DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the fire extinguishing agent has a side surface that intersects perpendicularly to the inner surface of the top case” and “side surface that intersects perpendicularly to the inner surface of the top case” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “intersects” is believed to be in error for --couples--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang WO 2023/075360 A1.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Kang teaches a battery pack (pack of batteries 111) with fire extinguishing agent (extinguishing fluid contained within 140) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (111); a bottom case (110) accommodating the plurality of battery cells (as shown in figure 2); a top case (partition plate 220) covering the plurality of battery cells and coupled to the bottom case (as shown in figure 2); a fire extinguishing agent on an inner surface of the top case facing one end of a first one of the plurality of battery cells (extinguishing agent within 140 is against the inner surface of 220 and is facing the upper ends of the battery cells 111); and a partition wall (210) on an outside of the fire extinguishing agent (as shown in figure 2) and protruding beyond the fire extinguishing agent toward the first one of the plurality of battery cells (each side of wall 210 extends towards a battery cell 111, where the alignment of the wall and the cell is not claimed).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Kang teaches the partition wall is configured to limit an inflow range of a flame to the fire extinguishing agent (portion of 210 with holes at 211 in figure 2), and wherein the inflow range excludes a flame generated from ones of the plurality of battery cells outside a unit group from among the plurality of battery cells and introduces flames generated from ones of the plurality of battery cells within the unit group to the fire extinguishing agent (when 211 is melted, flames from batteries 111 adjacent to holes at 211 will enter towards 140 as shown in figure 2, where the melted seal 211 is shown in figure 4).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Kang teaches the partition wall (210) is a top case rib that is configured to block a flame (side walls of 210 act as ribs that will act to block flames from passing through 210).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Kang teaches the fire extinguishing agent is a quadrangular plate, and wherein the partition wall is a quadrangular tube corresponding to the outside of the fire extinguishing agent (210 shown as generally rectangular in figures 1 and 2, where 140 within 210 fills up the area within 210).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Kang teaches the fire extinguishing agent has a thickness (thickness of 140), and wherein a height of the partition wall is greater than the thickness of the fire extinguishing agent (210 is shown as taller than 140 in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Kang teaches a distal end of the partition wall is spaced apart from the plurality of battery cells (end of 210 is spaced from cells 111 as shown in figure 2).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim WO 2021/153938 A1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Kang teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Kang does not teach that the partition wall is made of aluminum. Kim teaches fabricating components of a battery system out of aluminum (paragraph [85]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to fabricate the partition wall of Kang out of aluminum, as taught by Kim, in order to resist the fire that can be formed in the battery cells (paragraph [85]).
Claims 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Kang teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Kang further teaches the extinguishing agent is rectangular and surrounded by a rectangular partition wall (140 surrounded by 210 shown as rectangular in figures 1 and 2). However, Kang does not teach that the shape of the extinguishing agent and partition wall are circular. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the shape of the extinguishing agent and partition plate of Kang from rectangular to circular, because the change is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the agent and plate was significant, See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Kang teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Kang further teaches the extinguishing agent is rectangular and surrounded by a rectangular partition wall (140 surrounded by 210 shown as rectangular in figures 1 and 2). However, Kang does not teach that the shape of the extinguishing agent and partition wall are hexagonal star-shaped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the shape of the extinguishing agent and partition plate of Kang from rectangular to hexagonal star-shaped, because the change is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the agent and plate was significant, See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Kang teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Kang further teaches the extinguishing agent is rectangular and surrounded by a rectangular partition wall (140 surrounded by 210 shown as rectangular in figures 1 and 2). However, Kang does not teach that the shape of the extinguishing agent and partition wall are cross-shaped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the shape of the extinguishing agent and partition plate of Kang from rectangular to cross-shaped, because the change is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the agent and plate was significant, See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Kang teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Kang further teaches the extinguishing agent is rectangular and surrounded by a rectangular partition wall (140 surrounded by 210 shown as rectangular in figures 1 and 2). However, Kang does not teach that the shape of the extinguishing agent and partition wall are triangular. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to change the shape of the extinguishing agent and partition plate of Kang from rectangular to triangular, because the change is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the agent and plate was significant, See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-19 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, and to correct the outstanding objections to the claimed as listed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 12, that both the side surface of the fire extinguishing agent connects at a perpendicular angle to the inner surface of the top case, and the partition wall is inclined with a maximum width at the bottom; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 15, that both the side surface of the fire extinguishing agent connects at a perpendicular angle to the inner surface of the top case, and the partition wall is inclined with a maximum width at the top; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 16, that the partition wall has a vertical surface and a convex curved surface extending from the vertical surface and convex outward; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 18, that the partition wall has a vertical surface and a concave curved surface extending from the vertical surface and concave outward.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “intersects” can be defined as either meeting or crossing. Examiner disagrees, where merriam-webster defines intersect as either, “to pierce or divide by pass through or across”, “to meet and cross at a point”, or “to share a common area”. Two components abutting each other, as shown in the drawings of the instant application, will not pass through, cross, or share a common area, such that the drawings do not show an intersection of the two claimed components.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights