DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 5/13/2026. Amended claims 1, 8, and 16 are acknowledged and the following new grounds of rejection below are formulated.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 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 “the vicinity” in claims 1, 8, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” 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 fuel line traversing across the battery pack has been rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuoka (U.S. Publication 2016/0348623), hereinafter “Mitsuoka”.
Regarding claim 1, Mitsuoka discloses the claimed invention such as a fire barrier arrangement for arresting propagation of fire to a fuel tank (511) of a hybrid electric vehicle (1, paragraph 21), the fire barrier arrangement comprising: a fuel line (82) for transporting fuel from a fuel tank to an internal combustion engine (10), the fuel line defining a fluid pathway for fuel in a flow direction from the fuel tank to the internal combustion engine (shown in figures 1-2); a battery pack (70); wherein the fuel line traverse from the rear of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle (inherent) and passes by the battery pack (shown in figure 2), a first check valve (517) disposed in the fuel line along the fluid pathway (shown in figure 2, paragraph 52), the first check valve being disposed either upstream or downstream of the battery pack along the fluid pathway of the fuel line (since figure 2 shows the check valve in the fuel tank, the first check valve is located upstream of battery pack); wherein the first check valve (517) allows flow of fuel in the flow direction but restricts flow of fuel in a direction opposite the flow direction, whereby the first check valve is a fire barrier that arrests propagation of fire along the fuel line, but is silent to disclose that a portion of the fuel line traverse across the vicinity of the battery pack and the check valve being disposed on a side of the battery pack along the fuel line. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have the a portion of the fuel line traverse across a vicinity of the battery pack and a check valve along a side of the battery pack, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Examiner notes that “the vicinity” has been rendered indefinite and examiner examines under BRI. Examiner also notes that the check valve has the capability to arrest propagation of fire.
Regarding claim 2, Mitsuoka discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the first check valve being disposed between the battery pack and the fuel tank along the fluid pathway. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have such an arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Mitsuoka discloses the claimed invention such as a second check valve (82a), but is silent to disclose the first check valve being disposed between the battery pack and the fuel tank along the fluid pathway and the second check valve being disposed downstream of the battery pack and being between the battery and the engine. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have such an arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Mitsuoka discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the first check valve being disposed proximate to the battery pack. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have such an arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, Mitsuoka discloses the fire barrier arrangement of claim 1, wherein the first check valve (517) is spaced a distance from the battery pack. Examiner notes that the first check valve seems to be in an upper portion of the fuel tank and therefore spaced away from the battery.
Regarding claim 6, Mitsuoka discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the first check valve or the second check valve being disposed proximate to the battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have such an arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 7, Mitsuoka discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the first or second check valve being disposed a distance away from the battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have such an arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 8, Mitsuoka discloses a motor vehicle comprising: an internal combustion engine; a fuel tank for storing a source of fuel for the internal combustion engine; a fuel line connecting the fuel tank to the internal combustion engine, the fuel line defining a fluid pathway for fuel in a flow direction from the fuel tank to the internal combustion engine; wherein the fuel line traverses a distance from the rear of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle and passes by the battery pack, and a portion of the fuel line traverses across the vicinity of the battery pack; and at least one check valve disposed in the fuel line along the fluid pathway on a side of the battery pack along the fuel line that passes by the battery pack; wherein the at least one check valve allows flow of fuel in the flow direction but restricts flow of fuel in a direction opposite the flow direction, whereby the at least one check valve is a fire barrier that arrests propagation of fire along the fuel line towards the fuel tank.. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 9, Mitsuoka discloses the motor vehicle of claim 8, wherein the motor vehicle is a hybrid electric vehicle further comprising a battery pack. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 10, Mitsuoka discloses the motor vehicle of claim 9, including one said check valve disposed either upstream or downstream of the battery pack along the fluid pathway of the fuel line. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 11, Mitsuoka discloses the motor vehicle of claim 9, including one said check valve disposed between the battery pack and the fuel tank along the fluid pathway. Refer to the rejection of claim 2 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 12, Mitsuoka discloses the motor vehicle of claim 9, including two said check valves, wherein one of the check valves is disposed upstream of the battery pack along the fluid pathway of the fuel line, and the other of the check valves is disposed downstream of battery pack. Refer to the rejection of claim 3 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 13, Mitsuoka discloses the motor vehicle of claim 12, wherein said one of the check valves is disposed between the battery pack and the internal combustion engine, and said other of the check valves is disposed between the battery pack and the fuel tank. Refer to the rejection of claim 3 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 14, Mitsuoka discloses the motor vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one check valve is proximate the battery pack. Refer to the rejection of claim 4 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 15, Mitsuoka discloses the motor vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one check valve is spaced a distance from the battery pack. Refer to the rejection of claim 5 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 16, Mitsuoka discloses a method of arresting propagation of a battery fire to a source of fuel in a hybrid electric vehicle, the method comprising: providing a first check valve in a fuel line of a hybrid electric vehicle, the fuel line defining a fluid pathway for fuel in a flow direction from a fuel tank to an internal combustion engine of the hybrid electric vehicle; and disposing the first check valve along the fluid pathway of the fuel line upstream of a battery pack of the hybrid electric vehicle, wherein the fuel line traverses a distance from the rear of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle and passes by the battery pack, a portion of the fuel line traverses across the vicinity of the battery pack, and the first check valve is disposed on a side of the battery pack along the fuel line that passes by the battery pack; wherein the first check valve allows flow of fuel in the flow direction but restricts flow of fuel in a direction opposite the flow direction, whereby the first check valve is a fire barrier that arrests propagation of fire along the fuel line towards fuel in the fuel tank and reduces a quantity of fuel exposed to a battery pack fire. . Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 17, Mitsuoka discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the first check valve is disposed between the battery pack and the fuel tank along the fluid pathway. Refer to the rejection of claim 2 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 18, Mitsuoka discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: providing a second check valve in the fuel line; disposing the first check between the battery pack and the fuel tank along the fluid pathway of the fuel line; and disposing the second check valve downstream of the battery pack along the fluid pathway of the fuel line and between the battery pack and the internal combustion engine. Refer to the rejection of claim 3 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 19, Mitsuoka discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the first check valve is one of: (i) proximate the battery pack; or (ii) spaced a distance from the battery pack. Refer to the rejection of claim 5 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 20, Mitsuoka discloses the method of claim 18, wherein each of the first check valve and the second check valve is one of: (i) proximate the battery pack; or (ii) spaced a distance from the battery pack. Refer to the rejection of claim 6 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the new 103 rejection in view of Mitsuoka. Examiner notes that Mitsuoka shows in figure 2 that the fuel tank is in the rear of the vehicle with the engine in the front and would conventionally allow for a fuel line to traverse from the rear to the front. With the check valve within the fuel tank, it is clear it would be upstream of the battery being somewhere within the vehicle. Furthermore, the portion of the fuel line being in “the vicinity” renders the claim indefinite. The fuel line would still pass a side of the battery pack.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
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 SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/SYED O HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights