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. BATTERY ARRANGEMENT WITH AN AIR SUPPLY DEVICE, MOTOR VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING AN AIR SUPPLY DEVICE Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/ 446,781 Art Unit: 1727 March 4 , 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on August 09 , 2023 has been received. Claims 1- 16 are currently pending and have been fully considered. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2 and 12 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. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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 , 7 and 10-1 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Englert (US 2017/0047627 A1) . As to Claim s 1 , 3, 7 and 10 -11 , Englert discloses a metal-air battery system , method of operating, and an electric vehicle comprising the same, wherein the battery system compris es : an air supply device 20 ; a housing 2 ; at least one battery cell 1 in said housing; an air supply line 15 as a part of the air supply device, fluidically coupled to the housing in order to supply air to the housing as an oxidizer for the battery ; wherein the air supply device has a control device 22 designed to control the supply of air to the housing depending on the at least one battery cell ( Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs [ 0017, 0078, 0082, 0084 -0085 , 0096] ). As to Claim 2, Englert discloses wherein the control device 22 is programmed to control the air flow (mass flow) of the incoming air based on the current electrical power requirement (operating state) of the battery (paragraph [0085]). In addition, t he control device is intrinsically structurally configured to perform the claimed functions given that the structure of the prior art and the claims are the same. The courts have held that f eatures of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ; and "[A] pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) , see MPEP 2114, I, II. As to Claim s 4 and 12 -13 , Englert discloses a filter 38 (cleaning device) provided in the air supply path to clean the air before it is fed to the housing (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0096]). As to Claims 5 and 14-16, Englert discloses an air discharge outlet 16 (reads on air discharge device) connected to the housing and configured to discharge at least part of the supplied air (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0082]) . 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert (US 2017/0047627 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0344076 A1) . As to Claim 6, Englert does not specifically disclose the claimed protective device. However , Park teaches of a metal-air battery, comprising an air discharge path having an electronically actuated valve or check valve 61 (protective device designed to prevent air from flowing into the housing) (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0063]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Englert to comprise the claimed protective device because Park teaches that the discharge flow can be controlled periodically and the direction of flow can be regulated (paragraph [0063]). Claim (s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert (US 2017/0047627 A1) in view of Stuckl et al. (US 2014/0193677 A1) . As to Claims 8-9, Englert does not specifically disclose the source of the supplied air. However, Stuckl teaches of a metal-air battery for a vehicle, wherein air is supplied to the battery from the ambient air outside of the vehicle without flowing through a ventilation system and/or from a cabin air inside the vehicle (paragraph [0047]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Englert to comprise an ambient air supply path and/or a cabin air supply path because Stuckl teaches that air can be supplied from various sources to a metal air battery used in a vehicle (paragraph [0047]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1330 . 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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727