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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuoka (U.S. Publication 2016/0348623), hereinafter “Mitsuoka”.
Regarding claim 1, Mitsuoka discloses 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); 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. Examiner notes that the check valve has the capability to arrest propagation of fire.
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 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; at least one check valve disposed in the fuel line along the fluid pathway; 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 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; 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 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 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.
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) 2-4, 6-7, 11-14, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuoka.
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 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 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 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
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 2/4/2026