitor, based on sensing data from the plurality of fire hazard detection sensors, a state of the plurality of battery cell sets in the battery system detect, based on monitoring the state of the plurality of battery cell sets, a fire hazard state of at least one battery cell set of the plurality of battery cell sets; and control, based on at least one triggering condition associated with the fire hazard state, a fire hazard response sequence corresponding to the at least one battery cell set, wherein the fire hazard response sequence comprises a series of operations comprising: a power cut-off operation, an oxygen cut-off operation, and a cooling operation, wherein the oxygen cut-off operation comprises: a flame-retardant sheet arrangement operation that is associated with the at least one battery cell set and comprises movement, by the controller, of the flame-retardant sheet, and wherein the cooling operation comprises: a coolant injection operation, in which a coolant is injected, by the controller, in an inner portion of the battery system.
Ryder 20220407176 teaches a system comprising: a plurality of fire hazard detection sensors configured to detect a fire hazard; a battery system comprising a plurality of battery cell sets; a controller; a door configured to be movable by the controller; memory storing instructions that, when executed by the controller, cause the system to: monitor, based on sensing data from the plurality of fire hazard detection sensors, a state of the plurality of battery cell sets in the battery system detect, based on monitoring the state of the plurality of battery cell sets, a fire hazard state of at least one battery cell set of the plurality of battery cell sets; and control, based on at least one triggering condition associated with the fire hazard state, a fire hazard response sequence corresponding to the at least one battery cell set, wherein the fire hazard response sequence comprises a series of operations comprising: a power cut-off operation and a cooling operation, wherein the cooling operation comprising the door opening operation and a coolant injection operation.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on the record themselves or in combination do not teach in combined with other limitations of claim 1, “… wherein the fire hazard response sequence comprises a series of operations comprising: a power cut-off operation, an oxygen cut-off operation, and a cooling operation, and wherein the oxygen cut-off operation comprises a flame-retardant cloth arrangement operation associated with the at least one battery cell set, and wherein the cooling operation comprises: a waterproof cloth arrangement operation associated with the at least one battery cell set; and a coolant injection operation, in which a coolant is injected in an inner portion of the battery system”, which requires a method comprising a series of operations of fire hazard response sequence for a battery system of a data center comprising: a power cut-off operation, a flame-retardant cloth arrangement operation, and a water proof cloth arrangement operation associated with the at least one battery cell set.
Regarding claim 15, the prior arts on the record themselves or in combination do not teach in combined with other limitations of claim 15, “… wherein the fire hazard response sequence comprises a series of operations comprising: a power cut-off operation, an oxygen cut-off operation, and a cooling operation, and wherein the oxygen cut-off operation comprises: a flame-retardant cloth arrangement operation that is associated with the at least one battery cell set and comprises movement, by the controller, of the flame-retardant cloth, and wherein the cooling operation comprises: a waterproof cloth arrangement operation that is associated with the at least one battery cell set and comprises movement, by the controller, of the waterproof cloth; and a coolant injection operation, in which a coolant is injected, by the controller, in an inner portion of the battery system”, which requires a system comprising a battery system of a data center, a special controller, a flame-retardant cloth configured to be movable by the special controller; a waterproof cloth configured to be movable by the special controller; and wherein the special controller is configured to execute a series of operations of fire hazard response sequence for the battery system, and the series of operations comprising: a power cut-off operation, a flame-retardant cloth arrangement operation, and a water proof cloth arrangement operation associated with the at least one battery cell set.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding the Specification objection, Applicant’s argument regarding term “fire extinguishing path” on pp. 10-11 is not persuasive because:
i) Applicant argues the fire extinguishing patch is a well-known automatic fire extinguishing patch that automatically sprays a fire extinguishing agent (i.e., passive control);
ii) however, as claimed (see claims 4, 6, 12, and 19) and as disclosed (see the specification filed 04/18/2024, p. 19, ll. 1-18 and from p. 19, l. 21 to p. 20, l. 13) the fire extinguishing patch activation operation is controlled by a controller according to the triggering condition (i.e., active control),
iii) it is noted, “The first question is to determine whether a claim term has an ordinary and customary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art. … Moving back to the first question, if a claim term does not have an ordinary and customary meaning, the examiner should check the specification to determine whether it provides a meaning to the claim term. If no reasonably clear meaning can be ascribed to the claim term after considering the specification and prior art, the examiner should apply the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim term as it can be best understood. Also, the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the specification objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d).”, MEPE 2111.01(V), in this case, the specification does not provide a clear definition of the claimed term “fire extinguishing patch”, and it is unclear what structure/component is required for the claimed fire extinguishing patch.
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 JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights