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
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,663,233 to Plessner (“Plessner”). Regarding claims 1-6, 14, 15, and 18-20, Plessner discloses an aircraft having a battery module 510 in the fuselage thereof and associated structure that allows hot gas generated in the battery enclosure to be discarded overboard of the aircraft. Plessner at Figure 5 and relevant discussion thereof. In particular a a vent valve (520) is connected to a wall opening of the battery enclosure (510). A vent conduit (530) extends from the vent valve to an end portion of the vent conduit (532) that penetrates the fuselage skin and allows the hot gas ejected through vent valve 520 to escape out of the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. In particular, the vent is configured to open when the pressure inside the battery enclosure becomes higher than a design pressure. This can be done with an active system including a sensor connected to a moveable vent valve, or via a passive system where the valve is spring loaded or rupturable at the chosen pressure. Although a passenger egress is not shown in Plessner, the Office notes that passenger egress from vehicles, including the fuselage of an aircraft, are ubiquitously located on a lateral side of the vehicle body/fuselage, making the vent ejection point of conduit (532) out the bottom of the fuselage on a different side from a passenger egress.
Plessner only shows a single device venting through the non-conductive end-portion 532 of its ventilation conduit. Nonetheless, because aircraft, particularly those having electrically/battery driven motors commonly including a plurality of battery modules, each including a plurality of battery cells therein, it would have been obvious to ensure the vent 520 of each battery module supplies its effluent into the common ventilation conduit leading to the single, safe, nonconductive outlet piercing the skin of the fuselage in order that the fuselage not become weakened by having a plurality of piercings of its skin to accommodate the venting of a plurality of battery modules.
Further regarding claim 7, Plessner discloses the desire to prevent having gas from outside the battery pass back into the battery box via the ventilation path. Thus, inclusion of a commonly known check-valve to ensure that gas is only allowed to pass out of the venitallation path and not would have been an obvious choice in light of the teachings of Plessner.
Further regarding claims 8, each vent of Plessner is hard set at a single angle, thus meeting the claim language.
Further regarding claims 9, 10, and 12, Plessner discloses using electrically controlled actuators to open the vent releasing ejecta into the ventilation conduit but does not expressly disclose using pneumatically driven vent openings. Nonetheless, the use of any commonly known mechanical means for the electronic system to drive the vent opening, including a pneumatic system, is considered to be nothing more than the obvious use of a commonly known system for its intended purpose.
Further regarding claim 11, the opening/closing of the vent doors is considered to alter the size of the venting path.
Further regarding claim 13, the vent of each battery ejects the ejecta to the conduit and to the non-conductive end point of the ventilation path directing all of the ejecta away from other batteries and towards an overboard of the aircraft.
Further regarding claims 16 and 17, Plessner discloses controlling its vent based on a pressure measurement. However, Plessner makes it clear that the increased pressure is related to increase temperature inside the battery. Thus, use of a temperature sensor is considered to be nothing more than the obvious use of a commonly known, directly related sensing means for ensuring a safe temperature/pressure environment is maintained in the batteries of the aircraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1727