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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2-6, and 9-20 are original. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 8 are amended. Therefore claims 1-6 and 8-20 are currently pending and claims 1-6 and 9-20 are considered below
Response to Amendment
The claim amendments filed on 11/26/2025 have been entered and have overcome certain 112(b) rejections. The amendments to the specification and drawing have not been entered. The Examiner is withdrawing the existing drawing objections.
Specification/Drawings
The amendment filed 11/26/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The amended drawing has added item 60 and moved a line that was originally connected 20 (charging device) to 50 (motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir) to connect 20 to 60 (motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir), however there is no description in the original disclosure to describe how or if the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir is connected to the charging device.
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 as follows.
“Charging Device” in lines 3 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “to provide electrical energy to the at least one battery cell when connected to a motor vehicle-external energy supply system” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Detection Device” in lines 5 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “for detecting a predetermined heating state of the battery” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Extinguishing Agent Supply Unit” in line 8 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “to provide a specified extinguishing agent for supply into the battery housing” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Extinguishing Agent Discharge Unit” in line 12 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “to discharge the supplied extinguishing agent from the battery housing” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Charging Device” in lines 3 of claim 1, because page 4 of the applicant’s disclosure states “the charging device can comprise, for example, a charging connection and an electrical line element, for example a line cable.” The Examiner will interpret this limitation as a charging connection and line cable, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Detection Device” in lines 5 of claim 1, because lines 1-3 of Claim 5 states “the detection device for detecting the predetermined heating state comprises at least one temperature sensor and/or a pressure sensor and/or a gas sensor and/or a fracture sensor” The Examiner will interpret this limitation as at least one temperature sensor and/or a pressure sensor and/or a gas sensor and/or a fracture sensor, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Extinguishing Agent Supply Unit” in line 8 of claim 1, because on page 4 of the applicant’s disclosure states “the extinguishing agent supply unit can have, for example, an extinguishing agent supply connection and a fluidic line element, for example a pipe or a hose.” The Examiner will interpret this limitation as pipe, hose, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Extinguishing Agent Discharge Unit” in line 12 of claim 1, because on pages 4-5 of the applicant’s disclosure states “a fluidic line element, for example a pipe or a hose… the extinguishing agent discharge unit can have, for example, an extinguishing agent discharge connection and an additional fluidic line element.” The Examiner will interpret this limitation as a pipe, hose, or equivalent 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a motor vehicle-external energy supply system” in line 4 of claim 1, “a motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir” in lines 8-9 of claim 1, and “a motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir” in lines 13-14 of claim 1, which the Examiner will refer to the recited limitations as motor vehicle-external elements, but a motor vehicle is not positively recited and therefore it is unclear as to how motor vehicle-external elements relate to a motor vehicle. Are these elements external to a motor vehicle, the battery arrangement, or something else? The Examiner further cannot determine if the motor vehicle-external elements intended to be positively recited elements or if the applicant intends for these elements to be interpreted as functional limitations, because as written the Examiner finds that these elements are merely functional limitations and thus not positively recited. However, lines 15-16 of claim 1 recites “wherein the charging device comprises a cooling circuit configured to cool extinguishing agent in the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir for reuse” and if the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir is a functional limitation it is not clear how the positively recited cooling circuit can perform the function of cooling extinguishing agent in the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir for reuse. Therefore, the Examiner cannot determine the meets and bounds of the claimed invention and will interpret these limitations as best understood by the Examiner.
Claims 2-6 and 9-20 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-6 and 9-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Dyer (US 10,236,543) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dyer in view of Agathocleous (US 11,664,545).
The interpretation of the claims may be in dispute. The Examiner has identified multiple possible interpretations as described in the 112(b) rejections and given one interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is appropriate and given another interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is appropriate.
Regarding claim 1, Dyer discloses a battery arrangement (Fig. 1b, all structural elements utilizing the battery assembly 110’ of claim 4 for the battery 30 in Fig. 1b) for a motor vehicle for fighting a battery fire, comprising a battery (Fig. 1b & 4, 30) having at least one battery cell (Fig. 4, 32) which is arranged in a battery housing (Fig. 1b & 4, Housing of 30; Col. 1, Ln. 58-59),
a charging device (Fig. 1b, all structural elements except for 20’, 28, 30, 54, and 64) which is designed to provide electrical energy to the at least one battery cell when connected to a motor vehicle-external energy supply system (Col. 6: Ln. 16-21), and
a detection device (Fig. 1b, 28 & 54 & Fig. 4, 115) for detecting a predetermined heating state of the battery (Col. 7: Ln. 44-48), which indicates that a battery fire is present or at least imminent (The limitation “for detecting....fire is present or at least imminent" is a limitation of intended use and since there a device programmed to detect temperature, the device is capable of detecting overheating condition corresponding to fire.; Col. 7: Ln. 43-57; Col. 2: Ln. 43-57; Col. 8: 66 to Col. 9: Ln. 7),
wherein the charging device comprises an extinguishing agent supply unit (Fig. 1b, 26 & 56), wherein the extinguishing agent supply unit is designed, when connected to a motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir and when the predetermined heating state is present, to provide a specified extinguishing agent for supply into the battery housing (The extinguishing agent supply unit is functionally capable of connecting to a motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir, which is not positively recited along with the other functional limitations.; Col. 6: Ln. 9-14; Col. 7: ln. 44-67).
wherein the charging device comprises an extinguishing agent discharge unit (Fig. 1b, 27 & 57) which is designed to discharge the supplied extinguishing agent from the battery housing to a motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir when connected to the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir (The extinguishing agent supply unit is functionally capable of connecting to a the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir, which is not positively recited along with the other functional limitations.; Col. 6: Ln. 54 to Col. 7: Ln. 6; Col. 7: Ln. 59-67)
wherein the charging device comprises a cooling circuit (Fig. 1b, 66-67) configured to cool extinguishing agent in the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir for reuse (Col. 7: ln. 60-67).
In the alternate, Dyer discloses a battery arrangement Fig. 1b, all structural elements utilizing the battery assembly 110’ of claim 4 for the battery 30 in Fig. 1b) for a motor vehicle for fighting a battery fire, comprising a battery (Fig. 1b & 4, 30) having at least one battery cell (Fig. 4, 32) which is arranged in a battery housing (Fig. 1b, Housing of 30; Col. 1, Ln. 58-59),
a charging device (Fig. 1b, all structural elements except for 20’, 28, 30, 54, and 64) which is designed to provide electrical energy to the at least one battery cell when connected to a motor vehicle-external energy supply system (Col. 6: Ln. 16-21), and
a detection device (Fig. 1b, 28 & 54 & Fig. 4, 115) for detecting a predetermined heating state of the battery (Col. 7: Ln. 44-48), which indicates that a battery fire is present or at least imminent (The limitation “for detecting....fire is present or at least imminent" is a limitation of intended use and since there a device programmed to detect temperature, the device is capable of detecting overheating condition corresponding to fire.; Col. 7: Ln. 43-57; Col. 2: Ln. 43-57; Col. 8: 66 to Col. 9: Ln. 7),
wherein the charging device comprises an extinguishing agent supply unit (Fig. 1b, 26 & 56), wherein the extinguishing agent supply unit is designed, when connected to and when the predetermined heating state is present, to provide a specified extinguishing agent (“coolant”) for supply into the battery housing (Col. 6: Ln. 9-14; Col. 7: ln. 44-67).
wherein the charging device comprises an extinguishing agent discharge unit (Fig. 1b, 27 & 57) which is designed to discharge the supplied extinguishing agent from the battery housing to a motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir (Fig. 1b, 64) when connected to the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir (Col. 6: Ln. 54 to Col. 7: Ln. 6; Col. 7: Ln. 59-67)
wherein the charging device comprises a cooling circuit (Fig. 1b, 66-67) configured to cool extinguishing agent in the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir for reuse (Col. 7: ln. 60-67).
Dyer does not disclose the extinguishing agent supply unit connected to a motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir (Dyer instead discloses the extinguishing agent supply unit connected to the motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir).
However, Agathocleous teaches a prior art comparable battery arrangement (Fig. 1, all structural features) for a motor vehicle for fighting a battery fire, comprising a battery (Fig. 1, 5);
a charging device (Fig. 1, 51-54, 60, and 96) which is designed to provide electrical energy to the at least one battery cell when connected to a motor vehicle-external energy supply system (Fig. 1, 92), and
wherein the charging device comprises an extinguishing agent supply unit (Fig. 1, 51 & 53), wherein the extinguishing agent supply unit is designed, when connected to a motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir (Fig. 1, 61to provide a specified extinguishing agent to a battery (Col. 10: Ln. 48 to Col. 11: Ln. 11);
wherein the charging device comprises an extinguishing agent discharge unit (Fig. 1, 52 & 54) which is designed to discharge the supplied extinguishing agent from the battery to a motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir (Fig. 1, 70-72) when connected to the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir (Col. 9: Ln. 4-27);
wherein the charging device comprises a cooling circuit (Fig. 1, 60) configured to cool extinguishing agent in the motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir for reuse (Col. 7: Ln. 24 to Col. 8: Ln. 31; Col. 11: Ln. 65 to Col. 12: Ln. 23).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the prior art contained the battery arrangement disclosed by Dyer upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the battery arrangement taught by Agathocleous that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, namely the incorporation of a motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir and a motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely a reservoir (a motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir) to provide extinguishing agent to the battery housing and a second reservoir (a motor vehicle-external waste water reservoir) to receive extinguishing agent from the battery with the benefit of keep the preventing the presence of extinguishing agent within the extinguishing agent supply unit and the extinguishing agent discharge unit between charging sessions of the electric vehicle (Agathocleous – Col. 9: Ln. 7-10) and to provide a substantially greater cooling capacity than the typical refrigerant circuit (Col. 8: Ln. 33-37), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 1.
Dyer further discloses wherein the charging device for coupling to the motor vehicle-external energy supply system comprises a charging connection (Fig. 1b, 92) and the extinguishing agent supply unit for coupling to the motor vehicle-external extinguishing agent reservoir comprises an extinguishing agent supply connection (Fig. 1b, 94), wherein the charging connection and the extinguishing agent supply connection form a common connection element of the charging device (Fig. 1b, 50’).
Regarding claim 4, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 1.
Dyer further discloses wherein the extinguishing agent supply unit comprises a valve element (Fig. 1, 56) which is designed to adjust a mass flow of the extinguishing agent provided depending on the detection of the predetermined heating state (Col. 7: Ln. 55 to Col. 8: Ln. 12).
Regarding claim 5, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 1.
Dyer further discloses wherein the detection device for detecting the predetermined heating state comprises at least one temperature sensor (Fig. 4, 115).
Regarding claim 6, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 1.
Dyer further discloses wherein the battery housing has an extinguishing agent outlet element (Fig. 1b, Location where 27 enters 30) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the battery housing (Col. 6: Ln. 54-58).
Regarding claim 9, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous, discloses/teaches a motor vehicle (Dyer – Fig. 1b, 64) having a battery arrangement according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 2.
Dyer further discloses wherein the extinguishing agent supply unit comprises a valve element (Fig. 1, 56) which is designed to adjust a mass flow of the extinguishing agent provided depending on the detection of the predetermined heating state (Col. 7: Ln. 55 to Col. 8: Ln. 12).
Regarding claim 14, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 2.
Dyer further discloses wherein the detection device for detecting the predetermined heating state comprises at least one temperature sensor (Fig. 4, 115).
Regarding claim 16, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 4.
Dyer further discloses wherein the detection device for detecting the predetermined heating state comprises at least one temperature sensor (Fig. 4, 115).
Regarding claim 17, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 2.
Dyer further discloses wherein the battery housing has an extinguishing agent outlet element (Fig. 1b, Location where 27 enters 30) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the battery housing (Col. 6: Ln. 54-58).
Regarding claim 19, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 4.
Dyer further discloses wherein the battery housing has an extinguishing agent outlet element (Fig. 1b, Location where 27 enters 30) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the battery housing (Col. 6: Ln. 54-58).
Regarding claim 20, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 5.
Dyer further discloses wherein the battery housing has an extinguishing agent outlet element (Fig. 1b, Location where 27 enters 30) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the battery housing (Col. 6: Ln. 54-58).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3, 10-11, 13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dyer in view of Agathocleous, and further in view of Zalan (US 8,720,968).
Regarding claim 3, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the charging device comprises a locking element having a locking mechanism for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device.
However, Zalan teaches a prior art comparable charging device (Fig. 3, {101, 301, 303, 305, 307, 309}) comprises a locking element (Fig. 3, 101) having a locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 309) for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device (Col. 3: Ln. 34-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a locking element having a locking mechanism for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device) as taught by Zalan, into the battery arrangement taught by Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous to protect the charge port (Zalan – Fig. 3, 303/ Dyer – Fig. 1b, 50’) of the charging device from possible tampering (Col. 1: Ln. 27-28) and yielding the predictable result of allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the motor vehicle according to claim 9, but does not teach wherein the charging device comprises a locking element having a locking mechanism for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device, wherein the locking element is designed as a charging connection flap of the motor vehicle, by which the charging connection of the charging device and the extinguishing agent supply connection of the extinguishing agent supply unit can be covered from the outside.
However, Zalan teaches a prior art comparable charging device (Fig. 3, {101, 301, 303, 305, 307, 309}) comprises a locking element (Fig. 3, 101) having a locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 309) for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device (Col. 3: Ln. 34-42), wherein the locking element is designed as a charging connection flap (Fig. 3, 101 is a flap) of the motor vehicle by which the charging connection of the charging device can be covered from the outside (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a locking element having a locking mechanism for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device) as taught by Zalan, into the battery arrangement taught by Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous to protect the charge port (Zalan – Fig. 3, 303/ Dyer – Fig. 1b, 50’) of the charging device from possible tampering (Col. 1: Ln. 27-28) and yielding the predictable result of allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device which includes the charging device and the extinguishing agent supply connection, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous teaches the battery assembly according to claim 2, but does not teach wherein the charging device comprises a locking element having a locking mechanism for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device.
However, Zalan teaches a prior art comparable charging device (Fig. 3, {101, 301, 303, 305, 307, 309}) comprises a locking element (Fig. 3, 101) having a locking mechanism (Fig. 3, 309) for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device (Col. 3: Ln. 34-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a locking element having a locking mechanism for allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device) as taught by Zalan, into the battery arrangement taught by Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous to protect the charge port (Zalan – Fig. 3, 303/ Dyer – Fig. 1b, 50’) of the charging device from possible tampering (Col. 1: Ln. 27-28) and yielding the predictable result of allowing and/or preventing access to the charging device, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous and further in view of Zalan teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 3.
Dyer further discloses wherein the extinguishing agent supply unit comprises a valve element (Fig. 1, 56) which is designed to adjust a mass flow of the extinguishing agent provided depending on the detection of the predetermined heating state (Col. 7: Ln. 55 to Col. 8: Ln. 12).
Regarding claim 15, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous and further in view of Zalan teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 3.
Dyer further discloses wherein the detection device for detecting the predetermined heating state comprises at least one temperature sensor (Fig. 4, 115).
Regarding claim 18, Dyer or, in the alternative, Dyer in view of Agathocleous and further in view of Zalan teaches the battery arrangement according to claim 3.
Dyer further discloses wherein the battery housing has an extinguishing agent outlet element (Fig. 1b, Location where 27 enters 30) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the battery housing (Col. 6: Ln. 54-58).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does 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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 4, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights