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 § 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160121964 A1 ("Nagaya") in view of US 20120175178 A ("Iwakami").
Claim 1: Nagaya teaches a vehicle (10) comprising: a frame comprising a plurality of structural elements (17, 18, 19, 20; Fig. 3) coupled with each other to define a compartment (35; para. 38, lines 4-6); the plurality of structural elements comprises at least one front structural member (18), at least one rear structural member (19a), at least one bottom structural member (20), and at least one top structural member (17, 19) (Fig. 3); at least one energy unit compartment (36) mounted between the at least one top structural member or the at least one bottom structural member (Figs. 3 and 5), the at least one energy unit compartment adapted to accommodate at least one energy unit and being arranged vertically or horizontally between the at least one top structural member and the at least one bottom structural member (26, 29) (Figs. 3 and 5; para. 39, lines 1-5); and a thermal management system mounted between the at least one top structural member and the at least one bottom structural member to maintain a temperature of the at least one energy unit compartment, wherein the thermal management system comprising: at least one inlet fluid passage/channel (41, 42) mounted on the at least one top structural member or the at least one bottom structural member (Figs. 3 and 5), at least one of the plurality of structural elements and adapted to allow a flow of fluid vertically or horizontally from the ambient environment towards the at least one energy unit compartment, wherein the at least one energy unit compartment is exposed to the flow of fluid entering through the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel (para. 49, lines 4-11); and at least one outlet fluid passage/channel (40, 40a) mounted on the at least one top structural member or the at least one bottom structural member, at least one of the plurality of structural elements and positioned downstream with respect to the at least one energy unit compartment (Fig. 5), wherein the at least one outlet fluid passage/channel is adapted to allow egress of the flow of fluid vertically or horizontally from the vehicle (para. 44, lines 5-9). But does not teach that the compartment is adapted to accommodate a cargo.
However, Iwakami in a similar field of art teaches the compartment (38) is adapted to accommodate a cargo (para. 118, lines 1-14). 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 invention of Nagaya with the features of Iwakami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Iwakami teaches the compartment so as to provide a storage box that “is supported to the cross member 107, which is provided over between the rear frames 29 and the cross member 114” (para. 99, lines 1-3).
Claim 2: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Nagaya further teaches the vehicle, wherein the frame (17, 18, 19, 20) comprises a rider supporting structure (14, 14A) positioned rearward with respect to the compartment (35), the rider supporting structure is adapted to be operatively coupled with a rear wheel (13) of the vehicle (Figs. 3 and 5), wherein the rider supporting structure comprises at a top support member (14A), and a bottom support member (14), wherein the top support member is adapted to hold a rider of the vehicle, and the top support member is positioned at a height with respect to the compartment (35) in manner that a centre of gravity of the rider remains higher than a centre of gravity of the compartment (Fig. 5).
Iwakami in a similar field of art teaches a center of gravity of the rider remains higher than a centre of gravity of the cargo held in the compartment (38) (para. 118, lines 1-14). 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 invention of Nagaya with the features of Iwakami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Iwakami teaches the compartment is a storage box that “the storage box 38 is arranged below the riding seat 39 on which a rider sits” (para. 118, lines 1-2).
Claim 4: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Nagaya further teaches the vehicle, further comprising a handlebar (15) adapted to be operated to control a direction of traversing of the vehicle, wherein the handlebar is positioned longitudinally spaced apart from a steering axis of the vehicle (16) (Figs. 3 and 5).
Claim 5: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Nagaya further teaches the vehicle, wherein the handlebar (15) is mounted on at least one top structural member of the frame (17 via 16; Fig. 3), wherein a vertical axis of the handlebar is spaced apart from a vertical central axis of the compartment (35).
Claim 11: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Nagaya further teaches the vehicle wherein: the at least one energy unit compartment (36), the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel (41) of the thermal management system, wherein the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel comprises an inlet (42) located on a front portion of the at least one top structural member (19), and an outlet (40, 40a) located on the at least one top structural member (19); and wherein the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel is adapted to allow a flow of fluid through the inlet towards the at least one energy unit compartment (para. 45, lines 1-10 and para. 49, lines 4-11) and allow egress of the flow of fluid through the at least one outlet fluid passage/channel (para. 44, lines 5-9). But does not teach the at least one energy unit compartment is vertically mounted and the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel are located on the at least one front structural member and that the at least outlet fluid passage/ channel is located on a front portion of the at least one top structural member.
However, Iwakami in a similar field of art teaches the inlet fluid passage/channel (88, 89; Fig. 5) is located on the at least one front structural member (26, 27; Fig. 2) and that the outlet (105, 106; Fig. 5) is located on a front portion of the at least one top structural member (Fig. 2). 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 invention of Nagaya with the features of Iwakami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Iwakami teaches “a cooling air inlet duct which has a downstream end portion thereof connected to the battery case; and a cooling fan which introduces cooling air into the battery case through the cooling air inlet duct” (Abstract).
The claim differs only in that the at least one energy unit compartment is vertically mounted on the at least one front structural member. This is a rearrangement of parts, where the at least one energy unit compartment (36, 37) taught by Iwakami is mounted on the at least one front structural member (26, 27; Fig. 2). Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the 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.) With the rearrangement of energy unit compartment, the device of the thermal management system would still work for its intended purpose as it is the same system except the energy unit compartment would be brought up more forward to the at least one front structural member instead of the bottom structural member.
Claim 12: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Nagaya further teaches the vehicle wherein: the at least one energy unit compartment (36), the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel (41) of the thermal management system, wherein the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel comprises an inlet (42), and outlet (40, 40a) located on a bottom portion of the at least one rear structural member (19a) (Figs. 3 and 5); and wherein the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel is adapted to horizontally allow a flow of fluid through the inlet towards the at least one energy unit compartment (para. 45, lines 1-10 and para. 49, lines 4-11) and allow egress the flow of fluid through the outlet (para. 44, lines 5-9).
The claim differs only in that the at least one energy unit compartment and the inlet fluid passage/channel are located on the at least one bottom structural member and that the inlet is located on a bottom portion of the at least one front structural member. This is a rearrangement of parts, where the at least one energy unit compartment (36) is horizontally mounted on the at least one bottom structural member (20); the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel (41) of the thermal management system is positioned on the at least one bottom structural member (20), and the at least one inlet (42) located on a bottom portion of the at least one front structural member (18). Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the 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.) With the rearrangement of energy unit compartment, inlet fluid passage/channel and the inlet, the device of the thermal management system would still work for its intended purpose as it is the same system except the components are going through the at least one bottom structural member instead of the at least top and rear structural members.
Claim 15: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Nagaya further teaches the vehicle further comprising: a forced cooling arrangement having: a pump (39) incorporated along a preferred location of the vehicle; and a venturi (38, 38a) at the one or more inlet fluid passage/channels (41) is formed by a preferred arrangement to increase the velocity of fluid entering therein via the help of the pump (para. 43, lines 1-18).
Claim 17: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Nagaya further teaches the vehicle wherein: the at least one energy unit compartment (36), the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel (41) of the thermal management system, wherein the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel comprises an inlet (42) located on a front portion of the at least one top structural member (19), and at least one outlet (40, 40a) fluid passage/channel located on the at least one top structural member (19); and wherein the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel is adapted to allow a flow of fluid through the inlet towards the at least one energy unit compartment (para. 45, lines 1-10 and para. 49, lines 4-11) and allow egress of the flow of fluid through the at least one outlet fluid passage/channel (para. 44, lines 5-9). But does not teach the at least one energy unit compartment is vertically mounted and the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel are located on the at least one front structural member and that the at least outlet fluid passage/ channel is located on a front portion of the at least one top structural member.
However, Iwakami in a similar field of art teaches the inlet fluid passage/channel (88, 89; Fig. 5) is located on the at least one front structural member (26, 27; Fig. 2) and that the outlet (105, 106; Fig. 5) is located on a front portion of the at least one top structural member (Fig. 2). 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 invention of Nagaya with the features of Iwakami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Iwakami teaches “a cooling air inlet duct which has a downstream end portion thereof connected to the battery case; and a cooling fan which introduces cooling air into the battery case through the cooling air inlet duct” (Abstract).
The claim differs only in that the at least one energy unit compartment is vertically mounted on the at least one front structural member. This is a rearrangement of parts, where the at least one energy unit compartment (36) taught by Nagaya is mounted on the at least one bottom structural member (20). Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the 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.) With the rearrangement of energy unit compartment, the device of the thermal management system would still work for its intended purpose as it is the same system except the energy unit compartment would be brought up more forward to the front portion of the at least one bottom structural member.
Claim 18: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Nagaya further teaches the vehicle wherein: the at least one energy unit compartment (36), the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel (41) of the thermal management system, wherein the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel comprises an inlet (42), and outlet (40, 40a) located on a bottom portion of the at least one rear structural member (19a) (Figs. 3 and 5); and wherein the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel is adapted to horizontally allow a flow of fluid through the inlet towards the at least one energy unit compartment (para. 45, lines 1-10 and para. 49, lines 4-11) and allow egress the flow of fluid through the outlet (para. 44, lines 5-9).
The claim differs only in that the at least one energy unit compartment and the inlet fluid passage/channel are located on the at least one bottom structural member and that the inlet is located on a bottom portion of the at least one front structural member. This is a rearrangement of parts, where the at least one energy unit compartment (36) is horizontally mounted on the at least one bottom structural member (20); the at least one inlet fluid passage/channel (41) of the thermal management system is positioned on the at least one bottom structural member (20), and the at least one inlet (42) located on a bottom portion of the at least one front structural member (18). Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the 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.) With the rearrangement of energy unit compartment, inlet fluid passage/channel and the inlet, the device of the thermal management system would still work for its intended purpose as it is the same system except the components are going through the at least one bottom structural member instead of the at least top and rear structural members.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160121964 A1 ("Nagaya") in view of US 20120175178 A ("Iwakami") and further in view of US 6722460 B2 ("Yang").
Claim 16: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the vehicle further comprising: a radiator disposed along a front portion of the vehicle to be in direct contact with atmospheric fluid, the radiator having conduits carrying fluid along the at least one energy unit compartment, wherein the fluid is configured to absorb the heat of the at least one energy unit compartment, and wherein, the heated fluid is cooled in the radiator by the atmospheric fluid.
However, Yang teaches the vehicle further comprising: a radiator (7) disposed along a front portion of the vehicle to be in direct contact with atmospheric fluid, the radiator having conduits (col. 4, lines 60-63) carrying fluid along the at least one energy unit compartment (2), wherein the fluid is configured to absorb the heat of the at least one energy unit compartment (col. 4, lines 60-63 and col. 5 lines 5-19), and wherein, the heated fluid is cooled in the radiator by the atmospheric fluid (known function of a radiator when it is in contact with air). 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 invention of the cited prior art with the features of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Yang teaches “the heat dissipation system comprises a heat exchanger composed of a radiator 7” (col. 4, lines 54-56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1 and 2, filed 3/19/2026, with respect to the claim objections and 112b claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and 112b claim rejections of claims 5-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant added additional claim language to independent claim 1 requiring that the flow of fluid be done “vertically or horizontally.” The terms “vertically” and “horizontally” are being interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the disclosure. Primary reference Nagaya teaches that the flow of fluid moves horizontally from the front of the structure to the back of the structure which meets the claim language. If the claim language was clarified to more specifically point out the orientation of the air flow with respect to specific vehicle components or how the air flow was directed around the storage compartment, the claims may overcome Nagaya but further search and consideration would be necessary.
On page 11 of the remarks, Applicant gives the below conclusion.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Firstly, the “frame member” components are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation and Nagaya teaches frame components that while not specifically at 90 degree angles, they protect the compartment top, bottom, left and right. Secondly, the air movement in Nagaya moves generally front to back as well as bottom to top (air inlet is below the outlet). Respectfully, examiner believes that the arguments are interpreting the claims more narrowly than the breadth of the claims affords.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights