DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on January 26th, 2026 for application no. 18/501,654 filed on November 3rd, 2023. Claims 1-8, 13-15, 17-18 and 21-25 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 13 and 17-18 are amended, claims 21-25 are new, and claims 9-12, 16 and 19-20 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 6th, 2026; January 26th, 2026; February 3rd, 2026; and March 3rd, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections/rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 21 (line 3), please change the recitation of “a rack coupled to the chassis” to - - a rack coupled to [[the]] a chassis - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 21 (line 8), please change the recitation of “an operational characteristic of the electrified fire fighting vehicle” to - - an operational characteristic of the electrified
Regarding Claim 21 (line 10), please change the recitation of “the operational characteristic of the electrified fire fighting vehicle” to - - the operational characteristic of the electrified
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 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.
Claims 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pike (US 7,661,370).
Regarding Claim 13, Pike teaches an electrified fire fighting vehicle (Fig. 1, 100;
see MPEP 2111.02(II) - Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use) comprising:
an energy storage system (Fig. 2, at least “chimney vent” 245, “wall” 206, “vertical fire wall” 205 and “cells” 204) including:
a rack (206, 205) having a left portion (left portion of 206, 205), a right portion (right portion of 206, 205), and a center portion (center portion of 206, 205);
a first battery (left 204) disposed within the rack left portion (left portion of 206, 205);
a second battery (right 204) disposed within the right portion (right portion of 204);
a power distribution unit (unreferenced by numeral in Fig. 2; see col. 17, line 44 passage below) disposed within the center portion (see Fig. 2) and coupled to the first battery (left 204) and the second battery (right 204; col. 17, line 44 – “FIG. 16 shows the retention features of the cells to the battery cell tray. In this example, there are four cells per row. The tray comprises a retaining bracket at the four inner corners of the four cells in each tray that is attached to the tray by a rod that is threaded into the base of the tray. Additional retention of the battery cells is provided by the battery rack doors shown in FIG. 13. Also the electrical cabling connecting the batteries to each other and the copper bus bars running from each tray set of batteries to the next tray set of batteries through a slot in the battery rack partition provide a supplemental retention shown in FIG. 16”); and
at least one of:
(a) an exhaust (245) extending from the rack (206, 205) above the energy storage system (at least 245, 206, 205, 204); or
(b) a fan (“fan” 211) disposed within the center portion of the rack (206, 205) or the exhaust (245), the fan (211) configured to drive hot air out of the rack (206, 205).
Regarding Claim 17, Pike teaches the electrified fire fighting vehicle of Claim 13,
wherein the energy storage system (Fig. 2, at least 245, 206, 205, 204) includes the exhaust (245) and the fan (211), and
wherein the fan (211) is disposed within the exhaust (245).
Regarding Claim 18, Pike teaches the electrified fire fighting vehicle of Claim 13,
further comprising the fan (Fig. 2, 211),
wherein the fan (211) is disposed within the center portion (center portion of 206, 205).
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, 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.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2017/0136864), in view of Lee (US 2023/0327277). Ito was cited on the IDS filed January 6th, 2026.
Regarding Claim 13, Ito teaches an electrified fire fighting vehicle (see Fig. 2) comprising:
an energy storage system (Fig. 1, “battery pack” 6) including:
a rack (“battery case” 60) having a left portion (left side of 60), a right portion (right side of 60), and a center portion (center portion of 60);
a first battery (left “multiple battery modules” 6a) disposed within the rack left portion (left side of 60);
a second battery (right 6a) disposed within the right portion (right side of 60);
a power distribution unit (“electric unit” 68) disposed within the center portion (center of 60) and coupled to the first battery (left 6a) and the second battery (right 6a; see Fig. 1); and
at least one of:
(a) an exhaust extending from the rack above the power distribution unit; or
(b) a fan (“circulation fan” 69) disposed within the center portion of the rack (60) or the exhaust.
Ito does not teach “(a) an exhaust extending from the rack above the power distribution unit; or…the fan configured to drive hot air out of the rack”. In other words, Ito fails to teach an exhaust vent.
Lee teaches an exhaust vent (Fig. 8, “venting part” 910) extending from a battery rack (“module frame” 200) above a center of the rack (200; [0072] – “venting part 910 can discharge high-temperature heat, gas, and flame inside the battery module toward the upper side of the battery module, thereby minimizing damage to other battery modules arranged by abutting the end plate. However, since the discharge port 912 is formed toward the upward direction, foreign substances in the air can enter the outlet 912 due to gravity. Thus, the connection part 913 can be formed in a direction perpendicular to the discharge port 912, thereby minimizing a phenomenon in which foreign substances flown into the discharge port 912 are flown into the battery module through the inflow port 911”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery rack taught by Ito with the exhaust vent taught by Lee, such that “(a) an exhaust extending from the rack above the power distribution unit; or…the fan configured to drive hot air out of the rack”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of discharging high temperature heat from the battery rack taught by Ito.
Regarding Claim 18, Ito and Lee teach the electrified fire fighting vehicle of Claim 13,
Ito teaches further comprising the fan (Fig. 1, 69),
wherein the fan (69) is disposed within the center portion (center portion of 60).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2017/0136864), in view of Lee (US 2023/0327277), in view of Anazawa (US 6,094,927), and in view of Cai (CN 109 980 838). See translation provided to Applicant with the Office Action mailed December 29th, 2025.
Regarding Claim 14, Ito and Lee teach the electrified fire fighting vehicle of Claim 13, Ito teaches further comprising:
a chassis (Figs. 2-3, “vehicle body frame” 20) defining a longitudinal length (see Figs. 2-3),
wherein the energy storage system (60) is positioned at a first location (see Figs. 2-3) along the longitudinal length (see Figs. 2-3);
a high voltage component (“corresponding motor” 4) positioned at a second location (see Figs. 2-3) along the longitudinal length (see Figs. 2-3).
Ito or Lee do not teach “a raceway assembly including: a conduit; and a high voltage cable providing power between the first location and the second location; wherein at least a portion of the high voltage cable is routed through the conduit”. However, Ito does suggest “an electric work vehicle that includes a left motor and a right motor that receive a supply of power from a battery pack” [0019].
Anazawa teaches a raceway assembly (see Fig. 4; col. 3, line 43 – “outline of the arrangement of a drive system and a control system for the electric vehicle V will now be described with reference to FIG. 4. In FIG. 4, thick solid lines indicate high-voltage and high current lines; medium solid lines indicate high-voltage and medium-current lines; thin solid lines indicate low-voltage and low-current lines; and arrowed dashed lines indicate signal lines” emphasis added) including:
a high voltage cable (see Fig. 4; “thick solid lines”) providing power between a battery pack (“batteries” 10) at a first location (see Fig. 4) and an electric propulsion motor (“motor” 5) at a second location (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery rack (i.e., a portion of the recited “energy storage system”) and the electric propulsion motor (i.e., the recited “high voltage component”) taught by Ito with the raceway assembly taught by Anazawa, such that “a raceway assembly including:…a high voltage cable providing power between the first location and the second location”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of reliably powering the electric propulsion motor (i.e., the recited “high voltage component”) taught by Ito.
Ito, Lee or Anazawa do not teach “a raceway assembly including: a conduit…wherein at least a portion of the high voltage cable is routed through the conduit”. In other words, the wiring harness taught by Anazawa does not explicitly disclose a protective conduit layer.
Cai teaches a raceway assembly (see Figs. 1-3; [0035] – “heat-conducting motor lead wire harness”) including:
a conduit (“breathing box” 5 and “sheath layer” 2; [0035] – “The two ends of the breathing box are mounted with posts 17 that are injection molded into the sheath layer”),
wherein at least a portion of a high voltage cable (“conductor” 3) is routed through the conduit (5, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the raceway assembly taught by Anazawa with the conduit taught by Cai, such that “a raceway assembly including: a conduit…wherein at least a portion of the high voltage cable is routed through the conduit”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of protecting the high voltage cable taught by Anazawa.
Regarding Claim 15, Ito, Lee, Anazawa and Cai teach the electrified fire fighting vehicle of Claim 14,
Ito, Lee or Anazawa do not teach “wherein, to facilitate thermally regulating the high voltage cable, at least one of (a) the conduit defines a plurality of vents, (b) the raceway assembly includes a cooling element disposed within the conduit; or (c) the conduit comprises a thermally conductive element”.
Cai teaches wherein, to facilitate thermally regulating the high voltage cable (Figs. 1-3; 3), at least one of
(a) the conduit (5, 2) defines a plurality of vents (“breathing hole” 7 and “breathing box” 18),
(b) the raceway assembly includes a cooling element (“duct” 4) disposed within the conduit (5, 2; [0019] – “This invention, through an air duct and a breathing box, allows for the continuous exchange of hot and cold air, much like human breathing, effectively solving the problem of temperature rise inside the motor housing under load”); or
(c) the conduit (5, 2) comprises a thermally conductive element ([0035] – “heat-conducting motor lead wire harness”).
Cai also teaches “Because motors are used in harsh environments and are prone to water ingress or other corrosion, the connection points of the motor housing are usually sealed to form a closed cavity. However, since a lot of heat is generated during the operation of the motor, the closed cavity does not easily dissipate the heat, which affects the performance of the motor” [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the raceway assembly taught by Anazawa with the thermal regulating features taught by Cai, such that “wherein, to facilitate thermally regulating the high voltage cable, at least one of (a) the conduit defines a plurality of vents, (b) the raceway assembly includes a cooling element disposed within the conduit; or (c) the conduit comprises a thermally conductive element”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of dissipating heat generated in the electric propulsion motor raceway assembly taught by Anazawa.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pike (US 7,661,370), in view of Park (KR 10-0792915). See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 21, Pike teaches an electrified vehicle (Fig. 1, 100) comprising:
an energy storage system (Fig. 2, at least 245, 206, 205, 204) including:
a rack (206, 205) coupled to the chassis (see Figs. 1-2);
a battery (204) disposed within the rack (206, 205); and
a fan (211) positioned to drive air out of the rack (206, 205); and
a control system configured to:
selectively operate the fan (211) to drive the air upward (see arrows in Fig. 2) out of a top of the rack (206, 205) based on an operational characteristic of the electrified fire fighting vehicle (col. 10, line 30 – “fan 211, when operating, forces air out of the lower plenum 240 thereby augmenting the free convection cooling system with forced convection when needed. The fan 211 may be a fixed speed or variable speed fan. A variable speed fan can be used to further control and reduce the power required to cool the batteries especially under moderate climate conditions and/or moderate average current draw by the battery pack”).
Pike does not teach “selectively operate the fan to drive the air downward out of a bottom of the rack based on the operational characteristic of the electrified fire fighting vehicle”.
Park teaches selectively operate a fan (Figs. 1a and 1b; “blower motor” 16) to drive air downward (see Fig. 1b) out of a bottom of a battery rack (rack portion of “high-voltage battery” 10) and the air upward (see arrows in Fig. 1a) out of a top of the rack (10) based on the operational characteristic of an electrified fire fighting vehicle (see Figs. 1a and 1b; p. 9 – “The above control unit (22) controls the driving direction of the blower motor (16) to be forward or reverse so as to switch to indoor heating mode or battery cooling mode depending on the indoor temperature and outdoor temperature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reversibly control the fan taught by Pike as suggested by Park, such that “selectively operate the fan to drive the air downward out of a bottom of the rack based on the operational characteristic of the electrified fire fighting vehicle”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of reliably controlling the internal temperature of the battery taught by Pike.
Regarding Claim 24, Pike and Park teach the electrified vehicle of Claim 21,
Park teaches wherein the operational characteristic includes an ambient temperature (see p. 9 passage above).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed January 26th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed December 29th, 2025. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Double Patenting Rejections
Regarding Claims 13 and 19, Applicant’s argument that “On Page 2 of the Office Action, Claims 13 and 19 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of copending Application No. 19/003,064 (the '064 Application). Applicant respectfully submits the amended Claim 13 is patentably distinct from the claims of the '064 Application. Withdrawal of the double patenting rejections is respectfully requested” (p. 6) is persuasive. The nonstatutory double patenting rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of Anazawa and Masuyama; however, the claimed invention is still anticipated by the prior art of Pike for the reasons stated above. See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of record.
In conclusion, amended claims 1-8 are allowed. See allowable subject matter set forth below. Amended claims 13-15, 17-18, 21 and 24 are rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above. Amended claims 22-23 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims ---1-8 are allowed.
Claims 22-23 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Taniyama (US 9,515,359) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose a similar battery rack comprising a ventilation system related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
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 James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655