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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended. Claims 9 and 18 are canceled. Claims 1-8 and 10-17 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 10 have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 17, 2026.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, 35 U.S.C. 103, and nonstatutory double patenting are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. New rejections follow.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the first and second ducts” in line 12 and “the first and second manifold” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted “each of the first and second ducts” as “the duct” and “the first and second manifold, respectively” as “the manifold”, referring to the “a duct” of line 10 and the “a manifold” of line 8, respectively. Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected because they depend upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Gerundt et al. (DE 102012212457 A1, machine translation relied upon herein, and hereinafter “Gerundt”).
Regarding claim 1, Nishiki discloses a hybrid vehicle ([0026] and Fig. 1, hybrid vehicle 10) comprising: an internal combustion engine in communication with an exhaust pipe for expelling exhaust gases generated during use of the internal combustion engine ([0026] and Fig. 2, engine 13 and exhaust gas pipe 14); an electric drive module ([0026], motor driven by electric power from battery cells 21); a battery pack including a plurality of batteries configured to provide electric power to the electric drive module ([0026] and Fig. 2, battery pack 11 and battery cells 21), the battery pack including a housing having a plurality of vents attached thereto for expelling battery exhaust gases ([0019], [0023], [0026], and see Annotated Fig. 2 below, housing defined by battery cells 21 and space 23 having exhaust holes 28); a manifold attached to the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from the plurality of vents ([0020] and [0023], and Fig. 2, generated gas discharged into space 27); and a duct that connects the manifold to the exhaust pipe and is configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the manifold to the exhaust pipe ([0023], [0026], and Fig. 2, smoke duct 12).
Nishiki does not disclose wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Gerundt discloses a receiving element 70 made of a non-conductive flexible woven material that is configured to inflate when absorbing gas ([0019], [0029], [0033], and Fig. 4).
Nishiki and Gerundt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery exhaust systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smoke duct of Nishiki with the teachings of Gerundt, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would minimize the volume of the receiving element when not in use, and prevent the battery cells from short circuiting when inflated (Gerundt [0013] and [0029]).
Nishiki Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
682
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nishiki further discloses wherein a non-return valve is located between the duct and the exhaust pipe ([0026] and Fig. 2, backflow prevention valve 31).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2015/0246650 A1, hereinafter “Nakajima”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 2. Nishiki does not disclose wherein the non-return valve is a one-way valve that is configured to open at a predetermined pressure.
Nakajima discloses wherein the non-return valve is a one-way valve that is configured to open at a predetermined pressure ([0065], [0068], and Fig. 6, exhaust valve 40 that is a check valve opens when the pressure in the housing case 3 becomes more than a predetermined pressure).
Nakajima is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of battery exhaust systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the non-return valve of modified Nishiki for the exhaust valve of Nakajima to yield the predictable result of preventing exhaust gas from flowing back into the smoke duct from the exhaust pipe, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of de Brouwer et al. (US 2023/0158979 A1, hereinafter “de Brouwer”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 2. Nishiki does not disclose wherein the non-return valve is an electrically operated valve.
De Brouwer discloses wherein the non-return valve is an electrically operated valve ([0076] and Fig. 6, shutter 518 positioned by actuator 409).
De Brouwer is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of battery exhaust systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the non-return valve of modified Nishiki for the shutter and actuator of de Brouwer to yield the predictable result of preventing exhaust gas from flowing back into the smoke duct from the exhaust pipe, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 4. Modified Nishiki does not disclose the hybrid vehicle further comprising a controller; and a sensor in communication with the battery pack, wherein the sensor is configured to generate either a signal indicative of a temperature within the battery pack or a signal indicative of a pressure within the battery pack; the controller is in communication with each of the non-return valve and the sensor; and based on the signal indicative of the temperature or the signal indicative of the pressure within the battery pack, the controller is configured to instruct the non-return valve to open.
De Brouwer discloses a controller ([0076], control unit 178); and a sensor in communication with the battery pack, wherein the sensor is configured to generate either a signal indicative of a temperature within the battery pack or a signal indicative of a pressure within the battery pack ([0073]-[0074], sensor system 176 with a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor that measures the pressure and temperature inside enclosure 154a-c); the controller is in communication with each of the non-return valve and the sensor ([0073]-[0074] and [0076], control unit 178 receives measurements from sensors and commands actuator 509); and based on the signal indicative of the temperature or the signal indicative of the pressure within the battery pack, the controller is configured to instruct the non-return valve to open ([0076], control unit 178 commands actuator 509 to open shutter 518 when a problem is detected in enclosure 154a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid vehicle of modified Nishiki with the teachings of de Brouwer using known methods to yield the predictable result of controlling the electrically operated valve, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). In addition, doing so would allow the controller to reduce overpressure caused by a battery by opening the shutters (de Brouwer [0076]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leffert et al. (US 2022/0102692 A1, hereinafter “Leffert”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nishiki does not disclose wherein the manifold includes a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the manifold to intermix with the battery exhaust gases.
Leffert discloses a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the manifold to intermix with the battery exhaust gases ([0019], [0021], and Fig. 2, ambient air drawn through one-way valves 32 in air inlet passages 30).
Leffert is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of battery exhaust systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manifold of modified Nishiki with the teachings of Leffert, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would cool the discharged gas by mixing with air, directing the mixture towards the outlet pipe and away from occupants, first responders, and vehicle components (Leffert [0021] and [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 6. Modified Nishiki further discloses wherein the plurality of cooling vents are defined by a plurality of apertures formed in a panel of the manifold (Leffert [0021] and Fig. 2, air inlet passages 30).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coppola et al. (US 2024/0413476 A1, filed June 8, 2023, and hereinafter “Coppola”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nishiki does not disclose wherein the manifold includes a deflector section attached to the housing of the battery pack, and a conduit section that directs the battery exhaust gases to the duct.
Coppola discloses wherein the manifold includes a deflector section attached to the housing of the battery pack ([0034]-[0035] and Figs. 1, 2, and 7, channel array 26 including ribs 36 connected to housing 12), and a conduit section that directs the battery exhaust gases to the duct ([0034]-[0035] and Figs. 2 and 7, channels 34 for communicating gases from the battery cells 20 to the outlet port 32).
Coppola is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of battery exhaust systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manifold of modified Nishiki with the teachings of Coppola, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would guide the battery cell gases to the outlet port, and create a longer gas travel path that reduces gas temperature (Coppola [0035]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Zhang (US 2024/0198818 A1, filed December 19, 2022) and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nishiki discloses a hybrid vehicle ([0026] and Fig. 1, hybrid vehicle 10) comprising: an internal combustion engine in communication with an exhaust pipe for expelling exhaust gases generated during use of the internal combustion engine ([0026] and Fig. 2, engine 13 and exhaust gas pipe 14); an electric drive module ([0026], motor driven by electric power from battery cells 21); a battery pack including a plurality of batteries configured to provide electric power to the electric drive module ([0026] and Fig. 2, battery pack 11 and battery cells 21), the battery pack including a housing having a plurality of vents attached thereto for expelling battery exhaust gases ([0019], [0023], [0026], and see Annotated Fig. 2 above, housing defined by battery cells 21 and space 23 having exhaust holes 28); a first manifold attached to a first end of the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from at least one of the plurality of vents located at the first end of the housing ([0020] and [0023], and Fig. 2, generated gas discharged into space 27); and a first duct that connect is connected to the first manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the first duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the first manifold to the exhaust pipe ([0023], [0026], and Fig. 2, smoke duct 12).
Nishiki does not disclose a second manifold attached to an opposite second end of the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from at least one of the plurality of vents at the opposite second of the housing; and a second duct that connect is connected to the second manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the second duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the second manifold to the exhaust pipe, wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Zhang discloses a first manifold attached to a first end of the housing and a second manifold attached to an opposite second end of the housing ([0040]-[0041] and Fig. 3, first exhaust manifold 62 and second exhaust manifold 70).
Zhang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of battery exhaust systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid vehicle of Nishiki with the teachings of Zhang, such that the hybrid vehicle is provided with a second manifold attached to an opposite second end of the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from at least one of the plurality of vents at the opposite second of the housing; and a second duct that connect is connected to the second manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the second duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the second manifold to the exhaust pipe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, which would increase thermal energy transfer surface area and flow mixing volume, preventing high temperature vent gas from flowing over battery cells (Zhang [0054] and [0056]). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Modified Nishiki does not disclose wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Gerundt discloses a receiving element 70 made of a non-conductive flexible woven material that is configured to inflate when absorbing gas ([0019], [0029], [0033], and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smoke duct of modified Nishiki with the teachings of Gerundt, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would minimize the volume of the receiving element when not in use, and prevent the battery cells from short circuiting when inflated (Gerundt [0013] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 10. Nishiki further discloses wherein a first non-return valve is located between the first duct and the exhaust pipe and a second non-return valve is located between the second duct and the exhaust pipe ([0026] and Fig. 2, backflow prevention valve 31).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Zhang (US 2024/0198818 A1) and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Nakajima (US 2015/0246650 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 11. Nishiki does not disclose wherein the non-return valves are each a one-way valve that is configured to open at a predetermined pressure.
Nakajima discloses wherein a non-return valve is a one-way valve that is configured to open at a predetermined pressure ([0065], [0068], and Fig. 6, exhaust valve 40 that is a check valve opens when the pressure in the housing case 3 becomes more than a predetermined pressure).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the non-return valves of modified Nishiki for the exhaust valve of Nakajima to yield the predictable result of preventing exhaust gas from flowing back into the smoke duct from the exhaust pipe, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Zhang (US 2024/0198818 A1), Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1), and Nakajima (US 2015/0246650 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of de Brouwer (US 2023/0158979 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 12. Nishiki does not disclose wherein the non-return valves are each electrically operated valves.
De Brouwer discloses wherein a non-return valve is an electrically operated valve ([0076] and Fig. 6, shutter 518 positioned by actuator 409 commanded by control unit 178).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-return valve of modified Nishiki with the teachings of de Brouwer according to known methods to yield the predictable result of electrically operating the non-return valves to open at a predetermined pressure, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 13. Modified Nishiki discloses the hybrid vehicle further comprising a controller (de Brouwer [0076], control unit 178), but does not disclose a sensor in communication with the battery pack, wherein the sensor is configured to generate either a signal indicative of a temperature within the battery pack or a signal indicative of a pressure within the battery pack; the controller is in communication with each of the first and second non-return valves and the sensor; and based on the signal indicative of the temperature or the signal indicative of the pressure within the battery pack, the controller is configured to instruct the first and second non-return valves to open.
De Brouwer discloses a sensor in communication with the battery pack, wherein the sensor is configured to generate either a signal indicative of a temperature within the battery pack or a signal indicative of a pressure within the battery pack ([0073]-[0074], sensor system 176 with a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor that measures the pressure and temperature inside enclosure 154a-c); the controller is in communication with each of a non-return valve and the sensor ([0073]-[0074] and [0076], control unit 178 receives measurements from sensors and commands actuator 509); and based on the signal indicative of the temperature or the signal indicative of the pressure within the battery pack, the controller is configured to instruct the non-return valve to open ([0076], control unit 178 commands actuator 509 to open shutter 518 when a problem is detected in enclosure 154a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid vehicle of modified Nishiki with the teachings of de Brouwer using known methods to yield the predictable result of controlling the electrically operated valves, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). In addition, doing so would allow the controller to reduce overpressure caused by a battery by opening the shutters (de Brouwer [0076]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Zhang (US 2024/0198818 A1) and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Leffert (US 2022/0102692 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 10. Nishiki does not disclose wherein at least one of the first manifold and the second manifold includes a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the at least one of the first manifold and the second manifold to intermix with the battery exhaust gases.
Leffert discloses a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the manifold to intermix with the battery exhaust gases ([0019], [0021], and Fig. 2, ambient air drawn through one-way valves 32 in air inlet passages 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second manifolds of modified Nishiki with the teachings of Leffert, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would cool the discharged gas by mixing with air, directing the mixture towards the outlet pipe and away from occupants, first responders, and vehicle components (Leffert [0021] and [0024]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 15. Modified Nishiki further discloses wherein the plurality of cooling vents are defined by a plurality of apertures formed in a panel of the first manifold or the second manifold (Leffert [0021] and Fig. 2, air inlet passages 30).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) in view of Zhang (US 2024/0198818 A1) and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Coppola (US 2024/0413476 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nishiki discloses the limitations of claim 10. Nishiki does not disclose wherein each of the first and second manifolds includes a deflector section attached to the housing of the battery pack, and a conduit section that directs the battery exhaust gases to the first duct and the second duct, respectively.
Coppola discloses wherein a manifold includes a deflector section attached to the housing of the battery pack ([0034]-[0035] and Figs. 1, 2, and 7, channel array 26 including ribs 36 connected to housing 12), and a conduit section that directs the battery exhaust gases to the duct ([0034]-[0035] and Figs. 2 and 7, channels 34 for communicating gases from the battery cells 20 to the outlet port 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second manifolds of modified Nishiki with the teachings of Coppola, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would guide the battery cell gases to the outlet port, and create a longer gas travel path that reduces gas temperature (Coppola [0035]).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/449,777 in view of Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1).
Claim 1 of the instant application claims a hybrid vehicle comprising: an internal combustion engine in communication with an exhaust pipe for expelling exhaust gases generated during use of the internal combustion engine; an electric drive module; a battery pack including a plurality of batteries configured to provide electric power to the electric drive module, the battery pack including a housing having a plurality of vents attached thereto for expelling battery exhaust gases; a manifold attached to the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from the plurality of vents; and a duct that connects the manifold to the exhaust pipe and is configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the manifold to the exhaust pipe, wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Claim 1 of the reference application claims a vehicle comprising: a battery pack including a housing and a plurality of battery cells positioned in the housing, the housing including at least one discharge vent configured to discharge gases generated by the battery cells from the housing; and a manifold attached to the housing and configured for receipt of the gases generated by the battery cells from the at least one vent. Claim 1 of the reference application does not claim that the vehicle is a hybrid vehicle, an internal combustion engine in communication with an exhaust pipe for expelling exhaust gases generated during use of the internal combustion engine; an electric drive module; and a duct that connects the manifold to the exhaust pipe and is configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the manifold to the exhaust pipe, wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Nishiki discloses that the vehicle is a hybrid vehicle ([0026] and Fig. 1, hybrid vehicle 10), an internal combustion engine in communication with an exhaust pipe for expelling exhaust gases generated during use of the internal combustion engine ([0026] and Fig. 2, engine 13 and exhaust gas pipe 14); an electric drive module ([0026], motor driven by electric power from battery cells 21); and a duct that connects the manifold to the exhaust pipe and is configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the manifold to the exhaust pipe ([0026] and Fig. 2, smoke duct 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of the reference application with the teachings of Nishiki according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a hybrid vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine and a motor driven by the battery pack of the reference application, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The modified reference application does not claim wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Gerundt discloses a receiving element 70 made of a non-conductive flexible woven material that is configured to inflate when absorbing gas ([0019], [0029], [0033], and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smoke duct of the modified reference application with the teachings of Gerundt, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would minimize the volume of the receiving element when not in use, and prevent the battery cells from short circuiting when inflated (Gerundt [0013] and [0029]).
Claim 2 of the instant application claims the hybrid vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a non-return valve is located between the duct and the exhaust pipe.
The modified reference application does not claim wherein a non-return valve is located between the duct and the exhaust pipe.
Nishiki discloses wherein a non-return valve is located between the duct and the exhaust pipe ([0021] and Fig. 2, backflow prevention valve 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid vehicle of the modified reference application with the teachings of Nishiki, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would prevent exhaust gas from flowing back into the battery pack, ensuring the reliability of the battery cell (Nishiki [0021]).
Claim 6 of the instant application claims the hybrid vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the manifold includes a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the manifold to intermix with the battery exhaust gases.
Claim 1 of the reference application further claims wherein the manifold includes a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the manifold to intermix with the gases generated by the battery cells.
Claim 7 of the instant application claims the hybrid vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of cooling vents are defined by a plurality of apertures formed in a panel of the manifold.
Claim 2 of the reference application further claims wherein the cooling vents each include an aperture, the aperture configured to permit the ambient air to enter the manifold.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/449,777 in view of Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to instant application claim 2 above, and further in view of Nakajima (US 2015/0246650 A1).
Claim 3 of the instant application claims the hybrid vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the non-return valve is a one-way valve that is configured to open at a predetermined pressure.
The modified reference application does not claim wherein a non-return valve is located between the duct and the exhaust pipe.
Nakajima discloses wherein the non-return valve is a one-way valve that is configured to open at a predetermined pressure ([0065], [0068], and Fig. 6, exhaust valve 40 that is a check valve opens when the pressure in the housing case 3 becomes more than a predetermined pressure).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the non-return valve of the modified reference application for the exhaust valve of Nakajima to yield the predictable result of preventing exhaust gas from flowing back into the smoke duct from the exhaust pipe, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 4-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/449,777 in view of Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to instant application claim 2 above, and further in view of de Brouwer (US 2023/0158979 A1).
Claim 4 of the instant application claims the hybrid vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the non-return valve is an electrically operated valve.
The modified reference application does not claim wherein the non-return valve is an electrically operated valve.
De Brouwer discloses wherein the non-return valve is an electrically operated valve ([0076] and Fig. 6, shutter 518 positioned by actuator 409).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the non-return valve of the modified reference application for the shutter and actuator of de Brouwer to yield the predictable result of preventing exhaust gas from flowing back into the smoke duct from the exhaust pipe, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 5 of the instant application claims the hybrid vehicle according to claim 4, further comprising a controller; and a sensor in communication with the battery pack, wherein the sensor is configured to generate either a signal indicative of a temperature within the battery pack or a signal indicative of a pressure within the battery pack; the controller is in communication with each of the non-return valve and the sensor; and based on the signal indicative of the temperature or the signal indicative of the pressure within the battery pack, the controller is configured to instruct the non-return valve to open.
The modified reference application does not claim the vehicle further comprising a controller; and a sensor in communication with the battery pack, wherein the sensor is configured to generate either a signal indicative of a temperature within the battery pack or a signal indicative of a pressure within the battery pack; the controller is in communication with each of the non-return valve and the sensor; and based on the signal indicative of the temperature or the signal indicative of the pressure within the battery pack, the controller is configured to instruct the non-return valve to open.
De Brouwer discloses a controller ([0076], control unit 178); and a sensor in communication with the battery pack, wherein the sensor is configured to generate either a signal indicative of a temperature within the battery pack or a signal indicative of a pressure within the battery pack ([0073]-[0074], sensor system 176 with a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor that measures the pressure and temperature inside enclosure 154a-c); the controller is in communication with each of the non-return valve and the sensor ([0073]-[0074] and [0076], control unit 178 receives measurements from sensors and commands actuator 509); and based on the signal indicative of the temperature or the signal indicative of the pressure within the battery pack, the controller is configured to instruct the non-return valve to open ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid vehicle of the modified reference application with the teachings of de Brouwer using known methods to yield the predictable result of controlling the electrically operated valve, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). In addition, doing so would allow the controller to reduce overpressure caused by a battery by opening the shutters (de Brouwer [0076]).
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/449,777 in view of Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A) and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1) as applied to instant application claim 1 above, and further in view of Coppola (US 2024/0413476 A1).
Claim 8 of the instant application claims the hybrid vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the manifold includes a deflector section attached to the housing of the battery pack, and a conduit section that directs the battery exhaust gases to the duct.
The modified reference application does not claim wherein the manifold includes a deflector section attached to the housing of the battery pack, and a conduit section that directs the battery exhaust gases to the duct.
Coppola discloses wherein the manifold includes a deflector section attached to the housing of the battery pack ([0034]-[0035] and Figs. 1, 2, and 7, channel array 26 including ribs 36 connected to housing 12), and a conduit section that directs the battery exhaust gases to the duct ([0034]-[0035] and Figs. 2 and 7, channels 34 for communicating gases from the battery cells 20 to the outlet port 32).
Coppola is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of battery exhaust systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manifold of the modified reference application with the teachings of Coppola, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would guide the battery cell gases to the outlet port, and create a longer gas travel path that reduces gas temperature (Coppola [0035]).
Claims 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/449,777 in view of Nishiki (JP 2006182264 A), Zhang (US 2024/0198818 A1), and Gerundt (DE 102012212457 A1).
Claim 10 of the instant application claims a hybrid vehicle comprising: an internal combustion engine in communication with an exhaust pipe for expelling exhaust gases generated during use of the internal combustion engine; an electric drive module; a battery pack including a plurality of batteries configured to provide electric power to the electric drive module, the battery pack including a housing having a plurality of vents attached thereto for expelling battery exhaust gases; a first manifold attached to a first end of the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from at least one of the plurality of vents located at the first end of the housing; a second manifold attached to an opposite second end of the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from at least one of the plurality of vents at the opposite second of the housing; a first duct that connect is connected to the first manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the first duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the first manifold to the exhaust pipe; and a second duct that connect is connected to the second manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the second duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the second manifold to the exhaust pipe.
Claim 1 of the reference application claims a vehicle comprising: a battery pack including a housing and a plurality of battery cells positioned in the housing, the housing including at least one discharge vent configured to discharge gases generated by the battery cells from the housing; and a manifold attached to the housing and configured for receipt of the gases generated by the battery cells from the at least one vent. Claim 1 of the reference application does not claim that the vehicle is a hybrid vehicle, an internal combustion engine in communication with an exhaust pipe for expelling exhaust gases generated during use of the internal combustion engine; an electric drive module; a second manifold attached to an opposite second end of the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from at least one of the plurality of vents at the opposite second of the housing; a first duct that connect is connected to the first manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the first duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the first manifold to the exhaust pipe; and a second duct that connect is connected to the second manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the second duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the second manifold to the exhaust pipe, wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Nishiki discloses that the vehicle is a hybrid vehicle ([0026] and Fig. 1, hybrid vehicle 10), an internal combustion engine in communication with an exhaust pipe for expelling exhaust gases generated during use of the internal combustion engine ([0026] and Fig. 2, engine 13 and exhaust gas pipe 14); an electric drive module ([0026], motor driven by electric power from battery cells 21); and a first duct that connect is connected to the first manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the first duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the first manifold to the exhaust pipe ([0026] and Fig. 2, smoke duct 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of the reference application with the teachings of Nishiki according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a hybrid vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine and a motor driven by the battery pack of the reference application, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The modified reference application does not claim a second manifold attached to an opposite second end of the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from at least one of the plurality of vents at the opposite second of the housing; and a second duct that connect is connected to the second manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the second duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the second manifold to the exhaust pipe, wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Zhang discloses a first manifold attached to a first end of the housing and a second manifold attached to an opposite second end of the housing ([0040]-[0041] and Fig. 3, first exhaust manifold 62 and second exhaust manifold 70).
Zhang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of battery exhaust systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid vehicle of the modified reference application with the teachings of Zhang, such that the hybrid vehicle is provided with a second manifold attached to an opposite second end of the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from at least one of the plurality of vents at the opposite second of the housing; and a second duct that connect is connected to the second manifold and to the exhaust pipe, the second duct being configured to direct the battery exhaust gases in the second manifold to the exhaust pipe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, which would increase thermal energy transfer surface area and flow mixing volume, preventing high temperature vent gas from flowing over battery cells (Zhang [0054] and [0056]). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)).
The modified reference application does not claim wherein each of the first and second ducts is formed of a flexible woven material that is configured to inflate upon receipt of the battery exhaust gases from the first and second manifold, respectively.
Gerundt discloses a receiving element 70 made of a non-conductive flexible woven material that is configured to inflate when absorbing gas ([0019], [0029], [0033], and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smoke duct of the modified reference application with the teachings of Gerundt, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would minimize the volume of the receiving element when not in use, and prevent the battery cells from short circuiting when inflated (Gerundt [0013] and [0029]).
Claim 11 of the instant application claims the hybrid vehicle according to claim 10, wherein a non-return valve is located between the duct and the exhaust pipe.
The modified reference application does not claim wherein a non-return valve is located between the duct and the exhaust pipe.
Nishiki discloses wherein a non-return valve is located between the duct and the exhaust pipe ([0021] and Fig. 2, backflow prevention valve 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid vehicle of the modified reference application with the teachings of Nishiki, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would prevent exhaust gas from flowing back into the battery pack, ensuring the reliability of the battery cell (Nishiki [0021]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct
claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:45AM to 4:45PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 31 July 2026
Prosecution Insights