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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 02/13/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has NOT filed a certified copy of the Korean Patent Application 10-2024-0020480 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Applicant’s amendments and argument overcome the drawing objection issued in the Office Action mailed 09/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4 and its dependents, recitation “a pipe communication structure on one of the rack shelves, comprising the main pipe, …, wherein the main pipe of the pipe communication structure on the one of the rack shelves is connected to another main pipe of another one of the rack shelves to be configured to sequentially supply the fire-extinguishing agent inside the main pipe and the other main pipe” is indefinite because:
i) recitation “a pipe communication structure on one of the rack shelves, comprising the main pipe” requires the claimed pipe communication structure on one rack shelf of the plurality of rack shelves comprising the main pipe previously claimed in claim 1, i.e., only one pipe communication structure and only one main pipe are claimed, and the only one main pipe is comprised by the claimed only one pipe communication structure;
ii) therefore, it is unclear term “another main pipe of another one of the rack shelves” refers to a) a second main pipe that is identical to the previously claimed main pipe, i.e., having all the structures/features that claimed in claims 1-2; or b) any pipe that is on a second rack shelf and has different structures/features from the previously claimed main pipe;
iii) it is further unclear whether claim 4 requires a) only one pipe communication structure that is on a rack shelf and comprising the previously claimed main pipe, the previously claimed rack pipe, the previously claimed branch pipes, and the previously claimed spry pipes; or b) each of a plurality of pipe communication structures respectively positioned on a respective rack shelf of the plurality of rack shelves and respectively comprising the previously claimed main pipe, the previously claimed rack pipe, the previously claimed branch pipes, and the previously claimed spray pipes.
Due to the ambiguity of iii) in claim 4, it is unclear whether the recitations of claims 5-7 applies to each of a plurality of pipe communication structures or only one pipe communication structure.
Regarding claim 10 and its dependent, recitation “wherein the nozzle parts are respectively positioned on the spray pipes to have a one-to-one correspondence with the battery cells” is indefinite because: claim 1 defines each of the spray pipes has one or more nozzle parts, i.e., a plurality sets of one or more nozzle parts is claimed, and thus, it is unclear whether the recitation of claim 10 requires i) each nozzle part of one set of the plurality sets of one or more nozzle parts positioned on the respective spray pipe of the spray pipes has a one-to-one correspondence with each of the battery cells; or ii) each set of the plurality sets of the one or more nozzle parts is position on the respective spray pipe of the spray pipe and has a one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of battery cells.
Regarding claim 11, recitation “wherein the nozzle parts are respectively located directly above a safety vent of a corresponding one of the battery cells” is unclear what term “the nozzle parts” refers to due to reason explained in claim 10 above and it is further unclear whether term “safety vent” refers to i) a respective safety vent for each nozzle part; or ii) a common safety vent corresponding to a plurality of nozzle parts.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee 20220355139.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches the invention as claimed: A system (Figs. 1 and 4-5) for spraying a fire-extinguishing agent (title):
a main pipe (310 and 320 in Figs. 4-5) extending in a first horizontal direction (the 310 part extending in direction 1 in Fig. 5), and having one end (annotated Fig. 5) connected to a storage unit (110, Figs. 1-2) for storing the fire-extinguishing agent ([0056]);
a rack pipe (325) branching from the main pipe (the 320 part) in a vertical direction (direction 3 in Fig. 5), and extending in the vertical direction (see Fig. 5);
branch pipes (327s, see Figs. 2-5) branching from the rack pipe (325), and extending in the first horizontal direction (see the exampled branch pipe in annotated Fig. 5); and
spray pipes (330s, see Figs. 3-5) each branching from a corresponding one of the branch pipes (a corresponding 327, see Figs. 3-5), extending in a second horizontal direction (direction 4 in Fig. 5), and having therein one or more nozzle parts (334) each defining a spray hole (332) configured to be closed by a cover (334a, see Figs. 7-9 and [0070 and 0072]).
PNG
media_image1.png
858
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 20220355139 in view of Oki JP6779079 and BEHLEN 20200220237.
Regarding claim 2, Lee further teaches wherein the main pipe comprises pipes (annotated Fig. 5), and a T-shaped connector (340) coupling the pipes (see annotated Fig. 5), wherein an upper end (annotated Fig. 5) of the rack pipe (325) is coupled to (via 320) a lower end (annotated Fig. 5) of one of the T-shaped connector (340).
PNG
media_image2.png
860
1109
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee does not teach wherein the system further comprises a barrier pipe between the lower end of the T-shaped connector and the upper end of the rack pipe, the barrier pipe being configured to transition from a communication-blocked state to a communication-opened state to allow the fire-extinguishing agent to move to the rack pipe.
However, Oki teaches a system comprises a barrier pipe (annotated Fig. 3) having an electronic controlled on-off valve (one of the 51A-51C) and provided right downstream from a lower end (annotated Fig. 3) of the T-shaped connector (annotated Fig. 3), the barrier pipe (annotated Fig. 3) being configured to (via valve 51) transition from a communication-blocked state (closed state [0074]) to a communication-opened state (open state [0075]) to allow the fire-extinguishing agent (from 31) to flow downstream from the T-shaped connector (see annotated Fig. 3 and [0075]).
PNG
media_image3.png
753
983
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Lee with Oki’s barrier pipe having an electronic controlled on-off valve right downstream from the lower end of the T-shaped connector, such that
wherein the system further comprises a barrier pipe between the lower end of the T-shaped connector and the upper end of the rack pipe, the barrier pipe being configured to transition from a communication-blocked state to a communication-opened state to allow the fire-extinguishing agent to move to the rack pipe (the modification of added Oki’s barriers pipe right downstream from the low end of Lee’s T-shaped connector read on the claimed limitation)
in order to efficiently operate the system by only provide the fire-extinguishing agent to the shelf that is in fire (Oki, [0075-0076]).
Lee in view of Oki does not teach said barrier pipe being configured to transition from said communication-blocked state to said communication-opened state upon a fire-extinguishing agent spray pressure exceeding a threshold value to allow said fire-extinguishing agent to move to said rack pipe.
However, BEHLEN teaches wherein an electronic controlled on-off valve (31 in the second row in Fig. 2) and/or a burst valve (32 in the second row in Fig. 2) is configured to transition from a communication-blocked state (closed state, [0036] on p. 6, left column) to a communication-opened state (open state, [0036] on p. 6, left column) upon a fire-extinguishing agent spray pressure (the pressure drop caused by leakage of the spray pipes during fire, see [0010] on p. 2, right column and [0036] on p. 6, left column) exceeding a threshold value (the limit pressure per [0036] on p. 6, left column) and/or a fire-extinguishing agent spray temperature (monitored by temperature sensor see the beginning of [0014]) exceeding a threshold value (the limit temperature per [0036] on p. 6, left column) to allow the fire-extinguishing agent to move to the spray pipes (22s, see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Lee in view of Oki with BEHLEN’s burst valve in addition to the electronic controlled on-off valve to form a combined unit in the barrier pipe, such that
the barrier pipe being configured to transition from a communication-blocked state to a communication-opened state upon a fire-extinguishing agent spray pressure exceeding a threshold value to allow the fire-extinguishing agent to move to the rack pipe
in order to quickly extinguish or minimize the thermal effect of fire (BEHLEN, the end of [0036] on p. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Oki and BEHLEN further teaches wherein the barrier pipe (Oki’s barrier pipe in Oki’s annotated Fig. 3 in claim 2 having Oki’s electrical valve 51 and BEHLEN’s burst valve 32 in BEHLEN’s Fig. 2) comprises a circular cross-section (because Oki teaches the barrier pipe in annotated Fig. 3 in claim 2 is a “pipe”; and according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “pipe” means a tubular or cylindrical object, part, or passage).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches rack shelves (sub-frames 13 in Fig. 4) arranged in a row (see Fig. 4), wherein the spray pipes (330s in Figs. 3-5) cross upper sides of battery cells (33s in Figs. 8 and 14) on the rack shelves (see Figs. 6-8 and 14 and [0047]), and
wherein the nozzle parts are respectively positioned on the spray pipes to have a one-to-one correspondence with the battery cells (each of the plurality of nozzle parts 334s positioned on a respective spray pipe 330 is corresponding to a respective battery cell 33, see Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 11, Lee further teaches wherein the nozzle parts are respectively located directly above a safety vent of a corresponding one of the battery cells (each of the plurality of nozzle parts 334s positioned on a respective spray pipe 330 is located directly above a respective safety vent 31a of the respective battery cell 33, see Fig. 8).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 20220355139 in view of Oki JP6779079 and BEHLEN 20200220237, and in further view of Hickey 20250087779.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Oki and BEHLEN does not teach a barrier to maintain an interior of the barrier pipe in the communication-blocked state, and to transform the interior of the barrier pipe into the communication-open state when the fire-extinguishing agent spray pressure exceeding the threshold value is applied to the barrier.
However, Hickey teaches a burst valve comprising a barrier (74, Fig. 4 and [0037]) to maintain an interior (chambers 66 and 58, see Fig. 4) of the barrier pipe (70, Fig. 4) in the communication-blocked state and to transform the interior (66 and 58) of the barrier pipe (70) into the communication-open state when the fire-extinguishing agent spray pressure (a pressure differential between the two chambers 66 and 58 in Fig. 4, which is caused by a pressure changing in chamber 66 related to a state of the battery module 42 and/or a pressure changing in chamber 58 related to a fire-extinguishing agent source) exceeding the threshold value (a preselected/designed pressure) is applied to the barrier (74; see [0037, 0039-0040, and 0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed by non-depicted burst valve of Lee in view of Oki and BEHLEN with Hickey’s burst valve comprising a barrier in order to selectively open/close the fluid communication of the interior of the barrier pipe according to a predetermined/designed pressure threshold and prevent leaking during normal operation (Hickey, [0037-0038 and 0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches rack shelves (a plurality of 10s) arranged in a row (see Fig. 2); and a pipe communication structure on one of the rack shelves (interpreted as each of the plurality of pipe communication structures respectively provided on each of the plurality of shelves 10s, Figs. 4-5 shows one pipe communication structure on one shelf, Fig. 2 shows each shelf has a respective pipe communication structure), comprising the main pipe, the rack pipe, the branch pipes, and the spray pipes (interpreted as each of the plurality of pipe communication structures comprising main pipe 310 and 320, rack pipe 325, branch pipes 327s, and spray pipes 330s, see Figs. 3-5),
wherein the main pipe (310 part) of the pipe communication structure on the one of the rack shelves (the right 10 in Fig. 2) is connected to another main pipe (310 part) of another one of the rack shelves (the left 10 in Fig. 2) to be configured to sequentially supply the fire-extinguishing agent (from 110) inside the main pipe and the other main pipe (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey further teaches wherein the rack pipe (Lee’s 325 in Lee’s Figs. 4-5) is connected to the main pipe (Lee’s 310 part in Lee’s Figs. 4-5) through the barrier pipe (Oki’s barrier pipe in Oki’s annotated Fig. 3 in claim 2 having Oki’s electrical valve 51 and BEHLEN’s burst valve 32 in BEHLEN’s Fig. 2),
wherein the rack pipe (Lee’s 325 in Lee’s Figs. 4-5) is in communication with the branch pipes (Lee’s 327s in Lee’s Figs. 4-5) and the spray pipes (Lee’s 330 in Lee’s Figs. 3-5), and
wherein the barrier pipe (Oki’s barrier pipe in Oki’s annotated Fig. 3 in claim 2 having Oki’s electrical valve 51 and BEHLEN’s burst valve 32 in BEHLEN’s Fig. 2) is configured to transform into the communication-opened state (the open state as taught by BEHLEN’s [0036] on p. 6, left column and as taught by Hickey’s [0037, 0039-0040, and 0042]) to permit movement of the fire-extinguishing agent (from Lee’s 310 part in Lee’s Figs. 4-5) to the rack pipe (Lee’s 325 in Lee’s Figs. 4-5) and to a battery cell (one of Lee’s 33 in Figs. 4-5, 8, and 14) where an event has occurred (as taught by Lee’s [0042, 0056, 0058, and 0060] and as taught by BEHLE’s [0010] on p. 2, right column and [0036] on p. 6, left column).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey further teaches wherein the barrier (Hickey’s 74) comprises: a membrane (the disk as taught by Hickey’s [0037] and Hickey’s Fig. 5) configured to block the interior (Hickey’s 66 and 58) of the barrier pipe (Oki’s barrier pipe in Oki’s annotated Fig. 3 in claim 2 having Oki’s electrical valve 51 and BEHLEN’s burst valve 32 in BEHLEN’s Fig. 2) in the communication-blocked state (the closed state as taught by BEHLEN’s [0036] on p. 6, left column and as taught by Hickey’s [0037, 0039-0040, and 0042]); and
a rupture line (Hickey’s 74) in the membrane (see Hickey’s 5), and configured to rupture upon the fire-extinguishing agent spray pressure (the pressure differential between Hickey’s 66 and 58 as taught by Hickey’s [0037, 0039-0040, and 0042]) applied thereto exceeding the threshold value (Hickey’s preselected/designed pressure in by Hickey’s [0037, 0039-0040, and 0042]) such that the barrier pipe (because Hickey’s 74 is ruptured) is brought into the communication-opened state (the opened state as taught by BEHLEN’s [0036] on p. 6, left column and as taught by Hickey’s [0037, 0039-0040, and 0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey further teaches wherein the rupture line (Hickey’s 74) comprises a straight line and a cross (see Hickey’s Fig. 5 and [0039]).
Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey does not teach the threshold value is about 1.5 bar.
However, Hickey further teaches the size and the thickness of the barrier (74) are selected ([0037-0039]) according to the threshold value (the preselected/designed pressure value), and said threshold value is in an arrange of a minimum value that is able to block the fluid communication during normal operation and/or testing ([0037 and 0042]) and a maximum value that is able to permit the fluid communication during the fire ([0037-0040]). Moreover, BEHLEN further teaches the threshold value (the limit pressure) of the burst valve controls a reaction speed of providing the fire-extinguishing agent after detecting the fire event ([0036] on p. 6, right column).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the size and the thickness of the barrier is a results-effective variable of the pressure threshold value that controls the reaction speed of providing the fire-extinguishing agent after detecting the fire event. Thus, the claimed limitation of the pressure threshold value being about 1.5 bar is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the barrier of the burst valve of Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey to have the pressure threshold valve being about 1.5 bar, as it involves only adjusting the size and the thickness of the barrier of Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey disclosed to require adjustment.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey wherein the threshold value is about 1.5 bar in order to control the reaction speed of providing the fire-extinguishing agent after detecting the fire event.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument with respective to Lee does not teach the amended claim 1, on pp. 9-10, is moot because the new interpretation of Lee is applied in the current Office Action, i.e., Lee teaches a main pipe (310 and 320) extending in a first horizontal direction (the 310 part extends in the first horizontal direction 1, see Fig. 5); a rack pipe (325) branching from the main pipe (the 320 part) in a vertical direction (direction 3).
Moreover, it is noted, “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims”, 2145 VI. In this case, the claim 1 does not require the connection between the main pipe the rack pipe forms the structure as shown in Fig. 4 of the instant application, and thus, Lee teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, see rejection above.
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 JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741