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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 1-3, 10, 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeder et al. (US PG PUB NO 2022/0355138) in view of Klucsarits et al. (US PG PUB NO 2019/0225071).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Baeder discloses an electrified vehicle comprising a chassis (Baeder, FIG 2); a body (Baeder, FIG 2) coupled to the chassis and including a battery enclosure (Baeder, FIG 2) supported by the chassis, the battery enclosure defining an internal volume (Baeder, FIG 2); a battery disposed (Baeder, FIG 2) within the internal volume; and a flood port (24) positioned and accessible from an exterior of the electrified vehicle (Baeder, FIG 2), the flood port being in direct or indirect fluid communication with the internal volume (Baeder, FIG 2 illustrates direct communication), the flood port configured to receive a fluid from a fluid source (Baeder, paragraph [0005] discloses agent supply device) and supply the fluid to the internal volume to cool the battery; and a conduit (26) extending from the flood port to the battery enclosure (Baeder, FIG 2).
-However, it fails to disclose a cab and a rear section positioned rearward of the cab; a pump house positioned between the cab and the rear section; wherein the flood port is within the pump house.
-Nevertheless, Klucsarits discloses a safety vehicle with: a chassis (Klucsarits, FIG 1); a body (Klucsarits, FIG 1) coupled to the chassis and including a cab (Klucsarits, FIG 1) and a rear section (Klucsarits, FIG 1)positioned rearward of the cab; a pump house(Klucsarits, FIG 1, enclosed body near the mechanical room at 19-20) positioned between the cab and the rear section (Klucsarits discloses the mechanical system behind the cab and forward of the rearend of the body).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Baeder for use on a safety vehicle having electric systems that require a fluid cooled battery as taught by Klucsarits with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the utility of Baeder for fire suppression on different vehicles.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
716
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Baeder/Klucsarits teach the electrified vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the flood port is positioned along the battery enclosure (Baeder FIG 2 illustrates the line 28 extending along and internal to the battery enclosure).
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Baeder/Klucsarits teach the electrified vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the flood port is accessible through a body panel of the body (Baeder FIG 2).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Baeder/Klucsarits teach the electrified vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the flood port is a first flood port and the conduit is a first conduit, further comprising: at least one of (a) a valve coupled to the first flood port and the first conduit (Baeder, paragraph [0014] discloses a closable valve for use in the suppressant delivery e.g. flood port and conduit) or (b) a second flood port accessible from the exterior of the electrified vehicle.
-However, Baeder/Klucsarits fail to disclose a second conduit extending from the at least one of the valve or the second flood port to a compartment of the rear section.
-Nevertheless, a second conduit integrated with the valve (or an additional valve) is a duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Baeder/Klucsarits to have plural suppressant flood lines/conduits and housed in the vehicle rear with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce battery cooling time and improve access with housing near the mechanical components.
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Baeder discloses an electrified vehicle comprising: a chassis (Baeder, FIG 2); a battery enclosure (Baeder, FIG 2) supported by the chassis, the battery enclosure defining an internal volume (Baeder, FIG 2); a battery (Baeder, FIG 2) disposed within the internal volume; a flood port (24) positioned and accessible from an exterior of the electrified vehicle (Baeder, FIG 2); and a conduit (28) extending from the flood port to at least one of (a) the internal volume of the battery enclosure (Baeder, FIG 2) or (b) the compartment of the rear section;
wherein the flood port is configured to receive a fluid from a fluid source to facilitate supplying the fluid to the at least one of (a) the internal volume of the battery enclosure (Baeder provides a flood of suppressant to the battery) or (b) the compartment of the rear section.
-However, it fails to disclose a cab coupled to the chassis; a rear section coupled to the chassis, the rear section positioned rearward of the cab, the rear section defining a compartment; a pump house positioned between the cab and the rear section.
-Nevertheless, Klucsarits discloses a cab (Klucsarits, FIG 1) coupled to the chassis; a rear section (Klucsarits, FIG 1) coupled to the chassis, the rear section positioned rearward of the cab (Klucsarits, FIG 1), the rear section defining a compartment (Klucsarits, FIG 1); a pump house (Mechanical area housing pump 19 in FIG 1 of Klucsarits) positioned between the cab and the rear section (The pump area 19 is rearward of the cab and forward of the vehicle rear end).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Baeder for use on a safety vehicle having electric systems that require a fluid cooled battery as taught by Klucsarits with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the utility of Baeder for fire suppression on different vehicles where the flood port is installed on the pump house area of Klucsarits.
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Baeder/Klucsarits teach the electrified vehicle of Claim 12, wherein the conduit is a first conduit extending from the flood port to the internal volume of the battery enclosure (Baeder, FIG 2).
-However, they fail to disclose further comprising: a second conduit extending from the flood port to the compartment of the rear section.
-Nevertheless, a second conduit integrated with the valve (or another valve) is a duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Baeder/Klucsarits to have plural suppressant flood lines/conduits and housed in the vehicle rear with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce battery cooling time and improve access with housing near the mechanical components.
-Regarding a valve positioned between (a) the flood port and (b) the first conduit and the second conduit (Baeder, paragraph [0014] discloses a closable valve for use in the suppressant delivery e.g. flood port and conduit and placed with access for service and inspection).
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, Baeder/Klucsarits teach the electrified vehicle of Claim 12, wherein the flood port is a first flood port and the conduit is a first conduit extending from the flood port to the internal volume of the battery enclosure (Baeder, FIG 2.),
-However, they fail to disclose a second flood port accessible from the exterior of the electrified vehicle; and a second conduit extending from the second flood port to the compartment of the rear section.
-Nevertheless, an additional port and conduit is a duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Baeder/Klucsarits to have plural suppressant flood lines/conduits and supply ports with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce battery cooling time and improve access with housing near the mechanical components.
2. Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeder et al. (US PG PUB NO 2022/0355138) in view of Klucsarits et al. (US PG PUB NO 2019/0225071) in view of Zeweke et al. (US PG PUB NO 2009/0205846).
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Baeder/Klucsarits teach the electrified vehicle of Claim 10.
-However, Baeder/Klucsarits fail to disclose further comprising an on-board agent distribution system coupled to the second conduit wherein the on-board agent distribution system is configured to provide a fire-fighting agent to the fluid flowing through the second conduit.
-Nevertheless, Zeweke discloses an on-board system 10 for thermal control using a storage tank 50 to provide suppressant and using the conduit/line(s) of Baeder.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Baeder/Klucsarits to have on-board suppressant as taught by Zeweke with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce on-vehicle thermal events related to the electric delivery/storage system.
PNG
media_image3.png
622
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Baeder/Klucsarits teach the electrified vehicle of Claim 12.
-However, Baeder/Klucsarits fail to disclose further comprising an on-board agent distribution system coupled to the second conduit wherein the on-board agent distribution system is configured to provide a fire-fighting agent to the fluid flowing through the second conduit.
-Nevertheless, Zeweke discloses an on-board system 10 for thermal control using a storage tank 50 to provide suppressant and using the conduit/line(s) of Baeder.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Baeder/Klucsarits to have on-board suppressant as taught by Zeweke with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce on-vehicle thermal events related to the electric delivery/storage system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC BURGESS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights