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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/4/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 3, “each support portion” should be revised to “each support portion of the plurality of support portions” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Line 4, “the support portions” should be revised to “the plurality of support portions” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 1 Line 6, “each support portion” should be revised to “each support portion of the plurality of support portions” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Line 11, “the lateral guide plates include” should be revised to “wherein each lateral guide plate of the plurality of lateral guide plates includes” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 12, “the support portions” should be revised to “the plurality of support portions” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 1 Lines 12-13, “the lateral guide plates” should be revised to “the plurality of lateral guide plates” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 1 Line 13, “the support portions” should be revised to “the plurality of support portions” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 1 Line 14, “the lateral guide plates” should be revised to “the plurality of lateral guide plates” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 2 Lines 1-2, “wherein the lateral guide plates each includes” should be revised to “wherein each lateral guide plate of the plurality of lateral guide plates includes” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 4 Lines 2-3, “at least one of the support portions and the lateral guide plates” should be revised to “at least one of the plurality of support portions and the plurality of lateral guide plates” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “fire extinguishing agent holding member” in Claim 4, which uses the generic placeholder “member” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure; and
The “fire extinguishing agent supply unit” in Claim 5, which uses the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “fire extinguishing agent holding member” in Claim 4 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0029 of the Specification which states, “Examples of the fire extinguishing agent holding member 140 include a gypsum board and the like”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “fire extinguishing agent holding member” in Claim 4 to be a board and equivalents thereof; and
The “fire extinguishing agent supply unit” in Claim 5 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0018 of the Specification which states, “Examples of the fire extinguishing agent supply unit 200 include a sprinkler and a device that supplies a fire extinguishing agent by gravity or pump pressure by opening a valve”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “fire extinguishing agent supply unit” in Claim 5 to be a sprinkler, a pump with a valve, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB 2020/0139178 A1 to Olivo et al. (“Olivo”).
As to Claim 1, Olivo discloses a battery placement rack (See #1100 in Fig. 15 and See Annotated Fig. 17) comprising:
a plurality of support portions (See Annotated Fig. 13 and Annotated Fig. 15, the support portions are an upper section of #1120) disposed arrayed at intervals in an up-down direction (See Annotated Fig. 15), each support portion supporting a battery unit (See Paragraph 0057 and See Annotated Fig. 19, each upper section of #1120 acts to support a battery module); and
a plurality of lateral guide plates (See Annotated Fig. 13 and Annotated Fig. 15, the lateral guide plates are a portion of #1120 that are a lower section of #1120) disposed downward from the support portions (See Annotated Fig. 13 and Annotated Fig. 15), for guiding a flow of a fire extinguishing agent in a lateral direction (See Annotated Fig. 13, fire extinguishing agent is guided laterally from #1120 on a graded surface onto a surface of #1121 in a lateral direction L1), wherein
each support portion includes
a placement portion that is configured to receive placement of the battery unit (See Annotated Fig. 13, Annotated Fig. 15, and Annotated Fig. 19. A surface of #1120 is arranged such that it can receive a battery module), and
an opening that is opened on a side of the placement portion (See Annotated Fig. 13 and Annotated Fig. 15, an opening on the placement portion forms above the lateral guide plate to a side of the placement portion), to cause the fire extinguishing agent to flow down (See Annotated Fig. 13, fire extinguishing agent flows down in the opening onto the graded portion towards a surface of #1121), and
the lateral guide plates include an edge portion (See Annotated Fig. 13, the edge portion surrounds the hole #1123 and also includes #1125 when it is placed over #1123) that causes the fire extinguishing agent, flowing down through the openings in the support portions situated upward from the lateral guide plates, to flow down toward the placement portions of the support portions situated downward from the lateral guide plates (See Paragraph 0059, Annotated Fig. 13, and Annotated Fig. 15).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the battery placement rack of Olivo as applied to Claim 1 above, Olivo further discloses wherein the lateral guide plates each includes
a lateral guide plate main body that is situated downward from the opening and that receives the fire extinguishing agent flowing down through the opening (See Annotated Fig. 13 and See Annotated Fig. 15), and
a moving plate (See #1125 in Fig. 14 and See Annotated Fig. 13) that includes the edge portion (See Annotated Fig. 13 and Paragraph 0061) and that is movable relative to the lateral guide plate main body in the lateral direction (See Annotated Fig. 13, when #1125 is removed from #1123, the moving plate #1125 can be moved in any direction, including the lateral direction).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the battery placement rack of Olivo as applied to Claim 1 above, Olivo further discloses the battery placement rack further comprising a fire extinguishing agent holding member (See #1930 in Fig. 19, which per Paragraph 0083 is a basin. A basin is equivalent to a board structure) that is connected to lower faces of at least one of the support portions and the lateral guide plates (See Annotated Fig. 19, the fire extinguishing agent holding member #1910 is fluidly connected to lower faces of #1120), and that is configured to hold the fire extinguishing agent (See Paragraph 0083).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the battery placement rack of Olivo as applied to Claim 1 above, Olivo further discloses a fire extinguishing device (See Annotated Fig. 17) comprising:
the battery placement rack (See Annotated Fig. 17); and
a fire extinguishing agent supply unit that is provided upward from the battery placement rack (See “typical sprinkler head” in Fig. 17), and that supplies the fire extinguishing agent (See Paragraph 0063).
PNG
media_image1.png
659
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
949
990
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
701
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivo in view of US PGPUB 2023/0344074 A1 to Vandemark et al. (“Vandemark”).
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the battery placement rack of Olivo as applied to Claim 1 above, Olivo does not specifically disclose the battery placement rack further comprising an upright plate that partitions between a pair of the openings that are adjacent to each other in the lateral direction (See Annotated Fig. 19 showing that multiple support plates separated in a lateral direction from each other, however the support plates are separated by a plenum #1940 rather than an upright plate).
However, Vandemark discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0001), a battery placement rack (See #A in Fig. 1) comprising an upright plate (See #22 in Figs. 7-8) that partitions between a pair of openings (#40, See Annotated Fig. 8) that cause fire extinguishing agent (#44) to flow down through a plurality of support portions (#38) that are adjacent to each other in a lateral direction (See Figs. 7-8 and Paragraphs 0033-0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery placement rack of Olivo as applied to Claim 1 above such that the battery placement rack further comprises an upright plate that partitions between a pair of the openings that are adjacent to each other in the lateral direction by utilizing the a wall #22 of Vandemark between columns of battery units of Olivo that are shown in Annotated Fig. 19, since doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing adjacent batteries from erupting into flames by shielding between adjacent battery compartments (See Vandermark Paragraph 0038).
PNG
media_image4.png
688
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
657
721
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 21, 2026