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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the battery cells” should read “the one or more battery cells”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedlake (5607787) in view of Sprakel (7032681) and Lee (10651438), as evidenced by Karli (US-Pub 2025/0174748) and Cordani (9993672).
Regarding claim 1, Wedlake discloses a battery pack fire extinguishing system (10, fig 1) comprising: one or more battery cells (22, fig 1); a fire extinguishing pipe (42, fig 1) located above the one or more battery cells, the fire extinguishing pipe holding a first fire extinguishing agent (col 4, lines 37-40, atmospheric pressure fire extinguishing agent); and a fire extinguishing agent supply unit (44, fig 1) connected to the fire extinguishing pipe, the fire extinguishing agent supply unit holding a second fire extinguishing agent at a second pressure higher than the atmospheric pressure (col 3, lines 20-31, pressurized phire extinguishing unit), wherein the fire extinguishing agent supply unit is configured to supply the second fire extinguishing agent to the fire extinguishing pipe at a pressure higher than the atmospheric pressure (col 4, lines 37-40), wherein the fire extinguishing pipe comprises: a first fire extinguishing pipe (42, fig 1) located above the one or more battery cells; and a second fire extinguishing pipe (43, fig 1) connecting the first fire extinguishing pipe to the fire extinguishing agent supply unit.
Wedlake does not disclose storing extinguishing agent at atmospheric pressure, wherein the first fire extinguishing pipe comprises: one or more spray holes corresponding to one or more vent holes in the one or more battery cells; and a film over the spray holes, wherein a melting point of the film is lower than a melting point of the first fire extinguishing pipe.
Sprakel teaches a fire extinguisher with a supply line (7, fig 1) and a storage unit (2, fig 1) wherein the extinguishing fluid is stored at ambient pressure in the supply line (col 4, lines 14-24), while the storage unit is configured to supply fluid at a higher pressure (col 4, lines 24-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressurized extinguishing pipe disclosed by Wedlake by preloading the extinguishing agent at atmospheric pressure in the supply pipe based on the teachings of Sprakel. Doing so would reduce expenditures associated with maintaining a pressurized pipe system, as suggested by Sprakel.
Lee teaches a fire extinguishing pipe (60, fig 3) for a battery system, the fire extinguishing pipe comprising: one or more spray holes (62, fig 3a) corresponding to one or more vent holes (the vent holes are located at the top of the cells; thus the spray holes would be located in the right spot) in the one or more battery cells ; and a film over the spray holes (col 4, lines 3-14), wherein a melting point of the film is lower than a melting point of the first fire extinguishing pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire extinguishing pipe where the entire pipe can be melted in the case of a fire disclosed by Wedlake by having a spray hole located at the vent hole of the cell with a film that melts based on the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a hole with a film over it would provide a much more exact stream of fire suppressant which would allow the fire to be treated much more accurately than an entire hose.
Karli shows that commercial battery cells typically have top mounted vents (par. 0038) which is where the fire extinguishing agent of Lee is located.
Regarding claim 2, Wedlake discloses wherein at least one of the first fire extinguishing agent or the second fire extinguishing agent comprises ammonium phosphate (col 3, lines 30-40, Wedlake says the fire extinguishing agent comprises a phosphate, of which ammonium phosphate is a known subset, as evidenced by Cordani (col 8, lines 5-20) which lists ammonium phosphate as a known fire extinguishing agent for use in electrical fires).
Regarding claim 5, Wedlake as modified by Sprakel and Lee discloses wherein the film is configured to melt responsive to vent gas from the battery cells (when cells catch fire, they vent gasses that are naturally occurring due to the runaway chemical reaction, these gasses are at a high temperature, and thus when a vent gas is released they would melt the dissolving film of Lee).
Claims 6 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedlake as modified by Sprakel and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ren (US-Pub 2022/0123427).
Regarding claim 6, Wedlake as modified by Sprakel and Lee does not disclose a gas intake sensor configured to detect a vent gas from the battery cells; and a controller configured to drive a cylinder trigger of the fire extinguishing agent supply unit based on receiving a gas intake signal from the gas intake sensor.
Ren teaches a battery pack (200, fig 12) with a gas intake sensor configured to detect a vent gas from the battery cells; and a controller configured to drive a cylinder trigger of the fire extinguishing agent supply unit based on receiving a gas intake signal from the gas intake sensor (par. 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack disclosed by Wedlake as modified by Sprakel and Lee by having a gas intake sensor which activates a trigger of the fire extinguishing agent based on the teachings of Ren. Doing so would allow the fire suppression system to start early and improve safety performance (par. 0090), as suggested by Ren.
Regarding claim 7, Wedlake as modified by Sprakel, Lee and Ren discloses wherein, based on detecting operation of the cylinder trigger, the first fire extinguishing agent charged in the fire extinguishing pipe is configured to be sprayed to the battery cells at a first point in time, and the second fire extinguishing agent charged in the fire extinguishing agent supply unit is configured to be sprayed to the battery cells through the fire extinguishing pipe at a second point in time later than the first point in time (the first fire extinguishing agent is already in the pipe, while the second fire extinguishing agent is within the pressure vessel which is connected to the far end of the pipe, thus when operating the first agent would be released first, while the second would push on the first until it has been cleared from the pipe, at which point it would be expelled).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to have a combination of pressurized and atmospheric pressure systems based on the teachings of Sparkel. This argument is not persuasive, as Sparkel teaches having a high pressure reservoir and an atmospheric pressure fluid line both full of extinguishing fluid (col 3, lines 20-31). Applicant further argues that Lee does not disclose the film being lower than the melting point of the first fire extinguishing pipe. This argument is not persuasive, as the whole intention of the film is that it melts easily in the event of a fire to have the fire extinguishing agent spray exactly where needed, thus, as set forth in applicants own arguments, saying that the film easily melts in case of a fire would mean that the melting point is lower than the rest of the structure in order to fill its role. Regarding the vents, the vents are not positively recited just used to define the placement of the spray holes, and the spray holes are placed on top of the cells in close proximity to them, thus this means that when the spray holes are placed on top of the battery cells they would be located in the right place. Karli (US-Pub 2025/0174748) has been used as evidence.
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 SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights