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
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) 1-10, 12-13, & 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey (20240387940).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 & 17, Harvey teaches a door (408) comprising: a first door frame (1400); a second door frame (1404) facing the first door frame; a door channel (A-B in Fig. 14a Annotated) between the first door frame and the second door frame (Figs. 14a-14b); an inlet hole (1408) passing through the first door frame and configured to allow a flame or gas to be introduced into the door channel (implied by par. 98); a discharge hole (1410) passing through the second door frame and configured to allow a flame or gas to be discharged from the door channel (par. 98); and a blocking member (1412, 1414, 1416) facing the discharge hole and configured to block a flame that is discharged from the discharge hole from passing therethrough (par. 99).
Regarding claim 2, Harvey teaches a door channel (A-B) that has a first inlet end portion (A) and a second inlet end portion (B) spaced apart from each other, and wherein the inlet hole (1410) comprises: a first inlet hole (C-E) connected to the first inlet end portion; and a second inlet hole (F-H) connected to the second inlet end portion.
Regarding claim 3, Harvey teaches a first inlet end portion (A) and the second inlet end portion (B) are spaced apart from each other in a direction (i.e., vertically) crossing a direction (i.e., horizontally) in which the inlet hole (1408) passes through the first door frame (1400).
Regarding claim 4, Harvey teaches a first inlet end portion (A) & second inlet end portion (B) spaced apart from each other in a direction parallel (Fig. 14a) to a first door frame (1400).
Regarding claim 5, Harvey teaches a first inlet hole (C-E) that comprises: a first upper inlet hole (C); a first lower inlet hole (D) below the first upper inlet hole; and a first intermediate inlet hole (E) between the first upper inlet hole and the first lower inlet hole (Fig. 14a).
Regarding claim 6, Harvey teaches a first upper inlet hole (C), the first lower inlet hole (D), and the first intermediate inlet hole (E) that are separated from each other (Fig. 14a).
Regarding claim 7, Harvey teaches a second inlet hole (F-H) that comprises: a second upper inlet hole (F); a second lower inlet hole (G) below the second upper inlet hole; and a second intermediate inlet hole (H) between the second upper inlet hole and the second lower inlet hole (Fig. 14a).
Regarding claim 8, Harvey teaches a second upper inlet hole (F), the second lower inlet hole (G), and the second intermediate inlet hole (H) that are separated from each other (Fig. 14a).
Regarding claim 9, Harvey teaches a discharge hole (1410) offset (i.e., horizontally) from the first inlet hole (C-E) and the second inlet hole (F-H).
Regarding claim 10, Harvey teaches a discharge hole (1410) that is between (see Figs. 14a-14b, showing at least a portion of 1410 positioned between C-E & F-H) the first inlet hole (C-E) and the second inlet hole (F-H).
Regarding claim 12, Harvey teaches a blocking member (1412, 1414, 1416) that comprises: a blocking filter (1416) facing the discharge hole and having a plurality of mesh holes (par. 100); and a fixing bracket (1412) configured to fix the blocking filter to the second door frame (1404).
Regarding claim 13, Harvey teaches a canopy (J) facing the blocking member (1412, 1414, 1416) and configured to guide discharge of gas that has passed through the blocking member (Figs. 14a-14b).
Regarding claim 17, Harvey teaches an energy storage system (102) comprising: a cabinet (402); a plurality of battery modules inside the cabinet (par. 58).
Regarding claim 18, Harvey teaches a door (408) that faces side surfaces (i.e., front side surfaces) of the battery modules (implied by Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey (20240387940). Harvey teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a ratio of an area of an inlet hole (1408) to an area of a discharge hole (1410) that is approximately 100%. Additionally, altering the size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the door of Harvey, with a reasonable expectation of success, by resizing the inlet hole to have an area 75% of the area of the discharge hole, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the door (e.g., intended use of the door, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.). Hence, Harvey as modified would teach a ratio of an area of the inlet hole (1408) to an area of the discharge hole (1410) that is 75%, which is in the range between 50% and 80%.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 & 19-20 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637