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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are as previously presented. Claims 7 is amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 § 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) 1-14 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 (US 10,300,431), hereinafter 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 (Underline to emphasize difference from applicants claimed language ;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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Rheaume I (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.) by incorporating the oxygen sensor and ELBIS into the electric vehicle battery pack disclosed by Janarthanam, in addition to the nitrogen generating bag (74) disclosed by Janarthanam, because doing so reduces 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 (Rheaume I – Col. 1: Ln 9-28), and provide resistance to fire (Rheaume I: Col. 11: Ln. 41-46) as taught by Rheaume I, and Janarthanam additionally teaches that the use of nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) inside of the battery pack starves the interior of oxygen and thus mitigates a thermal event (Janarthanam – Col. 7: Ln. 1-5), and there is a reasonable expectation of success because Janarthanam already discloses the use of nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) inside of the battery pack (Janarthanam – Col. 7: Ln. 1-5) and Rheaume I teaches the use of the electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) in a vehicle (Col. 3: Ln. 25-31; Col. 8: Ln. 25), and thus in combination the electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) would maintain the nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) at an oxygen threshold to prevent combustion and a fire while maintaining the ability to use the nitrogen generating bag (74) if a thermal event is detected.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
Regarding claim 6, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the method as defined in claim 1.
Janarthanam further discloses an outlet (Fig. 2, 76)
Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I further teaches wherein oxygen content is detected inside the battery pack (In combination from the rejection of claim 1.).
Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I does not teach wherein oxygen content is 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. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0019, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Janarthanam discloses a fire-prevention system (Fig. 1-2, 12) for an electric vehicle (Fig. 1, 10), the system comprising:
a controller (Fig. 2, 70);
an electric vehicle battery pack (Fig. 1-2, 24);
Janarthanam does not disclose an oxygen sensor, communicably coupled to the controller, to detect an oxygen content of the electric vehicle battery pack; and an electrochemical battery inerting system ("ELBIS") that generates nitrogen-enriched air ("NEA") in response to a determination, by the controller, the oxygen content exceeds a predetermined threshold, 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.
However, Rheaume I teaches prior art comparable 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 a space (Underline to emphasize difference from applicants claimed language.; 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 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 space until the oxygen content no longer exceeds the predetermined threshold, thereby preventing a fire from being ignited within the space (Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Rheaume I (an oxygen sensor, communicably coupled to the controller, to detect an oxygen content a space an electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) that generates nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) in response to a determination, by the controller, the oxygen content exceeds a predetermined threshold, wherein the ELBIS continues to deliver the space until the oxygen content no longer exceeds the predetermined threshold, thereby preventing a fire from being ignited within the space.) by incorporating the oxygen sensor and ELBIS into the electric vehicle battery pack disclosed by Janarthanam, in addition to the nitrogen generating bag (74) disclosed by Janarthanam, because doing so reduces 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 (Rheaume I – Col. 1: Ln 9-28), and provide resistance to fire (Rheaume I: Col. 11: Ln. 41-46) as taught by Rheaume I, and Janarthanam additionally teaches that the use of nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) inside of the battery pack starves the interior of oxygen and thus mitigates a thermal event (Janarthanam – Col. 7: Ln. 1-5), and there is a reasonable expectation of success because Janarthanam already discloses the use of nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) inside of the battery pack (Janarthanam – Col. 7: Ln. 1-5) and Rheaume I teaches the use of the electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) in a vehicle (Col. 3: Ln. 25-31; Col. 8: Ln. 25), and thus in combination the electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) would maintain the nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) at an oxygen threshold to prevent combustion and a fire while maintaining the ability to use the nitrogen generating bag (74) if a thermal event is detected.
Regarding claim 8, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the system as defined in claim 7.
Rheaume I further teaches an air dryer to capture and recirculate water vapor of the ELBIS, thereby dehumidifying the NEA before it is delivered to the space (Underline to emphasize difference from applicants claimed language.; 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 9 Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the system as defined in claim 7.
Janarthanam further discloses an outlet (Fig. 2, 76) of the battery pack.
Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I 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 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. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0019, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume teaches the system as defined in claim 7, 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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
Regarding claim 11 Janarthanam in view of Rheaume teaches the system as defined in claim 7, 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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
Regarding claim 12, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume teaches the system as defined in claim 7, 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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
Regarding claim 13, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume teaches 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. Additionally, Rheaume I further teaches retrofit capability to existing systems in Col. 8: Ln. 51-53 and thus the system is portable and capable of retrofit.).
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 (Underline to emphasize difference from applicants claimed language.; 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 include the teachings of Rheaume I (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.) by incorporating the oxygen sensor and ELBIS into the electric vehicle battery pack disclosed by Janarthanam, in addition to the nitrogen generating bag (74) disclosed by Janarthanam, because doing so reduces 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 (Rheaume I – Col. 1: Ln 9-28), and provide resistance to fire (Rheaume I: Col. 11: Ln. 41-46) as taught by Rheaume I, and Janarthanam additionally teaches that the use of nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) inside of the battery pack starves the interior of oxygen and thus mitigates a thermal event (Janarthanam – Col. 7: Ln. 1-5), and there is a reasonable expectation of success because Janarthanam already discloses the use of nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) inside of the battery pack (Janarthanam – Col. 7: Ln. 1-5) and Rheaume I teaches the use of the electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) in a vehicle (Col. 3: Ln. 25-31; Col. 8: Ln. 25), and thus in combination the electrochemical battery inerting system (“ELBIS”) would maintain the nitrogen-enriched air (“NEA”) at an oxygen threshold to prevent combustion and a fire while maintaining the ability to use the nitrogen generating bag (74) if a thermal event is detected.
Additionally, 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 (an air dryer to capture and recirculate water vapor of the ELBIS, thereby dehumidifying the NEA before it is delivered to) 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, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the electric vehicle as defined in claim 14.
Janarthanam further discloses an outlet (Fig. 2, 76) of the battery pack.
Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I 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. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0019, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
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 (Rheaume I – Col. 10: Ln. 65 to Col. 11: Ln. 4 – 12%), 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. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (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 Rheaume I teaches that reducing the amount of oxygen increases the resistance to fire as described in col 11 lines 1-4 of Rheaume I and thus there is no criticality for the specific oxygen content.).
Regarding claim 20, Janarthanam in view of Rheaume I teaches the electric vehicle as defined in claim 14.
Rheaume I further teaches 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. Additionally, Rheaume I further teaches retrofit capability to existing systems in Col. 8: Ln. 51-53 and ELBIS and the controller are can be retrofit.).
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 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim rejections of claim 20 under 35 USC § 112 on pages 5-6 of applicant’s specification that “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 to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 7-8 and 13 on pages 6-7 of applicant’s remarks are moot due to the amended claims and new grounds of rejection.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 of claims 1-6 and 14-20 under 35 USC § 103 on pages 7-8 of applicant’s remark, that the references fail to teach detection of oxygen content in an EV battery back, the examiner respectfully disagrees because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references and Janarthanam supplies the battery pack (Fig. 1-2, 24) and Rheaume I supplies the oxygen sensor (Col. 9: Ln. 30-36) to detect an oxygen content of a space (Fig. 2, 116; Col 10: Ln. 67 to Col. 11: Ln. 4) which in combination teach the claimed oxygen sensor that detects oxygen content of an electric vehicle battery pack the claimed oxygen sensor that detects oxygen content of an electric vehicle battery pack. See MPEP § 2145-IV.
With regards to claim rejections of claims 1-6 and 14-20 under 35 USC § 103 on pages 8-10 of applicant’s remarks, that the proposed combination renders Janarthanam inoperable for its intended purpose because Janarthanam's principle of operation is emergency mitigation through power- independent, one-time nitrogen release and the proposed modification destroys this principle operation, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the principle operation of Janarthanam is to introduce nitrogen to battery pack to mitigate a thermal event (Col. 7: Ln. 3-5) and including the elements of Rheaume I in addition to the system of Janarthanam would not change the existing system of Janarthanam and in combination mitigates combustion/fire by generating nitrogen and provide it to the battery pack while reducing oxygen in the battery pack enclosure and thus preserve the principle operation. The applicant further argues that the system is “power independent” and cites Claims 4-5 (“4. The electrified vehicle as recited in claim 3, wherein the bag is self-inflatable. 5. The electrified vehicle as recited in claim 3, wherein the bag is permeable.”) and Col. 7, Ln. 8-11 (“Thus, vent gases escape the vehicle 12 via the vent tube 76. Further, oxygen (O.sub.2) is forced out the vent tube 76 upon the release of nitrogen (Ni) from the bag 74. In FIG. 3, vent gases and oxygen (O.sub.2) are flowing out the vent tube 76 as represented by reference character G.”) but the examiner finds that the applicant did not provide appropriate evidence to support this argument and relied primarily on the arguments alone. See MPEP § 2145-I.
With regards to claim rejections of claims 1-6 and 14-20 under 35 § USC 103 on page 10, that the proposed combination renders Janarthanam inoperable for its intended purpose because Janarthanam's corrective action sequence is self-defeating when combined with a power-dependent ELBIS. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the ELBIS of Rheaume 1 is added in addition to the bag (74) which is powered/activated by the controller (70) (Col. 6: ln. 51 to Col 7: Ln. 5) and Janarthanam does not disclose that the controller or bag is powered by the battery pack, and therefore the ELBIS does not need to be powered by the battery pack (24). Furthermore, adapting the power architecture of the controller and bag to provide power to the ELBIS is of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would not render Janarthanam inoperable for its intended purpose as further evidenced in Rheaume I which teaches an auxiliary power unit as a power source for the ELBIS (Col. 4: Ln. 9-14). Furthermore, the examiner finds that the applicant did not provide appropriate evidence to support this argument and relied primarily on the arguments alone. See MPEP § 2145-I.
With regards to claim rejections of claims 1-6 and 14-20 under 35 USC § 103 on pages 10-11, that the proposed combination renders Janarthanam inoperable for its intended purpose because Janarthanam's sealed enclosure architecture is incompatible with Rheaume I's continuous airflow requirements, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the battery pack (Fig. 2, 24) has a vent tube (Fig. 2, 76) to allow the gasses displaced from the introduction of nitrogen into the battery pack to be discharged to the environment. Furthermore, providing the nitrogen enriched air of the ELBIS to the interior of the battery pack is of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would not render Janarthanam inoperable for its intended purpose of reducing the oxygen in the battery pack by introducing nitrogen enriched air (Col. 6: ln. 51 to Col 7: Ln. 19).
With regards to claim rejections of claims 1-6 and 14-20 under 35 § USC 103 on pages 11-12, that the proposed combination renders Janarthanam inoperable for its intended purpose because the combination undermines Janarthanam's design objective of simplicity and immediacy in emergency response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant did not provide appropriate evidence to support this argument and relied primarily on the arguments alone. See MPEP 2145-I.
For the reasons above the examiner does not find that the proposed modifications rendered the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See. MPEP § 2143.01.
Conclusion
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 July 13, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights