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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“battery” in claim 1.
End portions of the cooling duct and the extension duct that are connected to each other (from claim 10).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-3, 7-10, 12-13 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 2 recites “the outlet is defined at sides of the cooling duct”. It’s not clear how one outlet is defined at two sides (2 locations) on the cooling duct at the same time. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the outlet is defined at a side of the cooling duct”.
Claim 3 recites “the guide grille defining a streamlined shape that extends toward the seat rail” The seat rail is positively recited to allow the guide grille to extends. However in claim 2, the seat rail is part of an intended function. Therefore, it’s not clear as to if the seat rail is part of the system since the limitations about seat rail conflict with each other. Examiner recommend applicant to amend claim 3 to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the guide grille defining a streamlined shape that is configured to extend toward the seat rail…”
Claim 7 recites limitation of an extension duct connecting to battery and the cooling duct. However claim 1 states that the cooling duct is connected to the batter. The limitation of claim 7 conflict with claim 1, therefore it is unclear as to if the cooling duct is actually connected to the batter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa (US 20180056752).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa teaches an air-cooled battery for a vehicle, the air-cooled battery comprising:
a battery (50, fig 3) “configured to be mounted on a floor of the vehicle and to be cooled by air” (battery is located in housing 20 and according to fig 1 housing 20 is located on floor); and
a cooling duct having (i) a first portion (71, fig 3) that is connected to the battery and extends in a longitudinal direction (front-rear direction) of the vehicle and (ii) a second portion (72 and 73, fig 3) that is branched from the first portion in a width direction (left-right direction) of the vehicle, the second portion being configured to be disposed below a seat of the vehicle ([0064] “The exhaust duct 70 is disposed along the floor panel 9”) and to discharge air cooling the battery in a plurality of directions (left and right direction shown in fig 3).
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa teaches the second portion of the cooling duct defines an outlet (an outlet opening of duct 72, fig 3) configured to discharge the air cooling the battery, and wherein the outlet is defined at a side (end portion of cooling duct) of the cooling duct and “configured to face a seat rail of the vehicle, the seat being coupled to the seat rail” (This is intended function. Seat rail and seat are not positively recited to be part of the air-cooled battery).
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa teaches a guide grille (formed by baffle plates 85F and 85R, fig 6) disposed at the outlet and “configured to guide air discharged from the second portion in a direction toward the seat rail” (This is intended function. Seat rail is not positively recited), the guide grille defining a streamlined shape (guide grille has flat air guiding surfaces) that is “configured to extend toward the seat rail and having an upper end disposed adjacent to the seat rail” (This is intended function. Seat rail is not positively recited. An upper end of guide grille can be disposed near a seat rail).
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa teaches the cooling duct is “configured to face a protector of the vehicle that is disposed at an upper end of the seat rail and extends in a direction toward the cooling duct” (This is intended function. The protector and seat rail are not positively recited to be part of the air-cooled battery).
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa teaches the outlet is “configured to face a plurality of holes that are defined at a side surface of the seat rail facing the outlet and configured to receive the air discharged from the outlet” (This is intended function. The holes and seat rail are not positively recited to be part of the air-cooled battery).
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa teaches an upper end (upper end of outlet as defined) of the outlet is “configured to be disposed below an upper end of the seat rail” (This is intended function. The seat rail is not positively recited to be part of the air-cooled battery).
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa teaches the outlet “is configured to be positioned under a first row seat or a second row seat of the vehicle” (This is intended function. The seats are not positively recited to be part of the air-cooled battery).
Regarding claim 12, Ogawa teaches the outlet is “configured to be positioned under a second row seat or a third row seat of the vehicle” (This is intended function. The seats are not positively recited to be part of the air-cooled battery).
Regarding claim 14, Ogawa teaches the plurality of directions comprise a pair of directions that are oriented opposite to each other (left and right direction shown in fig 3) in the width direction of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Ogawa teaches the second portion of the cooling duct comprises: a first outlet (outlet of duct 72, fig 3) that protrudes from a first side surface (left end surface of 72, fig 3) of the cooling duct and extends in a first direction (toward left) along the width direction of the vehicle; and a second outlet (outlet of duct 73, fig 3) that protrudes from a second side surface (right end surface of 73, fig 3) of the cooling duct opposite to the first side surface, the second outlet extending in a second direction (toward right) opposite to the first direction along the width direction of the vehicle.
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US 20180056752) in view of Sandman (US 20130331022).
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but fails to teach an extension duct disposed between the battery and the cooling duct, the extension duct having (i) a first end connected to the battery (which is a source upstream of the extension duct) and (ii) a second end connected to the cooling duct (which is a duct downstream of the extension duct).
Sandman teaches an extension duct (outer housing of 26, fig 3) that has a first end (36, fig 3) connected to a fluid device (12, fig 3) upstream of the extension duct and a second end (38, fig 3) connected to a duct (14, fig 3) downstream of the extension duct.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa as taught by Sandman by adding an extension duct between the battery and the cooling duct in order to guide the exhaust gas from the batter housing to a farther location away from the batter in the vehicle cabin (for example, in a larger vehicle, heated air could be guided to a location farther from the battery to warm the air at different corner in the cabin).
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa in view of Sandman teaches a connector (Sandman 24, fig 3) that is disposed at and surrounds the first portion of the cooling duct, the connector connecting the first portion of the cooling duct to the second end of the extension duct..
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa in view of Sandman teaches the second end of the extension duct is connected to an inner side (inner surface) of the connector (See Sandman fig 7A).
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa in view of Sandman teaches the cooling duct and the extension duct comprise end portions (end of the ducts) that are connected to each other and “configured to be disposed in a lower space defined between a plurality of seats of the vehicle” (This is intended function. The seats are not positively recited to be part of the air-cooled battery).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US 20180056752) in view of Sturza (US 20190337352).
Regarding claim 13, Ogawa teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but fails to teach the first portion of the cooling duct has an oblique shape, and an upper end of the first portion protrudes relative to a lower end of the first portion.
Sturza teaches a first portion (left end of 38) of a cooling duct (38, fig 3) has an oblique shape (annotated figure 1), and an upper end (annotated figure 1) of the first portion protrudes (the upper end protrudes toward further left than the lower end) relative to a lower end (annotated figure 1) of the first portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa as taught by Sturza by incorporating oblique shape connecting portion in order to facilitate aligning of duct portions during assembling.
[AltContent: textbox (Upper end)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated figure 1)][AltContent: textbox (Oblique shape (cross section) of end portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Lower end)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
308
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571)272-6785. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762