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 .
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.
(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 1-9, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US Pub No 2022/0328906 A1).
Re claim 1, Cho et al. show an energy storage system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a rack (100) comprising:
horizontal frames (110/120) arranged at intervals in a vertical direction and having a length in a horizontal direction;
vertical frames (130) arranged at intervals in the horizontal direction, having a length in the vertical direction, and coupled to the horizontal frames (110/120); and
guide rails (215) coupled to inner sides of the horizontal frames (110/120) and extending in an inward direction of the rack;
a battery module (101) mounted on the guide rails; and
a fire extinguishing sheet (210) coupled to the horizontal frames (110/120), the fire extinguishing sheet (210) being configured to release a fire extinguishing agent to the battery module at a reference temperature (paragraph 0062),
wherein the fire extinguishing sheet (210) has a portion extending outwardly beyond (as the sheet 210 and the frames 110/120 do not occupy the same space, the entirety of the sheet extends outwardly beyond the frames) the one of the horizontal frames (110/120).
Re claim 2, Cho et al. show the fire extinguishing sheet (210) is coupled to the horizontal frames (110/120) to face the battery module (101).
Re claim 3, Cho et al. show a width of the fire extinguishing sheet (210) is the same as a width of the horizontal frames (110/120).
Re claim 4, Cho et al. show a width of the fire extinguishing sheet (210) is greater than a width of the horizontal frames (110/120).
Re claim 5, Cho et al. show the horizontal frames comprise:
a first horizontal frame (110) corresponding to an upper end of the battery module (101); and
a second horizontal frame (120) corresponding to a lower end of the battery module (101).
Re claim 6, Cho et al. show the fire extinguishing sheet comprises:
a first fire extinguishing sheet (210) coupled to the first horizontal frame (110); and
a second fire extinguishing sheet (210) coupled to the second horizontal frame (120).
Re claim 7, Cho et al. show the first fire extinguishing sheet (210) and the second fire extinguishing sheet (210) are spaced apart from each other to allow a cooling fluid to pass therebetween (Fig. 2).
Re claim 8, Cho et al. show the fire extinguishing sheet (210) is coupled between the first horizontal frame (110) and the second horizontal frame (120).
Re claim 9, Cho et al. show the fire extinguishing sheet (210) has a plurality of through-holes (230).
Re claim 11, Cho et al. show the fire extinguishing sheet comprises:
a cover (240/390) formed of a resin (paragraph 0110); and
a fire extinguishing agent (220) dispersed inside the cover.
Re claim 13, Cho et al. show fire extinguishing conduits (230) coupled to the guide rails (215), the fire extinguishing conduits being configured to spray a fire extinguishing liquid toward the battery module (101).
Re claim 14, Cho et al. Show the guide rails (215) has recesses (spaces between 215) to accommodate the fire extinguishing conduits (230) therein.
Re claim 15, Cho et al. show the fire extinguishing conduits (230) have a length in the horizontal direction.
Re claim 16, Cho et al. show the battery module (101) further comprises a top cover (310) facing the guide rails (215), and
wherein the top cover (310) is spaced apart from the guide rails (215).
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 (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 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US Pub No 2022/0328906 A1).
Re claim 10, Cho et al. disclose the claimed invention except for each of the plurality of through-holes having a size in a range of 5 mm to 15 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of through-holes have a size in a range of 5 mm to 15 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the size of through-holes which achieves the recognized result of determining, along with the amount of battery cells, the number of through-holes present (paragraph 0026), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed range.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US Pub No 2022/0328906 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub No 2022/0359947 A1).
Re claim 12, Cho et al. show the fire extinguishing sheet (210) coupled to one of the horizontal frames (110/120).
Cho et al. does not teach another rack on one side of the rack and spaced apart from the rack.
However, Lee et al. show a battery rack (Fig. 12, 500) with another rack (500) on one side of the rack and spaced apart from the rack, wherein a fire extinguishing sheet (250) is coupled to a horizontal frame (510) facing the other rack.
Lee et al. which recognizes the need for more than one battery rack, for which there would be only a finite number of options when choosing between having one rack or having more than one rack, therefore it would have been obvious to try having another rack since it would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. the racks will house batteries that will be capable of extinguishing fires within said batteries).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s remarks directed at the newly amended limitation, “wherein the fire extinguishing sheet has a portion extending outwardly beyond the one of the horizontal frames,” as the claim nor specification provide any further detail or definition for what portion of the sheet is meant to extend “outwardly beyond” the frames or how that portion is meant to extend “outwardly beyond” the frames, then it can be said that the entirety of the equated sheet in Cho extends outwardly beyond the frames as the sheet in Cho does not occupy the same space as the frames.
In light of applicant’s remarks, all prior art rejections shall be 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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-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, 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights