DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koester et al. (WO2008/151087) as cited in IDS dated 5/13/25.
Regarding claim 1, Koester discloses an electric work vehicle (10, Fig. 2A, [0057]) comprising: a battery housing(cargo section 16, Figs. 3 & 4, [0063]); a plurality of ducts(channels 120 and 122, Figs. 3 & 4, [0067]); wherein the battery housing includes a plurality of battery housing module compartments to house a plurality of battery modules(cargo section 16 includes first channel 120 housing a first set 124 of battery pack 22 and second channel 122 housing a second set 126 of battery pack 22 in Figs. 3 & 4, [0067]); and each of the plurality of ducts is attached to a respective one of the plurality of battery housing module compartments([0067], Figs. 3 & 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koester et al. (WO2008/151087) as cited in IDS dated 5/13/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohkuma et al. (US 2008/0251246) as cited in IDS dated 5/13/25.
Regarding claim 2, Koester discloses further comprising: a plurality of blowers (fans [0067]); but does not explicitly disclose a controller; wherein each of the plurality of blowers is attached to a respective one of the plurality of ducts; and the controller is configured or programmed to independently control each of the plurality of blowers.
Ohkuma teaches a cooling structure for batteries and electrical units([0003]). Ohkuma teaches the battery 8 includes a first battery 81 and a second battery 82 that are divided from each other and connected to each other in series(Fig. 1, [0034]). Ohkuma teaches the first battery box 14 and the second battery box 15 form independent cooling passages 16 and 17 in which cooling air flows, respectively(Fig. 1, [0035]). Ohkuma teaches a first cooling fan 19 and a second cooling fan 20 are provided on the upstream side of the cooling passages 16 and 17 in the vicinity of the merging part 18([0036], Fig. 1). Ohkuma teaches the fan control unit 21 operates the first cooling fan 19 and the second cooling fan 20 while controlling the rotation rates of the first cooling fan 19 and the second cooling fan 20 based on the detection signals of the temperature sensors s81, s82, s10, s11, and s12 ([0037], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric work vehicle of Koester with a controller; wherein each of the plurality of blowers is attached to a respective one of the plurality of ducts; and the controller is configured or programmed to independently control each of the plurality of blowers as taught by Ohkuma as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3, modified Koester discloses the controller is configured or programmed to control the plurality of blowers based on a temperature of one or more of the plurality of battery modules (Ohkuma [0037]).
8. Claim(s) 4, 5, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koester et al. (WO2008/151087) as cited in IDS dated 5/13/25 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Koester discloses each of the plurality of ducts includes a first end attached to the respective one of the plurality of battery housing module compartments and a second end opposite to the first end(Fig. 3); but does not explicitly disclose a first number of the plurality of ducts includes the second end face a forward direction of the electric work vehicle; and a second number of the plurality of ducts includes the second end face a rearward direction of the electric work vehicle (claim 4) and the second number is larger than the first number(claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric work vehicle of Koester with a first number of the plurality of ducts includes the second end face a forward direction of the electric work vehicle; and a second number of the plurality of ducts includes the second end face a rearward direction of the electric work vehicle and the second number is larger than the first number in order to route air and balance flow, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VI).
Regarding claim 20, Koester does not explicitly disclose the plurality of ducts are attached to a same side of the plurality of battery housing module compartments as terminal ends of the plurality of battery modules housed in the plurality of battery housing module compartments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric work vehicle of Koester with the plurality of ducts are attached to a same side of the plurality of battery housing module compartments as terminal ends of the plurality of battery modules housed in the plurality of battery housing module compartments as it would not impact its operation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
9. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koester et al. (WO2008/151087) as cited in IDS dated 5/13/25 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shah et al. (US 2019/0337355) as cited in IDS dated 5/13/25.
Regarding claim 9, Koester discloses further comprising: an evaporator to cool air within the battery housing(heat exchangers 132 and 140, Fig. 4, [0067]-[0069]); but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of ducts is fluidly connected to the evaporator.
Shah teaches thermal management unit and system (title). Shah teaches a first blower or fan 17 is provided to blow air over the first evaporator 12([0052], Fig. 6). Shah teaches the first evaporator 12 may be provided within a ventilation passage 18 provided within the housing 11 and the first fan 17 is configured to direct air though the ventilation passage 18 and across the first evaporator 12([0052]). Shah teaches the outlets 20 are fluidly communicated with respective housing airflow outlets 21 for the airflow ‘A’ to exit the housing 11([0052]). Shah teaches the housing airflow outlets 21 are connected to airflow feed ducts 46([0061, Fig. 6]). Shah teaches the airflow feed ducts 46 are connected to the containers of the first and second high voltage battery packs 104, 105 for the airflow ‘A’ to pass from the housing 11 to the battery packs 104, 105([0061]). Shah teaches airflow return ducts 48 are connected between the containers of the first and second high voltage battery packs 104, 105 and the airflow inlet(s) 47 for the return airflow ‘A’ to the housing 11([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric work vehicle of Koester with each of the plurality of ducts is fluidly connected to the evaporator as taught by Shah as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
10. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koester et al. (WO2008/151087) as cited in IDS dated 5/13/25 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Asai et al. (EP2362463) as cited in IDS dated 5/13/25.
Regarding claim 19, Koester discloses further comprising: a plurality of blowers([0067]); but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of blowers respectively corresponds to one of the plurality of ducts; the battery housing includes a gap located at a central portion of the battery housing; and the plurality of blowers direct air from the gap in a lateral direction and across the plurality of battery housing module compartments.
Asai teaches a high current power source apparatus primarily used as the power source for a motor that drives an automobile such as a hybrid car or electric vehicle ([0001]). Asai teaches each of the plurality of blowers (ventilating equipment 59, Fig. 24, [0055]) respectively corresponds to one of the plurality of ducts(ventilating ducts 65, Fig. 24, [0060]); the battery housing includes a gap located at a central portion of the battery housing(center duct 66, Fig. 24, ([0060]-[0061]); and the plurality of blowers direct air from the gap in a lateral direction and across the plurality of battery housing module compartments(see ventilating equipment 59 pushes the air through the ventilation duct 65 from the center gap in a lateral direction across the battery stacks 10B of each battery block 50B in Fig. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric work vehicle of Koester with each of the plurality of blowers respectively corresponds to one of the plurality of ducts; the battery housing includes a gap located at a central portion of the battery housing; and the plurality of blowers direct air from the gap in a lateral direction and across the plurality of battery housing module compartments as taught by Asai as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Double Patenting
11. 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.
12. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/531,962 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant independent claim 1 recites an electric work vehicle that is similar in structure to the electric work vehicle recited in claim 1 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 6 is 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.
In particular, the allowable limitation is further comprising: a first evaporator attached to the battery housing; and a second evaporator attached to the battery housing; wherein the first number of the plurality of ducts, that include the second end face the forward direction of the electric work vehicle, direct air towards the first evaporator; the second number of the plurality of ducts, that include the second end face the rearward direction of the electric work vehicle, direct air towards the second evaporator; and the second evaporator is larger than the first evaporator.
Koester discloses further comprising: a first evaporator attached to the battery housing(heat exchanger 132, Fig. 4, [0067]-[0069]); and a second evaporator attached to the battery housing(heat exchanger 140, Fig. 4); but does not disclose, teach or render obvious wherein the first number of the plurality of ducts, that include the second end face the forward direction of the electric work vehicle, direct air towards the first evaporator; the second number of the plurality of ducts, that include the second end face the rearward direction of the electric work vehicle, direct air towards the second evaporator; and the second evaporator is larger than the first evaporator.
14. Claim 7 is 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.
In particular, the allowable limitation is further comprising: a first evaporator attached to the battery housing; and a second evaporator attached to the battery housing; wherein the first number of the plurality of ducts, that include the second end face the forward direction of the electric work vehicle, direct air towards the first evaporator; and the second number of the plurality of ducts, that include the second end face the rearward direction of the electric work vehicle, direct air towards the second evaporator. The reasons for allowance are substantially the same as provided in paragraph 13 above and apply herein.
15. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon allowable claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the allowable claim and any intervening claims.
16. Claim 10 is 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.
In particular, the allowable limitation is the battery housing includes a chamber located between the plurality of battery housing module compartments and a cover that covers the plurality of battery housing module compartments; the plurality of ducts are located within the chamber; and the chamber includes one or more output openings that are fluidly connected to one or more evaporators.
Koester does not disclose, teach or render obvious the battery housing includes a chamber located between the plurality of battery housing module compartments and a cover that covers the plurality of battery housing module compartments; the plurality of ducts are located within the chamber; and the chamber includes one or more output openings that are fluidly connected to one or more evaporators.
17. Claims 11-18 are objected to as being dependent upon allowable claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the allowable claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights