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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/386,889. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/19/2025, 6/11/2025, 10/11/2025, 11/5/2025, 12/5/2025, 1/26/2026, 2/3/2026, 3/3/2026, 4/3/2026, 5/6/2026 and 6/15/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “an external portion of the cable” should be changed to - -the external portion of the third cable- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 20, line 4, “an external portion of the third cable”). Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,545,095. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,545,095.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,570,137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,570,137.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,654,535. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of Claims 1, 2, 7, 11 and 14 of the instant application are fully contained by Claims 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,654,535 as follows:
Claim 1 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,654,535;
Claim 2 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,654,535;
Claim 7 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,654,535;
Claim 11 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,654,535; and
Claim 14 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,654,535.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Should the double patenting rejections above be overcome, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious an electrified fire fighting vehicle including an energy storage system positioned between the cab and the body, the energy storage system including: a rack coupled to and extending upward from the chassis, the rack defining an interior chamber; a battery pack positioned within the interior chamber; and a power distribution system positioned within the interior chamber, the power distribution system including: an inverter having a first interface electrically coupled to the electric motor and a second interface; a power distribution unit having a third interface and a fourth interface electrically coupled to the battery pack; and a bus bar extending between the second interface of the inverter and the third interface of the power distribution unit, in combination with the other elements required by independent Claim 1.
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious an energy storage system for an electrified vehicle including a power distribution system positioned within the upper portion, the power distribution system including: a power distribution unit having a first interface, a second interface, and a third interface; an inverter having a fourth interface and a fifth interface; and a bus bar extending between the third interface of the power distribution unit and the fourth interface of the inverter; a first cable extending within the rack between the first battery interface of the first battery pack and the first interface of the power distribution unit; a second cable extending within the rack between the second battery interface of the second battery pack and the second interface of the power distribution unit; and a third cable extending from the fifth interface of the inverter, the third cable configured to facilitate electrically coupling the inverter to an electric motor external to the rack, in combination with the other elements required by independent Claim 15.
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious an electrified vehicle including a power distribution system positioned within the upper portion, the power distribution system including: a power distribution unit having a first interface, a second interface, and a third interface; an inverter having a fourth interface and a fifth interface; and a bus bar extending between the third interface of the power distribution unit and the fourth interface of the inverter; a first cable extending within the rack between the first battery interface of the first battery pack and the first interface of the power distribution unit; a second cable extending within the rack between the second battery interface of the second battery pack and the second interface of the power distribution unit; and a third cable extending from the fifth interface of the inverter, out of the rack, and to the motor interface of the electric motor, in combination with the other elements required by independent Claim 19.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have no rationale, absent hindsight, to modify the prior art to derive the claimed invention since the above-mentioned limitations, in combination with the other claim limitations, are considered new and nonobvious improvements over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BORGHI et al. (US 2022/0169125 A1) discloses a battery pack assembly for a vehicle (see Figs. 1-2).
AUFDENCAMP (US 2019/0202312 A1) discloses an electrified vehicle energy store configuration (see Fig. 1C and paragraph [0068]).
HATAMI (US 2018/0345820 A1) discloses an electric vehicle power distribution system (see Figs. 1-2).
BUGLIONE et al. (US 2007/0151782 A1) discloses a generator arrangement for a vehicle (see ABSTRACT).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights