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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered on 06/03/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities, recitation “pipe communication structure on one of the rack shelves, …, wherein the main pipe of the pipe communication structure on the one of the rack shelves is connected to second main pipe, …, of another one of the rack shelves” is believed to be in error for - - pipe communication structure on [[one]]a first rack shelf of the rack shelves, …, wherein the main pipe of the pipe communication structure on the [[one]]first rack shelf of the rack shelves is connected to second main pipe, …, of a second rack shelf
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 10 and its dependent, i) it is unclear whether term “the nozzle parts” of recitation “wherein the nozzle parts are respectively positioned on the spray pipes” refers to the previously claimed one or more nozzle parts in claim 1, and it is further unclear what is the relationship of “the nozzle parts” and “the spray pipes” in claim 10, e.g., each of the spray pipes requires one nozzle part or a plurality of nozzle parts; and ii) it is further unclear term “the nozzle parts” of recitation “wherein the nozzle parts have a one-to-one correspondence with the battery cells” refers to which nozzles parts, e.g., the plurality of nozzles parts positioned each of the plurality of spray pipes or the one nozzle part positioned each of the plurality of spray pipes.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear whether term “one of the nozzle parts” refers to i) the one nozzle part positioned on each of the plurality of spray pipes or ii) a nozzle part (any one) of the plurality of nozzle parts.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 20220355139 in view of Oki JP6779079, BEHLEN 20200220237 and Hickey 20250087779.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches the invention as claimed: A system (Figs. 1-5) for spraying a fire-extinguishing agent (title):
a main pipe (two 310s, Figs. 4-5) extending in a first horizontal direction (direction 1 in Fig. 5), having one end (annotated Fig. 5) connected to a storage unit (110, Fig. 1) for storing the fire-extinguishing agent ([0056]), and comprising pipes (two 310s that connected by T-shaped connector 340, Figs. 4-5), and a T-shaped connector (340) coupling the pipes (two 310s, see Figs. 4-5);
a rack pipe (325) branching from the main pipe (310) in a vertical direction (direction 3 in Fig. 5; per [0065], the arrangement of pipes as shown in Figs. 4-5 may be changed to a different arrangement and per [0085], the structures of embodiments may be combined, and thus, the rack pipe 325 in Figs. 4-5 may be directly connected to and branching from the main pipe 310 in the vertical direction like pipe 320 as shown in Fig. 2 without using the connecting pipe 320 in Figs. 4-5, see annotated Fig. 5 for demonstration), extending in the vertical direction (direction 3 in Fig. 5), and having an upper end (annotated Fig. 5) that is coupled to a lower end (annotated Fig. 5) of the T-shaped connector (340);
branch pipes (327s, see Figs. 2-5) branching from the rack pipe (325), extending in the first horizontal direction (see the exampled branch pipe in annotated Fig. 5) to be parallel to the main pipe (two 310s, see annotated Fig. 5), and overlapping the main pipe (two 310) in the vertical direction (direction 3 in Fig. 5; when the rack pipe 325 in Figs. 4-5 is directly connected to and branching from the main pipe 310 in Figs. 4-5 without the connecting pipe 320 in Figs. 4-5 as taught at [0065 and 0085] and Fig. 2, the two 310s in Fig. 5 is located above and overlapping the rack pipe 325 in the direction 3, see annotated Fig. 5 for demonstration);
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
907
1174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not teach a barrier pipe between the lower end of the T-shaped connector and the upper end of the rack pipe, and 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 (a portion a pipe 7A at where valve 51 is, annotated Fig. 3) having an electronic controlled on-off valve (one of the 51A-51C) provided therein, located between the lower end (annotated Fig. 3) of the T-shaped connector (annotated Fig. 3) and the upper end (an inlet end of 7A, annotated Fig. 3) of the rack pipe (rack pipe 7A in Fig. 3 extending into rack 3A as shown in Fig. 1), and 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 move to the rack pipe (7A, see Figs. 1 and 3 and [0075]).
PNG
media_image2.png
753
983
media_image2.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 provided therein 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) 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).
Lee in view of Oki and BEHLEN does not teach a barrier configured to maintain an interior of the barrier pipe in the communication-blocked state, configured 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, and comprising:
a membrane configured to block the interior of the barrier pipe in the communication-blocked state; and a rupture line in the membrane, and configured to rupture upon the fire-extinguishing agent spray pressure applied thereto exceeding the threshold value such that the barrier pipe is brought into the communication-opened state.
However, Hickey teaches a burst valve comprising a barrier (74, Fig. 4 and [0037]) configured to maintain an interior (chambers 66 and 58, see Fig. 4) of the barrier pipe (70, Fig. 4) in the communication-blocked state, configured 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; per [0037] after 74 is ruptured, water flows into batter assembly 38), and comprising:
a membrane (the disk in Fig. 5 and [0037]) configured to block the interior (chambers 66 and 58 in Fig. 4) of the barrier pipe (70, Fig. 4) in the communication-blocked state ([0037, 0039-0040, and 0042]); and
a rupture line (78, Fig. 5 and per [0039], the disk is activated to rupture at the preselected pressure, and said preselected pressure is selected by controlling the thickness of the disk at where the grooves 78 are in Fig. 5, and thus, 78 is the claimed rupture line) in the membrane (the disk in Fig. 5 and [0037]), and configured to rupture upon the fire-extinguishing agent spray pressure (the pressure differential between chambers 66 and 58, see [0037, 0039-0040, and 0042]) applied thereto exceeding the threshold value (the preselected/designed pressure per [0039]) such that the barrier pipe (70) is brought into the communication-opened state (per [0039] after 74 is ruptured, water flows into batter assembly 38).
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 including a membrane and a rupture line in the membrane 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 (a first pipe arrangement as shown in Figs. 4-5 provided on a first rack shelf, see annotated Fig. 2), comprising the main pipe (the two 310s in Figs. 4-5), the rack pipe (325 in Figs. 4-5), the branch pipes (327s in Figs. 4-5), and the spray pipes (330s in Figs. 4-5),
wherein the main pipe (the two 310s in Figs. 4-5) of the pipe communication structure on the one of the rack shelves (the first pipe arrangement as shown in Figs. 4-5 provided on the first rack shelf, see annotated Fig. 2) is connected to a second main pipe (a second main pipe that associated to a second rack shelf and the second main pipe belongs to a second pipe communication structure that is identical to the first pipe communication structure as shown in annotated Fig. 2, and thus, the second main pipe comprising a second set of two 310s in Figs. 4-5), which extends horizontally (in direction 1, Fig. 4-5), of another one of the rack shelves (the second rack shelf, annotated Fig. 2) to be configured to sequentially supply the fire-extinguishing agent (from 110) inside the main pipe (the two 310s in the first pipe communication structure) and the second main pipe (the second set of two 310s in the second pipe communication structure, see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
829
1225
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 two 310s in Lee’s Figs. 4-5) through the barrier pipe (Oki’s barrier pipe in Oki’s annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 provided with Oki’s electrical valve 51 and BEHLEN’s burst valve 32 in BEHLEN’s Fig. 2 therein),
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 1 provided with Oki’s electrical valve 51 and BEHLEN’s burst valve 32 in BEHLEN’s Fig. 2 therein) 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 two 310s 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 7, Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey further teaches wherein the rupture line (Hickey’s 78, Hickey’s Fig. 5 and [0039]) 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 thickness of the barrier (74) at the rupture line (78) is selected (Fig. 5 and [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 thickness of the barrier at the rupture line 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 thickness of the barrier at the rupture line 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.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Oki, BEHLEN, and Hickey further teaches wherein the barrier pipe (Oki’s barrier pipe in Oki’s annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 having Oki’s electrical valve 51 and BEHLEN’s burst valve 32 in BEHLEN’s Fig. 2 provided therein) 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]), wherein the nozzle parts are respectively positioned on the spray pipes (each of the spray pipes 330 is respectively provided with the plurality of nozzle parts 334s, see Figs. 6-9 and 14), and wherein the nozzle parts have a one-to-one correspondence with the battery cells (each of the plurality of nozzle parts 334s on each of the spray pipes 330 is one-to-one corresponding to each of the plurality of battery cells 33, see Figs. 6, 8, and 14).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches wherein one of the nozzle parts (the 334 corresponding the cell 33 in annotated Fig. 8) is located directly above a safety vent (31a) of a corresponding one of the battery cells (the 33 in annotated Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
768
1232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 and entered 06/03/2026 have been fully considered.
I. Applicant argues on pp. 6-7 Lee does not teach limitation “branch pipes ... extending in the first horizontal direction to be parallel to the main pipe, and overlapping the main pipe in the vertical direction” in amended claim 1.
Examiner does not agree because Lee teaches per [0065 and 0085] that the various pipes of the pipe arrangement as shown in Fig. 4-5 may be installed with a different arrangement and as shown in Fig. 2, the main pipe 310 is directedly coupled to a rack pipe 320, and thus, the rack pipe 325 in Figs. 4-5 may be directedly coupled to the main pipe 310 in Figs. 4-5 without using the connecting pipe 320 in Figs. 4-5, see detailed in rejection above.
II. Applicant argues on pp. 7-8 Hickey does not teach a membrane having a rupture line formed therein.
Examiner does not agree because Hickey teaches per [0039] the membrane (disk that forms 74, in Fig. 5) is activated to rupture at a preselected pressure, and said preselected pressure is selected by a thickness of the membrane at the groove 78 in Fig. 5, i.e., the groove 78 is the claimed rupture line, see details in rejection above.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights