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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 have been examined on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 11/14/2022. It is noted that applicant has filed a certified copy of the application, JP2022-181755, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initial copy is attached herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “ the support is coupled” should read ---the support, is coupled---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
The term “high-voltage” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “battery pack” has been rendered indefinite by the term “high-voltage”. Claims 2-5 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation “the region” in line 8 refers to the recitation of “a region” in line 6 or line 8. For examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to the latter recitation. Claims 2-5 are rejected based on dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation “the region” refers to the previously recited “region of the smoke exhaust duct” of claim 1, “region of the valve part” of claim 1 or “region of the plate” of claim 2. For examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to the last recitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20230181950 A1) in view of Oki (US 20190198835 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bader discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1; 1) comprising:
a high-voltage battery pack (Fig. 1; 11; [0045]) comprising
a charge port (Fig. 3; 20) disposed on a body (annotated Fig. 3; B, other exterior sides and floor of the vehicle not shown; “B”) of the vehicle (1).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bader fails to disclose a smoke exhaust port and a valve part, the valve part being configured to close the smoke exhaust port in an openable and closable manner;
a smoke exhaust duct coupled to the smoke exhaust port and the charge port, wherein
the smoke exhaust duct has an opening at a region of the smoke exhaust duct, the region overlapping the valve part when the valve part is open, and
the valve part comprises a claw disposed at a region of the valve part, the region allowing the claw to come into contact with an edge of the opening when the valve part is open.
Oki discloses a battery pack (Fig. 1; 100) comprising a smoke exhaust port (Fig. 1; 14, 17a) and a valve part (Fig. 5; 32, 39), the valve part (32, 39) being configured to close the smoke exhaust port (14, 17a) in an openable and closable manner (“check valve”; [0030]);
a smoke exhaust duct (Fig. 1; 17b, 18) coupled to the smoke exhaust port (14, 17a) and a body (Fig. 1; floor 41 and ergo exterior sides of vehicle not shown) of a vehicle ([0027]), wherein
the smoke exhaust duct (17b, 18) has an opening (annotated Fig. 5; O) at a region (Fig. 5; 62) of the smoke exhaust duct (17b, 18), the region (62) overlapping (Fig. 6) the valve part (32, 39) when the valve part (32, 39) is open (Fig. 6), and
the valve part (32, 39) comprises a claw (Fig. 6; 32n) disposed at a region (Fig. 6; 32 excluding 32f) of the valve part (32, 39), the region (32 excluding 32f) allowing the claw (32n) to come into contact (Fig. 6) with an edge (annotated Fig. 5; E) of the opening (O) when the valve part (32, 39) is open (Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
286
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bader by adding the smoke exhaust port, valve part, smoke exhaust duct, claw, opening, and edge of the opening of Oki to the battery pack of Bader such that the battery pack comprises a smoke exhaust port and a valve part, the valve part being configured to close the smoke exhaust port in an openable and closable manner;
a smoke exhaust duct coupled to the smoke exhaust port and the body, wherein
the smoke exhaust duct has an opening at a region of the smoke exhaust duct, the region overlapping the valve part when the valve part is open, and
the valve part comprises a claw disposed at a region of the valve part, the region allowing the claw to come into contact with an edge of the opening when the valve part is open.
The examiner notes that by performing this modification the smoke exhaust duct is indirectly coupled to the charge port because the charge port is on and coupled to the body and the duct is coupled to the body.
Regarding claim 2, Bader in view of Oki discloses wherein the valve part (32, 39) comprises a plate (Oki Fig. 6; 32) configured to close the opening (O) when the valve part (32, 39) is open (Oki Fig. 6), and
the claw (32n) is disposed at a region (Oki annotated Fig. 6; R) of the plate (32), the region (R) allowing the claw (32n) to come into contact (Oki Fig. 6) with the edge (E) of the opening (O) when the valve part (32, 39) is open (Oki Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
308
423
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bader in view of Oki discloses a support (Oki Fig. 5; 31, 33) to which the valve part (32, 39) is pivotally coupled (Oki Fig. 4-5; 32a), wherein a first region (Oki Fig. 5; 39) of the valve part (32, 39) other than a second region (Oki Fig. 5; 32) of the valve part (32, 39), the second region (32) being pivotally coupled (Oki Fig. 6; 32a) to the support (31, 33), is configured to be secured (Oki “movement of valve body 32 can be restricted by the frictional force generated between shock absorbing member 39 and valve seat 31”; [0055]) to the support (31, 33) by frictional force (Oki [0055]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20230181950 A1) in view of Oki (US 20190198835 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Umeoka (JP-2000164261-A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Feriot (FR2988039A1, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 3, Bader in view of Oki discloses wherein the charge port (20) comprises an inlet (Fig. 3; 25) comprising a receptacle (Fig. 3; 22a) and a socket (Fig. 2; 21), the receptacle (22a) being configured to couple one power cable (Fig. 1; 22b) coupled to the high-voltage battery pack (11) to a battery charger (“ a charging infrastructure or charging station”; [0047]; Fig. 1; 40) provided outside the vehicle (1), and the socket (21) is configured to be directly coupled (Fig. 3; 23a) to a fire extinguishing agent supplier (Fig. 1; 50) provided outside (Fig. 1) the vehicle (1).
Bader in view of Oki fails to disclose the socket being configured to secure an end of the smoke exhaust duct at the charge port.
Umeoka discloses a socket (Fig. 3; 10) configured to secure an end (Fig. 3; end of 4 contacting 10a) of a smoke exhaust duct (Fig. 3; 4) to a receptacle (Fig. 3; 3) at a charge port (Fig. 3; 3, 4a, 9, 10, 10a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bader in view of Oki by rearranging the smoke exhaust duct of Bader in view of Oki to be secured to the receptacle as Umeoka teaches, such that the socket is configured to secure an end of the smoke exhaust duct at the charge port.
By performing this modification one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to reliably exhaust the battery pack as taught by Umeoka ([0034]) and avoid the potential taught by Feriot (pg. 2, para. 2-4) of water infiltration into the smoke exhaust duct of Bader in view of Oki caused by the outlet of the smoke exhaust duct being positioned below the floor of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20230181950 A1) in view of Oki (US 20190198835 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kotik (US 20140087216 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bader in view of Oki discloses a support (Oki Fig. 5; 31, 33) to which the valve part (32, 39) is pivotally coupled (Oki Fig. 4-5; 32a), a first region (Oki Fig. 5; 39) of the valve part (32, 39) other than a second region (Oki Fig. 5; 32) of the valve part (32, 39), the second region (32) being pivotally coupled (Oki Fig. 6; 32a) to the support (31, 33), but fails to disclose an adhesive configured to secure, to the support, at least part of the first region.
Kotik discloses an adhesive ([0022]) configured to secure (“attached”; [0022]), to a support (Fig. 1; 164), at least part of a first region (Fig. 1; portion of 160 directly contacting 164) of a valve part (Fig. 1; 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bader in view of Oki by adding the adhesive of Kotik to at least a part of the first region in order to set a pressure threshold for the valve part as taught by Kotik ([0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights