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 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15, 17-20 are original. Claims 6-7, 9, 13-14, and 16 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Claim objections
Certain 35 USC § 112 rejections
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) are as follows.
“An electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”)” in lines 5-6 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “to generate nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”)” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“An electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”)” in line 5 of claim 7. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “to generate nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”)” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“An electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”)” in lines 6-7 of claim 14. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “to generate nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”)” 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.
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.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “An electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”)” in lines 5-6 of claim 1, because lines Para. 0016 of the applicant’s disclosure recites “the system uses an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) based on a fuel cell to produce and supply nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) in order to reduce the oxygen concentration in the system. In particular, a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell with a PEM electrolyzer generates humidified NEA from the cathode output” The examiner will interpret this limitation fuel cell and an electrolyzer, 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 “An electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”)” in line 5 of claim 7, because lines Para. 0016 of the applicant’s disclosure recites “the system uses an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) based on a fuel cell to produce and supply nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) in order to reduce the oxygen concentration in the system. In particular, a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell with a PEM electrolyzer generates humidified NEA from the cathode output” The examiner will interpret this limitation fuel cell and an electrolyzer, 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 “An electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”)” in lines 6-7 of claim 14, because lines Para. 0016 of the applicant’s disclosure recites “the system uses an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) based on a fuel cell to produce and supply nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) in order to reduce the oxygen concentration in the system. In particular, a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell with a PEM electrolyzer generates humidified NEA from the cathode output” The examiner will interpret this limitation fuel cell and an electrolyzer, or equivalent thereof.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “wherein the ELBIS and the controller are retrofit to the battery pack” in line 1-2 of claim 20. It is unclear how the term “retrofit” defines the resulting product beyond that fact that the recited components are installed, coupled, or assembled to the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rheaume (US 10,300,431), hereinafter Rheaume I.
Regarding claim 7, Rheaume I discloses a fire-prevention system (Col. 4: Ln. 35-36) for an electric vehicle (Col. 8: Ln. 25), the system comprising:
a controller (Fig. 2, 36);
an oxygen sensor (Col. 9: Ln. 30-36), communicably coupled to the controller (Col. 9: Ln. 14-27), to detect an oxygen content of an electric vehicle battery pack (The electric vehicle battery pack is not positively recited and the oxygen sensor is capable of detecting an oxygen content in an electric vehicle pack); and
an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) (Fig. 5, 102; Col. 8: Ln. 27-32 – “electrolyzer mode”) that generates nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) in response to a determination, by the controller, the oxygen content exceeds a predetermined threshold (Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4; The predetermined threshold is 12% oxygen.),
wherein the ELBIS continues to deliver the NEA to the battery pack until the oxygen content no longer exceeds the predetermined threshold, thereby preventing a fire from being ignited within the battery pack (Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Rheaume I discloses the system as defined in claim 7 further comprising an air dryer (Fig. 2, 104) to capture and recirculate water vapor of the ELBIS (Col. 11: Ln. 10-12; Col. 11: Ln. 41-46), thereby dehumidifying the NEA before it is delivered to the battery pack.
Regarding claim 13, Rheaume I discloses the system as defined in claim 7, and further discloses wherein the system is portable (The prior art device discloses all of the required structural components and is therefore just as portable as the claimed invention.) and can be retrofitted to the battery pack (The battery pack is not positively recited, and the system is capable of use on a battery pack; The prior art device discloses all of the required structural components and is therefore can be retrofitted to a battery pack in the same way as the claimed invention.).
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) 1-6, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janarthanam (US 11,177,516) in view of Rheaume I.
Regarding claim 1, Janarthanam discloses a fire-prevention method for an electric vehicle (Col. 2: Ln. 26-33), the method comprising:
generating nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) (Clm. 9); and
delivering the NEA to the battery pack (Clm. 9), thereby preventing a fire from being ignited within the battery pack.
Janarthanam does not disclose detecting an oxygen content of an electric vehicle battery pack using an oxygen sensor; determining the oxygen content exceeds a predetermined threshold; in response to the determination, activating an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”); and delivering the NEA to the battery pack until the oxygen content no longer exceeds the predetermined threshold.
However, Rheaume I teaches a prior art comparable fire-prevention method (Col. 2: Ln. 46-47) for an electric vehicle (Col. 8: Ln. 25), the method comprising:
detecting an oxygen content (Col. 8: Ln. 25) of a space (Fig. 2, 116; Col 10: Ln. 67 to Col. 11: Ln. 4.) using an oxygen sensor (Col. 9: Ln. 30-36).;
determining the oxygen content exceeds a predetermined threshold (Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4; The predetermined threshold is 12% oxygen.);
in response to the determination, activating an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) to generate nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) (Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4); and
delivering the NEA to the space until the oxygen content no longer exceeds the predetermined threshold, thereby preventing a fire from being ignited within the battery pack (Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4).
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 (detecting an oxygen content of an electric vehicle battery pack using an oxygen sensor; determining the oxygen content exceeds a predetermined threshold; in response to the determination, activating an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”); and delivering the NEA to the battery pack until the oxygen content no longer exceeds the predetermined threshold.) as taught by Rheaume I, into the method disclosed by Janarthanam to reduce the risk of combustion by reducing the oxygen concentration by introducing an inert gas such as nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) to a space (ullage), thereby displacing oxygen with a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen at target thresholds for avoiding explosion or combustion (Col. 1: Ln 9-28) and yielding the predictable result of preventing a fire.
Regarding claim 2, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the method as defined in claim 1.
Rheaume I further teaches the method further comprising capturing and recirculating water vapor of the ELBIS using an air dryer, thereby dehumidifying the NEA before it is delivered to the space (Col. 11: Ln. 10-12; Col. 11: Ln. 41-46: Col. 12).
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 (capturing and recirculating water vapor of the ELBIS using an air dryer, thereby dehumidifying the NEA before it is delivered to the space) as taught by Rheaume I, into the system disclosed by Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I to prevent corrosion of the battery pack and yielding the predictable result of dehumidifying the NEA before it is delivered to the battery pack.
Regarding claim 3, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the method as defined in claim 1, but does not teach wherein the predetermined threshold is a 9% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the predetermined threshold is a 9% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the method as defined in claim 1, but does not teach wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0026, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the method as defined in claim 1, but does not teach wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5-9% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of 5-9% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the method as defined in claim 1, but does not teach wherein oxygen content is detected inside the battery pack adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack. (The battery pack is not positively recited and thus the inlet and outlet of the battery pack are not positively recited and the oxygen content only needs to be detected inside the battery pack adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack.)
However, relocating the oxygen sensor adjacent an inlet or outlet of a battery pack which results in the oxygen content is detected inside the battery pack adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack is a mere rearrangement of parts, and, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “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.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the oxygen content is detected inside the battery pack adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack (Para. 0019), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Janarthanam discloses an electric vehicle (Fig. 1, 10), comprising:
a battery pack (Fig. 1-2, 24); ;
a controller (Fig. 2, 70);
a sensor (Fig. 2, 72), communicably coupled to the controller (Col. 6: Ln. 15-25);
wherein NEA is delivered to the battery pack (Col. 6: Ln. 60 to Col. 7: Ln. 5)
Janarthanam does not disclose an oxygen sensor, communicably coupled to the controller, to detect an oxygen content of the battery pack; an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) that generates nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) in response to a determination, by the controller, the oxygen content exceeds the predetermined threshold, wherein the ELBIS delivers the NEA to the battery pack until the oxygen content no longer exceeds the predetermined threshold, thereby preventing a fire from being ignited within the battery pack; and an air dryer to capture and recirculate water vapor of the ELBIS, thereby dehumidifying the NEA before it is delivered to the battery pack.
However, Rheaume I teaches a prior art comparable inert gas system (Fig. 2, 100) comprising an oxygen sensor (Col. 9: Ln. 30-36), communicably coupled to the controller (Col. 9: Ln. 14-27), to detect an oxygen content of a space (Fig. 2, 116; Col 10: Ln. 67 to Col. 11: Ln. 4. ;The battery pack disclosed by Janarthanam is an enclosed space as shown in Fig. 2);
an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) (Fig. 5, 102; Col. 8: Ln. 27-32 – “electrolyzer mode”) that generates nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) in response to a determination, by the controller, the oxygen content exceeds the predetermined threshold (Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4; The predetermined threshold is 12% oxygen.),
wherein the ELBIS delivers the NEA to the space until the oxygen content no longer exceeds the predetermined threshold, thereby preventing a fire from being ignited within the space (Col 10: Ln. 63 to Col. 11: Ln. 4); and
an air dryer (Fig. 2, 104) to capture and recirculate water vapor of the ELBIS (Col. 11: Ln. 10-12; Col. 11: Ln. 41-46), thereby dehumidifying the NEA before it is delivered to the space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (Fig. 2, 100) with a known function (deliver nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) to a vehicle fire suppression system associated with an enclosed space {Col. 33: Ln. 33-36}), taught by Rheaume I, by performing a simple substitution with another element (Fig. 2, 74; Col. 6: Ln. 61-62) disclosed by Janarthanam yielding the predictable result of maintaining an oxygen concentration in the battery pack targeted for resistance to fire or smoldering can occur (Rheaume I: Col. 11: Ln. 41-46).
Regarding claim 16, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the electric vehicle as defined in claim 14, but does not teach wherein the oxygen sensor is located adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack.
However, relocating the oxygen sensor adjacent an inlet or outlet of a battery pack is a mere rearrangement of parts, and, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “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.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the oxygen sensor is located adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack (Para. 0019), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the electric vehicle as defined in claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined threshold is a 9% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the predetermined threshold is a 9% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the electric vehicle as defined in claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0026, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the electric vehicle as defined in claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5-9% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of 5-9% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. 16. The electric vehicle as defined in claim 14, wherein the oxygen sensor is located adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack.
Regarding claim 20, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the electric vehicle as defined in claim 14.
Rheaume I further discloses wherein the ELBIS and the controller are retrofit to the battery pack (The ELBIS and the controller discloses all of the required structural components and is therefore can be retrofit to the battery pack in the same way as the claimed invention.).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rheaume I.
Regarding claim 9, Rheaume I discloses the system as defined in claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the oxygen sensor is located adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack. (The battery pack is not positively recited and thus the inlet and outlet of the battery pack are not positively recited and the oxygen sensor only needs to be capable of being located adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack.)
However, relocating the oxygen sensor adjacent an inlet or outlet of a battery pack is a mere rearrangement of parts, and, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “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.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the oxygen sensor is located adjacent an inlet or outlet of the battery pack (Para. 0019), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Rheaume I discloses the system as defined in claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined threshold is a 9% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the predetermined threshold is a 9% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Rheaume I discloses the system as defined in claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0026, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Rheaume I discloses the system as defined in claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined threshold is a 5-9% oxygen content.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of 5-9% oxygen content, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0017, 0032; Para. 0028-0029 describes ignition delay times for oxygen concentrations greater than 5% and a Fig. 2D shows the ignition delay time increasing with a reduction in oxygen concentrations, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I and Rheaume (US 10,532,311), hereinafter Rheaume II.
Regarding claim 15, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the electric vehicle as defined in claim 14.
Rheaume I further teaches where the air dryer is a membrane air dryer (Col. 11: Ln. 10-12)
Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I does not teach a silicone membrane air dryer.
However, Rheaume II teaches a silicone membrane air dryer (Fig. 1, 30; Col. 3: Ln. 35-52)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (Fig. 1, 30) with a known function (Drying oxygen depleted air {Col. 3: Ln. 53}), taught by Rheaume II, by performing a simple substitution with another element (Fig. 2, 104) disclosed by Rheaume I yielding the predictable result of drying Nitrogen Enriched Air.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejection on page 5 of the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 namely “wherein the ELBIS and the controller are retrofit to the battery pack” in line 1-2 of claim 20, the examiner agrees that the term “retrofit” is well known in the art. However, it is unclear as how the term “retrofit” defines the resulting product beyond that fact that the recited components are installed, coupled, or assembled to the system and therefore the claimed invention is the same with or without this limitation and therefore the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
With regards the applicant’s arguments on page 6 regarding the rejection of claim 7-8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, where the applicant recites the following.
“Rheaume I fails to teach each and every element of claim 7. For a prior art reference to
anticipate under the terms of 35 U.S. C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. MPEP §2131. Claim 7 recites, in part, "... an oxygen sensor ... to detect an oxygen content of an electric vehicle battery pack...". To reject this element, the Office Action ignores the limitation stating - as a rationale - the battery pack was not positively recited. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this reasoning, as the oxygen sensor is positively recited as being an oxygen sensor that detects oxygen content of an EV battery pack - thus the limitation cannot be ignored.
Rheaume I does not teach any sensor to detect oxygen content of an EV battery pack. At
9:14-42, Rheaume describes sensors for measuring oxygen in fuel tanks, but fails to describe any sensor to measure oxygen in an EV battery pack as claimed. Here, also, Rheaume I also teaches a sensor to detect oxygen in an air feed suppled to an electrochemical cell; however, this sensor does not detect oxygen content of the EV battery pack itself.
Accordingly, at least for this reason, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.”
However, the applicant claims “an oxygen sensor, communicably coupled to the controller, to detect an oxygen content of an electric vehicle battery pack” in lines 4-5 of claim 7 and as the examiner stated in the office action, “the electric vehicle battery pack is not positively recited and the oxygen sensor is capable of detecting an oxygen content in an electric vehicle pack” and therefore the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments.
With regards the applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 of regarding the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the assertation that the references fail to teach detection of oxygen content in an EV battery pack, the arguments are against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards the applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 of the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the arguments are moot because the arguments are based on the intended purpose and operability of the secondary reference of Rheaume I not the primary reference of Janarthanam modified by Rheaume I (MPEP 2143.01 V-VI).
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 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 March 18, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752