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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 5, “the secondary batteries” should be revised to “the one or more secondary batteries” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 2 Line 4, “the secondary batteries” should be revised to “the one or more secondary batteries” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 3 Lines 4-5, “the secondary batteries” should be revised to “the one or more secondary batteries” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 4 Lines 3-4, “one secondary battery or a plurality of secondary batteries” should be revised to “the one or more secondary batteries” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 5 Lines 4-5, “the liquid overflowing from the area” should be revised to “the liquid when it overflows from the area” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 8 Line 5, “the secondary batteries” should be revised to “the one or more secondary batteries” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
The “lifting and lowering part” in Claim 1;
The “pressurizing part” in Claim 3;
The “lifting and lower part” in Claim 6; and
The “cooling part” in Claim 7.
These limitations all use the generic placeholder “part” coupled with functional language without being deemed to recite sufficient structure. 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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “lifting and lowering part” in Claim 1 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0031 of the Specification which states, “The lifting and lowering part 20a is a mechanism for lifting and lowering the enclosure 11. A hydraulic cylinder, an air cylinder, or the like can be used for the lifting and lowering part 20a, and there are no particular limitations as long as the mechanism can lift and lower the enclosure 11 while supporting it. Note that the lifting and lowering part 20a shown in Figure 1 and other figures is merely a schematic diagram for explaining the function of the lifting and lowering part, and detailed description of the configuration is omitted.”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “lifting and lowering part” in Claim 1 to be a hydraulic or air cylinder and equivalents thereof.
The “pressurizing part” in Claim 3 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0071 of the Specification which states, “For example, a hydraulic cylinder, an air cylinder, or other mechanisms can be used for the pressurizing part 50 as long as they can pressurize the secondary battery B in the submersion tank T toward the outside of the submersion tank T”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “pressurizing part” in Claim 3 to be a hydraulic or air cylinder and equivalents thereof.
The “lifting and lowering part” in Claim 6 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0052 of the Specification which states, “Further, the lifting and lowering part 20b is a mechanism for lifting and lowering the plate 10. A hydraulic cylinder, an air cylinder, or the like can be used for the lifting and lowering part 20b, and there are no particular limitations as long as the mechanism can lift and lower the plate 10 and the secondary batteries B placed on the plate 10 while supporting them.”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “lifting and lowering part” in Claim 6 to be a hydraulic or air cylinder and equivalents thereof.
The “cooling part” in Claim 7 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0049 of the Specification which states, “Further, the cooling part 40 is provided on top of the plate 10 and cools the secondary batteries B from below. For example, a cooling fan that blows cool air to the secondary batteries B can be used for the cooling part 40.”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “cooling part” in Claim 7 to be a fan and equivalents thereof.
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.
The examiner notes that the term “supply part” in Claim 1 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Though the term “supply part” uses the generic placeholder “part” coupled with functional language, the term “supply part” is deemed to be equivalent to structure of a supply.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2021048065-A to Matsunaga et al. (“Matsunaga”) in view of JP-2013224832-A to Fujioka et al. (“Fujioka”).
As to Claim 1, Matsunaga discloses a device (See Fig. 1 showing a charge/discharge inspection device without fire extinguishing components) comprising:
a plate (#50) on which one or more secondary batteries are placed (See Fig. 1, the batteries #11 are placed on plate #19 via tray #50);
an enclosure (See E in Annotated Fig. 1, which is made up of #31, # 14, #15 that surround the device) provided so as to surround four sides of the secondary batteries placed on the plate (See Fig. 1, together #13, #14, and #15 form an enclosure that surrounds all of the batteries #11); and
a lifting and lowering part that lifts or lowers the plate or the enclosure to bring the plate and the enclosure into close contact with each other (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019, the lifting and lowering part is LLP1 which is a left elevating means #17 that is made up of cylinder #17a and rod #17b that are equivalent to a cylinder and lifts #50 to bring #50 into close contact with #31 of the enclosure).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the device of Matsunaga as applied to Claim 1 above, Matsunaga does not specifically disclose wherein the device is a fire extinguishing device comprising a supply part that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to an area formed by the plate and the enclosure (See Fig. 1 showing a charge/discharge inspection device without fire extinguishing components).
However, Fujioka discloses a fire extinguishing device (See Fig. 8a and Paragraphs 0050-0051) comprising a supply part (#32, See Paragraph 0051) that supplies a fire extinguishing agent (#47) to an aera formed by a plate (#21) on which a battery (#10) is placed and an enclosure (#12) that is provided so as to surround four sides of the battery place on the plate (See Figs. 8a-8b).
Therefore, 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 device of Matsunaga as applied to Claim 1 above such that it is fire extinguishing device comprising the supply part of Fujioka that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to an area formed by the plate of Matsunaga and the enclosure of Fujioka, since doing so would yield the predictable result of putting out a fire that may occur from the secondary batteries when it potentially generates smoke or catches on fire (See Fujioka Paragraphs 0050-0052).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the fire extinguishing device of Matsunaga in view of Fujioka as applied to Claim 1 above, Fujioka further discloses wherein
the enclosure is provided so as to surround four sides and an upper side of the secondary batteries placed on the plate (See Fujioka Fig. 8a, the enclosure #12 fully surrounds #10 placed on #21), and
a part of the enclosure or the plate has an opening from which the fire extinguishing agent is injected (See Fig. 8a and Paragraph 0051, the enclosure #12 has some opening that leads to #32 from which #47 is injected within #12).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the fire extinguishing device of Matsunaga in view of Fujioka as applied to Claim 1 above, Matsunaga further discloses the fire extinguishing device comprising:
a pressurizing part (See #76 in Fig. 5, which applies a pressure on #11 and has a cylinder structure) that is provided so as to be housed in the area and pressurizes the secondary batteries located in the area toward an outside of the area (See Fig. 5 and Paragraph 0037, #76 is used to slide #11 in a horizontal direction, which is a direction that is away from the plate and is thus considered towards an area outside of the space between the enclosure and the plate).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the fire extinguishing device of Matsunaga in view of Fujioka as applied to Claim 1 above, Matsunaga further discloses the fire extinguishing device comprising:
a container (#12) that transports one secondary battery or a plurality of secondary batteries arranged in a thickness direction (See Fig. 2), wherein the container is placed on the plate (See Fig. 1).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the fire extinguishing device of Matsunaga in view of Fujioka as applied to Claim 1 above, Fujioka further discloses
wherein the fire extinguishing agent is a liquid (See Paragraph 0051).
Furthermore, Fujioka further discloses the fire extinguishing device further comprising a pan (#51 with drain valve #33) provided below the plate for receiving the liquid overflowing from the area (See Paragraph 0051).
Therefore, 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 device of Matsunaga in view of Fujioka as applied above such that the fire extinguishing device further comprises the pan of Fujioka provided below the plate for receiving the liquid overflowing from the area since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing excess fluid to be drained from the fire extinguishing device (See Fujioka Paragraph 0051).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the fire extinguishing device of Matsunaga in view of Fujioka s applied to Claim 1 above, Matsunaga further discloses a charge/discharge inspection device (See Fig. 1) comprising
the fire extinguishing device (See Figs. 1-2);
a probe unit (#22 and #23) to be connected to a secondary battery (See Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0022-0024); and
a lifting and lowering part that lifts or lowers the plate or the probe unit to connect the secondary battery and the probe unit to each other (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019, the lifting and lowering part is LLP2 which is a right elevating means #17 that is made up of cylinder #17a and rod #17b that are equivalent to a cylinder and lifts #50 to connect #22 and #23 to #11).
As to Claim 8, Matsunaga discloses a method (See Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0017-0021 disclosing a charge/discharge inspection being used) comprising:
a step of placing one or more secondary batteries (#11) on a plate (#50, See Figs. 1-2);
a step of lowering an enclosure provided so as to surround four sides of the secondary batteries placed on the plate or lifting the plate to bring the plate and the enclosure into close contact with each other (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019, the lifting and lowering part LLP1 that is made up of cylinder #17a and rod #17b and lifts #50 to bring #50 into close contact with #31 of the enclosure E).
Regarding Claim 8, in reference to the method of Matsunaga as applied to Claim 8 above, Matsunaga does not specifically disclose wherein the method is a fire extinguishing method comprising a step of supplying a fire extinguishing agent from an opening to an area formed by the plate and the enclosure (See Fig. 1 showing a charge/discharge inspection device without fire extinguishing components).
However, Fujioka discloses a fire extinguishing method (See Fig. 8a and Paragraphs 0050-0052) comprising a step of supplying a fire extinguishing agent (#47) from an opening (#32) to an area formed by a plate (#21) with a battery (#10) on it and an enclosure that surrounds the battery (#12).
Therefore, 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 method of Matsunaga as applied to Claim 8 above such that the method is a fire extinguishing method comprising a step of supplying a fire extinguishing agent from an opening to an area formed by the plate and the enclosure by including the supply part of Fujioka that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to an area formed by the plate of Matsunaga and the enclosure of Fujioka, since doing so would yield the predictable result of putting out a fire that may occur from the secondary batteries when it potentially generates smoke or catches on fire (See Fujioka Paragraphs 0050-0052)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga in view of Fujioka and US PGPUB 2024/0063645 A1 to Kang et al. (“Kang”).
Regarding Claim 7, in reference to the charge/discharge inspection device of Matsunaga in view of Fujioka as applied to Claim 6 above Matsunaga further discloses the charge/discharge inspection device comprising a cooling part (See Paragraph 0026 disclosing a number of blower fans that can be arranged on a back side of #10).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsunaga does not specifically disclose the cooling part being provided on top of the plate and cools the secondary battery from below (See Paragraph 0026 disclosing the fan being arrange don a back side of #10 or on both sides of #10).
However, Kang discloses a charge/discharge inspection device (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0055) comprising a cooling part (#210, which is a fan per Paragraph 0054) that is provided on top of a plate (#100) and cools a secondary battery (#10) from below (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0057).
Therefore, 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 charge/discharge inspection device of Matsunaga in view of Fujioka as applied above such that the cooling part is provided on top of the plate and cools the secondary battery from below as taught by Kang, since doing so would yield the predictable result of applying air directly to the secondary battery (See Kang Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0057).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 O 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights