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 3/12/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application (KR10-2024-0034419) as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 10-2024-0034419 to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 08/12/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group 1 (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-14 are addressed below. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
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 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(s) 1, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20220359947).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a fire extinguishing device (fig. 12) for an energy storage system, the fire extinguishing device comprising:
a storage box (320) located at a rear of a rack frame (rear of 500; see fig. 12) and storing a fire extinguishing agent (par. 49: “the fire extinguishing tank 320 may contain a fire extinguishing agent (not shown) therein”);
a supplier (unnumbered in fig. 12; see annotation below) connected to the storage box and configured to supply the fire extinguishing agent (agent from 320);
a distributer (333A; see annotation below) connected to the supplier and configured to distribute the fire extinguishing agent (agent from 320);
PNG
media_image1.png
682
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a rack pipe (338) connected to the distributer and configured to change a flow direction of the fire extinguishing agent to a height direction (vertical direction) of the rack frame; and
a spray pipe (336; as shown in fig. 9) connected to the rack pipe and configured to spray the fire extinguishing agent on each battery module in the rack frame (spray via valves 346, 347).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the fire extinguishing device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a sensor (360, fig. 3; par. 62) configured to detect a fire in the battery module; and
a controller (350; fig. 3) configured to control the supplier and the distributer according to a detection signal of the sensor to adjust a flow rate of the fire extinguishing agent (via flow adjusting part 310, par. 68, and valve 340, par. 64; figs. 3 and 12).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the fire extinguishing device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the sensor (360) is configured to detect temperature (par. 62) or smoke.
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 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.
Claims 2, 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220359947) in view of Liu (US20200101335).
(Note 1: crossed-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the supplier comprises:
a supply pipe (pipe of the supplier; see annotated figure under rejection of claim 1 above) connecting the storage box (320) and the distributer (see annotated figure 12 of Lee shown above);
Lee does not teach a supply pump on the supply pipe to discharge the fire extinguishing agent stored in the storage box.
However, Liu discloses a comparable device (figs. 4A-4D) for flooding the batteries, having a supplier with supply pipe and supply pump on the supply pipe to discharged extinguishing agent stored in a storage box 10. Liu further discloses a supply pump 40 (par. 29 describes 40 to be a water pump) on the supply pipe to discharge the fire extinguishing agent stored in the storage box 10 (see annotated figure 4A of Liu shown below) when water is used as the extinguishing agent (par. 30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Liu to provide the supply pump to discharge water when water is chosen as the extinguishing agent. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the appropriate pressure to discharge water when batteries are burning, burned or on fire (See Paragraph 30 of Liu).
PNG
media_image2.png
623
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lee, as modified above, discloses the fire extinguishing device as claimed in claim 2, wherein Liu further shows in figure 4B that the water tank/storage box is stored above all components on the shelves, the feature is meant to “additionally adopt a high pressure method” (par. 29) via gravity.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Liu to provide the storage box is located higher than the supply pump. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating additional flow pressure to further aid discharge via gravity (See Paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the distributer (333A )comprises:
a distribution pipe (pipe of 333a) connected to the supplier, arranged to cross the rack frame (500), and connected to the rack pipe (see annotation of Lee’s figure 12 shown under rejection of claim 1);
Lee does not teach a distribution valve on the distribution pipe to distribute the fire extinguishing agent.
However, Liu discloses a comparable device (figs. 4A-4D) for flooding the batteries, having a supplier with supply pipe and distributer (see annotated figure 4A of Liu shown below) when water is used as the extinguishing agent (par. 30). Liu further discloses distribution valves 61-63 on the distribution pipe to distribute the fire extinguishing agent (see fig. 4A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Liu to provide a distribution valve on the distribution pipe to distribute the fire extinguishing agent. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the appropriate discharge of water wherever batteries are burning, burned or on fire (See Paragraph 30 of Liu) while allowing the system to be reusable (See paragraph 33 of Liu).
PNG
media_image2.png
623
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220359947) in view of Liu (US20200101335), further in view of Tsuji (JPH09276426A).
Regarding claim 4, Lee, as modified above, discloses the fire extinguishing device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the supply pipe (via disclosure of Liu) comprises:
a first supply pipe connecting the storage box and the supply pump; and
a second supply pipe extending from the supply pump
PNG
media_image3.png
478
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee and Liu does not teach the specific location of the second supply pipe, i.e. the second supply pipe extending between the rack pipe.
Tsuji discloses in figure 4 that it is known to have supply pipe portions 106 extending between rack pipes (see annotation below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Liu to incorporate the teachings of Tsuji to rearrange the second supply pipe positions, i.e. to provide the second supply pipe extending between the rack pipe. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating water delivery to the appropriate branch pipe in an ergonomical manner. Relocation of second supply pipe portions do not hinder intended operation of the extinguishing system, i.e. spraying extinguishing fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate claimed supply pipe locations with known engineering fluid demand calculation for appropriate system component sizes to optimize the system performance.
PNG
media_image4.png
655
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6-7, Lee, as modified above, discloses the fire extinguishing device as claimed in claim 2, but does not teach the supply pipe is between a pair of neighboring rack frames (claim 6), wherein the supply pipe is at a central portion of a plurality of rack frames arranged in a row (claim 7).
Tsuji discloses in figure 4 that it is known to have supply pipe portions 106 extending between a pair of neighboring rack frames and is at a central portion of rack frames (see annotated figure shown under claim 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Liu to incorporate the teachings of Tsuji to rearrange the supply pipe positioning, i.e. to provide the supply pipe is between a pair of neighboring rack frames (claim 6), wherein the supply pipe is at a central portion of a plurality of rack frames arranged in a row (claim 7). Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating water delivery to the appropriate branch pipe in an ergonomical manner. Relocation of second supply pipe portions do not hinder intended operation of the extinguishing system, i.e. spraying extinguishing fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate claimed supply pipe locations with known engineering fluid demand calculation for appropriate system component sizes to optimize the system performance.
Regarding claims 10-11, Lee, as modified above, discloses the fire extinguishing device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the distributer is between low and high points of the rack frame (claim 10); and wherein the distributer is located between 50% and 90% of a height of the rack frame (claim 11).
Tsuji discloses in figure 4 that it is known to have supply pipe portions 106 extending between rack pipes (see annotation below), wherein the distributer is between low and high points of the rack frame (claim 10); and wherein the distributer is located between 50% and 90% of a height of the rack frame (claim 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
655
554
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Liu to incorporate the teachings of Tsuji to rearrange the distributer, i.e. to provide the distributer between low and high points of the rack frame (claim 10); and to provide the distributer is located between 50% and 90% of a height of the rack frame (claim 11).. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating water delivery to the appropriate branch pipe in an ergonomical manner. Relocation of the distributer to optimize agent delivery from between the rows of rack frames do not hinder intended operation of the extinguishing system, i.e. spraying extinguishing fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate claimed supply and distributer configuration in between adjacent rows of rack frames with known engineering fluid demand calculation for appropriate system component sizes to optimize the system performance.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220359947) in view of Liu (US20200101335), further in view of Long (US20110127049).
Regarding claim 5, Lee is silent regarding the supplier further comprises a supply valve on the supply pipe to prevent a backflow of the fire extinguishing agent.
Long discloses a valve assembly and suppression system having a supply line 12. Long further discloses a backflow preventer at downstream or upstream of valve 16 (par. 61).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Long to provide a supply valve, backflow preventer, on the supply pipe to prevent a backflow of the fire extinguishing agent. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a backflow preventer on the supply line to prevent contamination of the extinguish supply when additive is utilized for the system.
Claim(s) 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220359947) in view of Liu (US20200101335), further in view of Enk (US20160263410).
Regarding claim 9, Lee, as modified above, discloses the fire extinguishing device as claimed in claim 8, but is silent regarding the distribution valve distributes the fire extinguishing agent supplied from the supplier in two directions.
Enk discloses in figure 11, showing two adjacent rows of fire zones 204 provided with distributer portion with valves 208 that distribute agent from supplier in two opposite directions.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Enk to provide the distribution valve distributes the fire extinguishing agent supplied from the supplier in two directions when rack frames are placed in adjacent rows of similar configuration. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating appropriate flow delivery toward the fire location when it occurs.
PNG
media_image6.png
611
662
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lee, as modified above, discloses the fire extinguishing device as claimed in claim 12, but does not teach the sensor is on the rack pipe.
Enk discloses smoke/fire detector 206 shown as attached on the pipes in each of the sub-zone. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capabilities to consider the rack pipes as one of the potential location for sensor placement. No inventive effort would have been required.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the sensor is on the rack pipe, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights