DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 8, 2024, January 22, 2025, July 24, 2025,and October 24, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikoshi JP2018-063766 in view of Golubkov US PG Publication 2019/0379030.
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Horikoshi discloses a battery pack comprising a battery module 33 comprising a plurality of battery cells (elementary batteries) 47A-47H electrically connected together (para 0055), a smoke generating device (smoke generating unit) 87 outside the battery module 33 (see Fig. 27, meeting Claim 4) configured to generate smoke in response to a temperature of at least one of the plurality of battery cells 47 being higher than a reference temperature (e.g. 120 °C, para 0126), a smoke detection device (smoke detection unit) 85 configured to detect the smoke generated from the smoke generating device 87 (paras 0126-0129), an agent storage unit (coolant supply source) 5 comprising a fire extinguishing tube (piping) 7 having one end proximate to the battery module, the fire extinguishing tube 7 being configure to store a fire extinguishing agent (CO2, shown in para 0035 as a fire extinguishing agent) to the first extinguishing tube 7 (paras 0139-0150), and a fire extinguishing receiver (control unit) 43 configured to receive the alarm signal from the smoke detection device and to generate a supply signal in response to the alarm signal (97 can generate an electrical signal via temperature sensor 59, paras 0058-0060, 0129, 0158-0159), the alarm signal causing the fire extinguishing agent in the agent storage unit to be supplied to the fire extinguishing tube 7 (para 0158) (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-6, 26-28; paras 0033-0042, 0047-0052, 0055-0060, 0129, 0139-150, 0158-0159).
Horikoshi fails to specifically recite wherein the plurality of battery cells comprises a plurality of vents. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery safety and use of fire extinguishing measures, Golubkov teaches that in a battery system where a fire extinguishing system can be triggered to operate, battery cells have vent openings (vents) in the cap plate 7 of the battery that communicates with the interior of the battery such that gases and smoke can be sensed/detected (see entire disclosure and especially e.g. paras 0022-0023, 0064-0065, 0074, Figs 1 and 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of vents in the plurality of battery cells of Horikoshi because Golubkov teaches that vents allow for communication between the interior of battery cells and outside of the cells such that gases and smoke, etc. can be sensed for safety purposes. Where each feature is not disclosed in a single embodiment of Horikoshi, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the features taught by Horikoshi together in the battery pack of Horikoshi because Golubkov in order to experience the benefit of each feature since the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 2, Horikoshi modified by Golubkov does not specifically disclose that the smoke generated from the smoke generating device has a color. However, the skilled artisan would understand that the smoke would necessarily have color because it is made from visible particles (even if the particles are very sparse and cannot be easily seen with the naked eye).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Horikoshi discloses wherein the fire extinguishing tube 7 is configured to spray the fire extinguishing agent on the plurality of battery cells in response to batteries overheating and to thermal runaway conditions. Although Horikoshi modified by Golubkov does not specifically recite that the spraying occurs in response to a fire occurring in the battery pack, the skilled artisan would understand that if there were fire in the battery pack, there would be sufficient heat to cause smoke generation via the smoke generating device and further, there would be smoke produced by the fire itself, such that the smoke detection device would be triggered to spray fire extinguishing agent on the battery cells. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114). Further, if the structure of Horikoshi modified by Golubkov would not be capable of carrying out the claimed function, then it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the fire extinguishing tube 7 of Horikoshi modified by Golubkov to spray the fire extinguishing agent on the plurality of battery cells in response to batteries overheating and to thermal runaway condition in order to provide all measures of safety related to fire since The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 6, Horikoshi teaches that the smoke generating device comprises a sheet 97 attached to each of the plurality of battery cells (Fig 31).
Regarding Claim 7, Horikoshi modified by Golubkov discloses the structure of Claim, which is the same as Claim 1 except for the smoke detection device being configured to detect an internal gas discharged through at least one of the plurality of vents and to generate an alarm signal. However, Golubkov discloses that sensors are provided in a battery system to detect gases and smoke produced in battery cells and vented via battery vents and circulated in housing in order to provide safety measures in case of abnormal conditions and can e.g. trigger a figure extinguisher (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1, 7, 11, and paras 0012-0017, 0022-0025, 0036-0039, 0062-0064, 0078-0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery pack of Horikoshi and Golubkov such that the smoke detection device is configured to detect an internal gas discharged through at least one of the plurality of vents and to generate an alarm signal because Golubkov teaches that this allows the system to detect gases and smoke produced in battery cells and vented via battery vents in order to provide safety measures such as fire extinguishing.
Regarding Claim 8, Horikoshi teaches that a VESDA smoke detection unit 85 is employed and that is has a suction unit with smoke intake pipes 95 (see at least paras 0128-0134).
Regarding Claim 9, Golubkov teaches that each battery cell is configured to discharge the internal gas through a vent of the plurality of vents in response to an internal pressure higher than a reference pressure (para 0064) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery pack of Horikoshi and Golubkov such that each battery cell is configured to discharge the internal gas through a vent of the plurality of vents in response to an internal pressure higher than a reference pressure since Golubkov teaches this design is beneficial for safety and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
.6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikoshi JP2018-063766 in view of Golubkov US PG Publication 2019/0379030, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Berg US PG Publication 2005/0212678.
Regarding Claim 5, Horikoshi modified by Golubkov discloses the claimed battery pack as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Horikoshi discloses wherein the battery pack further comprises a temperature sensing unit configure to detect the temperature of at least one of the plurality of battery cells and configured to transmit an abnormal signal to the fire extinguishing receiver in response to the temperature of at least one of the plurality of battery cells being higher than the reference temperature (see paras 0057-0059) but Horikoshi modified by Golubkov does not specifically discuss that the temperature sensing unit is configured to transmit an abnormal signal to the smoke generating device. However, in the same field of endeavor of generating smoke for safety reasons, Berg discloses that temperature sensors can be placed in a remote area and can send a signal to a smoke generator of the high temperature area (due to fire) where the danger cannot be visually observed such that safety measures can be taken (see entire disclosure and especially para 0002, 0010-0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery pack of Horikoshi and Golubkov such that a temperature sensing unit is configured to transmit an abnormal signal to the smoke generating device because Berg teaches that a temperature signal can be transmitted from areas of difficult access to still allow smoke to be generated for identification of safety issues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights