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 .
Examiner’s Notes
Applicant is hereby notified that the reply filed July 9, 2026 is technically not compliant with the rules set forth in 37 CFR 1.121, because there is no definitive indication whatsoever as to the disposition of claims 7-15, which were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species. Have claims 7-15 been cancelled, or are they still pending and withdrawn? In an effort to advance prosecution of the instant application, and for purposes of the instant Office action, claims 7-15 will be considered as still pending, but withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed July 9, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claim 2 is now cancelled. Thus, claims 1 and 3-15 remain pending and are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
As mentioned above in paragraph 2 of the instant Office action, claims 7-15 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 1, 2026.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“airflow guiding component” in claim 6.
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.
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
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, 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., EP-4019094-A1 (Foreign Patent Document Citation No. 1 on the IDS filed May 15, 2025).
As to claim 1, Kim (see Figs. 1-5, 10 and 11) shows a fire extinguishing structure of battery module, comprising: a housing (210) comprising a first end plane (coincident with 210a) and a second end plane (coincident with 210b) opposite to each other, an inlet (213), an outlet (212) and an accommodation space (within 210), wherein the inlet is disposed on the first end plane (see Fig. 1), the outlet is disposed on the second end plane (see Fig. 3), and the accommodation space is in communication between the inlet and the outlet (see Fig. 4); a battery pack (any one or more of 100) accommodated within the accommodation space; an airflow guiding channel (as defined by at least a portion of one or more of “passages 211”) in communication between the first end plane and the accommodation space or/and between the second end plane and the accommodation space (see Fig. 4), and configured to guide an airflow along an airflow direction (such as indicated by the arrow(s) at “A1” in Fig. 4) from the first end plane to the second end plane (see again, Fig. 4); a fan (see paragraph [0052]) disposed adjacent to the inlet or the outlet, and configured to generate the airflow flowing through the airflow guiding channel and the accommodation space for dissipating heat generated by the battery pack; and a pair of intumescent insulation layers (as applied to the surfaces defined on 244p1 and 244p2; see Figs. 10 and 11; and see paragraphs [0073]-[0078]), which are respectively disposed on two opposite side walls of the airflow guiding channel (the surfaces defined on 244p1 and 244p2 are side walls of at least a portion of the airflow guiding channel; see paragraph [0076]; and see further explanation, below), and configured to react and expand under a reaction temperature to seal the airflow guiding channel (see paragraph [0077]), wherein an included angle formed between a normal direction of the intumescent insulation layers and the airflow direction is equal to 90 degrees (the included angle between a normal direction of the intumescent layer(s) and the airflow direction indicated by the arrow(s) at “A1” shown in Fig. 4, through “T1” as shown in Fig. 10, would be 90 degrees). For a further explanation of how the intumescent insulation layers of Kim meet the above-discussed limitations, it is noted that the layers of Kim, as applied above (for example, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11, the intumescent layers applied to each of the opposing side wall surfaces of “244p1” may constitute the recited “pair of intumescent layers”; or, the intumescent layers applied to each of the opposing side wall surfaces of “244p2” may constitute the recited “pair of intumescent layers”; or, the intumescent layers applied to one of each of the opposing side wall surfaces of “244p1” and “244p2” may constitute the recited “pair of intumescent layers”), define two opposite side walls of the airflow guiding channel, as recited, and the included angle formed between the normal direction of the intumescent insulation layers and the airflow direction (in each of the examples discussed above) is equal to 90 degrees.
As to claim 3, Kim shows the fire extinguishing structure of battery module according to claim 1, and wherein the pair of intumescent insulation layers is symmetrically arranged on an upper side wall and a lower side wall of the airflow guiding channel, respectively, (which is the case when the second of the three examples discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to the recited “pair”) or/and symmetrically arranged on a left side wall and a right side wall of the airflow guiding channel (which is the case when the first of the three examples discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to the recited “pair”). It should also be noted that the claim terms “upper” and “lower” vs. “left” and “right” would be dependent on orientation of the module shown by Kim. In other words, a different orientation of the module shown by Kim would result in “upper” and “lower”, as applied above, being “left” and “right”; while “left” and “right” would then be “upper” and “lower”.
As to claim 4, Kim shows the fire extinguishing structure of battery module according to claim 1, and wherein the pair of intumescent insulation layers each has an initial thickness (as represented by the un-expanded configuration shown in Fig. 10; see also, paragraphs [0074]-[0075]), and the airflow guiding channel has an airflow-guiding spacing distance between the two opposite side walls (in the third example discussed above with respect to claim 2, regarding the intumescent layers on each of the opposing side wall surfaces of “244p1” and “244p2” being applied to the recited “pair of intumescent layers”, there is a spacing distance between those two opposite side walls), wherein the airflow-guiding spacing distance is less than or equal to thirty times the initial thickness (the “spacing distance”, as applied above, can be arbitrarily chosen in a manner which allows this limitation to be met; and note: paragraph [0075] of Kim expressly states that the intumescent layers may expand in an exemplary manner from between “3 to 40 times or more” at reaction temperature).
As to claim 6, Kim shows the fire extinguishing structure of battery module according to claim 1, and further comprising an airflow guiding component (for example, either of elements “242” and “244p” represented components which guide air through “T1”) disposed between the first end plane and the accommodation space or/and between the accommodation space and the second end plane, and configured to form the airflow guiding channel in communication between the first end plane and the accommodation space or/and between the accommodation space and the second end plane.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
As to claim 5, Kim shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, the exemplary reaction temperature range of the intumescent insulation layer of Kim is disclosed as being 150 to 250 degrees Celsius (see paragraph [0075]), which meets the recited reaction temperature range, since the exemplary range of Kim overlaps with the lower end of the recited range, and temperatures beyond 250 degrees Celsius (i.e., up to the upper range recited in the claim as being “to 550o C”) would clearly also cause the intumescent layer of Kim to also react. However, Kim does not expressly disclose that the intumescent insulation layer is an intumescent flame retardant “sticker”.
It should be noted that at least one of the expressly disclosed exemplary intumescent layer materials of Kim was commonly sold prior to the instant application in the form of an intumescent flame-retardant sticker. More specifically, the expressly-disclosed product, “Fi-Block of Seksui” was (and still is) widely available in tape form (which is reasonably a “sticker”), as well as sheet and strip form, which often includes adhesive backing (thus, also reasonably a “sticker”) for simple installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “sticker” version of at least one of the expressly disclosed intumescent insulation layer products discussed by Kim, thus providing simple installation of the intumescent insulation layer(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see the section under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102” on pages 4-8 of the “Remarks/Arguments” portions of the response filed July 9, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Throughout the aforementioned pages of the Remarks/Arguments, Applicant essentially asserts that the limitations previously recited in dependent claim 2 (now cancelled), which have been added to claim 1, patentably distinguish the claims from the applied prior art to Kim et al. (EP-4019094-A1). More specifically, after essentially quoting the pertinent limitations added to claim 1, Applicant attempts to support this assertion by stating, “That is, the intumescent insulation material of the present disclosure is disposed on the two opposite side walls that constitute the boundary of the airflow guiding channel, such that the space formed between the two side walls serves as the airflow guiding channel for the airflow”. It is respectfully submitted that this more-limiting interpretation of the scope of claim 1 is not commensurate with the actual claim limitations recited in claim 1. It is thus this Office’s position, as interpreted and clearly explained in the Office action mailed April 28, 2026, as well as articulated in paragraph 9 of the instant Office action, that claim 1 is reasonably anticipated by the broadness of the scope of claim 1, as presented. Further, the remaining portions of the arguments in the aforementioned response are irrelevant, given the broader and reasonable interpretation of the claim scope taken by this Office, as discussed above. Thus, the rejection(s) is/are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights