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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on June 29, 2026. Claims 1-11 and 13 and 21 are pending. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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: “fire extinguish unit” in claim 1 and 11 and “flame blocking member” in claim 19 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder “unit” and “member” that is coupled with functional language “extinguishing” and “blocking” respectively without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
In light of the specification, the limitation “fire extinguishing unit” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “fire extinguishing pipe” as described in paragraph 0016.
In light of the specification, the limitation “flame blocking member” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “plate-shaped blocking member” as described in paragraph 00109-00110.
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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapaton et al. (US 2023/0395849 A1) in view of Guo et al. (US 2021/0367286 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Chapaton discloses an energy storage device with a fire extinguishing function, comprising: a case having a mounting space inside the case (26); a plurality of battery cells (20) inside the case (Fig. 3); a fire extinguishing unit (22) extending inside of the case (26) and configured to supply a fire extinguishing agent to at least one of the battery cells or the mounting space (Par. [0048-0051]).
Chapaton does not disclose that the fire extinguishing unit comprises: a fire extinguishing pipe extending along a longitudinal direction of the case, wherein the fire extinguishing pipe is configured to melt and form a passage in the fire extinguishing pipe in response to being exposed to heat having a predetermined threshold temperature or higher, and wherein the fire extinguishing pipe is configured to supply the fire extinguishing agent to at least one of the battery cells or the mounting space through the passage formed in the fire extinguishing pipe by the heat.
Guo teaches a fire extinguishing unit comprising a fire extinguishing pipe (52) extending along a longitudinal direction of the case (Fig. 3), wherein the fire extinguishing pipe is configured to melt and form a passage in the fire extinguishing pipe in response to being exposed to heat having a predetermined threshold temperature or higher (Par. [0065]), and wherein the fire extinguishing pipe is configured to supply the fire extinguishing agent to at least one of the battery cells or the mounting space through the passage formed in the fire extinguishing pipe by the heat (Par. [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing unit of Chapaton, by replacing with the fire extinguishing pipe (52) as taught by Guo, doing it would provide a device for automatically extinguishing a fire or a starting fire that is autonomous in that it reacts directly to the heat generated by this fire or starting fire (Par. [0082]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Chapaton as modified by Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Guo further discloses a connecting pipe (3) connecting the fire extinguishing pipe and a supply pipe located outside the case (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Chapaton as modified by Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Chapaton further discloses that a melting temperature of the fire extinguishing pipe is in a range between 80 degrees Celsius (°C) and 300 °C (Par. [0044]).
With regard to claims 4 and 5, the device of Chapaton as modified by Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Guo further discloses that a material of the fire extinguishing pipe includes a plastic material and at least one of polypropylene (PP), linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), poly vinyl chloride (PVC), polyamide 6 (PA6), or polyamide 66 (PA66) (see Par. [0081]).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Chapaton as modified by Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, they do not disclose that an inner diameter of the fire extinguishing pipe is in a range of 3 millimeters (mm) to 20 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fire extinguishing pipe of Guo by having an inner diameter of the fire extinguishing pipe is in a range of 3 millimeters (mm) to 20 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 the instant case, changing pipe dimension, achieves the result of controlling fluid flow characteristics such as the fluid flow performance, and as such the pipe dimension is recognized in the art as a result effective variable. Further, a one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at modifying the Guo fire extinguishing pipe as changes to pipe design, including dimensions, are well within the level of skill of the art. Finding the optimal maximum dimension would therefore be simply a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 7, the device of Chapaton as modified by Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Guo further discloses that the fire extinguishing pipe (52) is installed in a state of facing lateral sides of the battery cells (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Chapaton as modified by Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 7 and 15 above. Guo further discloses that the battery cells (1) are arranged in multiple rows along a width direction of the case (Fig. 1), and the fire extinguishing pipe is between rows of the battery cells (Fig. 1)
With regard to claim 9, the device of Chapaton as modified by Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chapaton discloses that a lower panel (52) between a bottom surface of the case (28) and the battery cells (34) to support bottom portions of the battery cells (shown in Fig. 3, battery stack 20 sits on container 52) and block a movement of the fire extinguishing agent toward the bottom surface of the case to enable the fire extinguishing agent to be sprayed from the fire extinguishing unit inside the case (Par. [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 and 13-21 are allowed.
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights