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 . 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (US 2016/0211561 A1), hereinafter “Nakagawa.”
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a work vehicle comprising:
a battery housing (¶ [0036], Fig. 1, ref. no. 2);
a plurality of ducts (¶ [0053]-[0054] & [0059]-[0063], Figs. 1-3, 5, & 6 ref. nos. 17, 18, 22, 22A, 22B, 22C, 29, & 30);
wherein:
the battery housing includes a plurality of battery housing module compartments to house a plurality of battery modules ([0041]; Figs. 1, 2, ref. no. 3);
each of the plurality of ducts is attached to a respective one of the plurality of battery housing module compartments (see, e.g. Figs. 1 & 2);
the plurality of battery housing module compartments includes a first row of battery housing module compartments and a second row of battery housing module compartments spaced apart from the first row of battery housing module compartments in an up-down direction of the electric work vehicle (see Fig. 15, ref. no. 3);
and one of the plurality of ducts attached to the first row of battery housing module compartments is a different size and/or shape than another one of the plurality of ducts attached to the second row of battery housing module compartments, in this case the first and second intake ducts are of different shapes (see Fig. 1, ref. nos. 19 & 30).
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa further discloses an electronic component that is attached to the first row of battery housing module compartments, in this case the first junction box (¶ [0101]-[0102], Fig. 1, ref. no. 47).
Regarding claim 20, Nakagawa further discloses:
a plurality of blowers, in this case the first intake fan (¶ [0053], Fig. 1, ref. no. 20) and second intake fan (¶ [0062], Fig. 1, ref. no. 31);
wherein:
each of the blowers is connected to a respective one of the plurality of ducts, in this case this first intake fan is linked to the intake part (¶ [0057], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 20 & 23) and the second intake fan is linked to the intake part (¶ [0066], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 31 & 33);
the battery housing includes a gap located at a central portion of the battery housing, in this case sing, in this case in this case the spaces located within the housing part (¶ [0037], Figs. 1 & 3, ref. no. 4) and outside of the battery modules (¶ [0035], Fig. 3, ref. no. 3); and
the plurality of blowers direct air from the gap in a lateral direction and across the plurality of battery housing module compartments, in this case the fans force air through the ducts located in the gap in both the lateral and axial directions (see Fig. 7, airflow arrows).
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 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa discloses the electronic component as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, above, but does not specify its location as adjacent to one of the plurality of ducts attached to the first row of battery housing module compartments. However, merely rearranging the location of components will not render a device patentable if the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, the specific location of the electronic component or controller would not alter the operation of the battery module as long as it possessed the necessary electrical connections to the components it was intended to control. The specific location of the electronic component would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one with ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as available space, ease of access for servicing, proximity to electrically controlled components, and other factors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have positioned the electronic component adjacent to the plurality of ducts attached to the first row of battery housing module compartments as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa further discloses that:
each of the plurality of ducts includes a first end attached to the respective one of the plurality of battery housing module compartments, in this case the linking part (¶ [0060], Figs. 5 & 6, ref. no. 29), and a second end opposite the first end, in this case the ends of the ducts opposite their respective linking parts (see Fig. 5).
Nakagawa does not specify that certain ducts face in the forward direction while others face rearward. However, Nakagawa does teach directing cooling air to the batteries via the ducts (see, e.g. ¶ [0058]-[0068]). Additionally, merely rearranging the location of components will not render a device patentable if the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, changing the specific orientation of the ducts would not have altered their function of providing cooling air to the batteries, thus facilitating improved electric work vehicle operation and safety. Furthermore, the specific orientation of the battery modules and associated ducts relative to the electric work vehicle would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one with ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as available space, ease of access for servicing, and other factors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged some of the ducts to face forward and others to face rearward in order to have provided the cooling air to the battery modules and have facilitated improved electric work vehicle operation and safety.
Regarding claim 8, Nakagawa does not specify that more ducts face in the rearward direction than the forward direction. However, Nakagawa does teach directing cooling air to the batteries via the ducts (see, e.g. ¶ [0058]-[0068]). Additionally, merely rearranging the location of components will not render a device patentable if the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, arranging the ducts so that a greater number of ducts possessed specific orientation than those ducts possessing the opposite orientation would not have altered their function of providing cooling air to the batteries, thus facilitating improved electric work vehicle operation and safety. Furthermore, the specific orientation of the battery modules and associated ducts relative to the electric work vehicle would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one with ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as available space, ease of access for servicing, and other factors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged some of the ducts to face forward and others to face rearward in order to have provided the cooling air to the battery modules and have facilitated improved electric work vehicle operation and safety.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Takeo et al. (US 2024/0150999 A1), hereinafter “Takeo.”
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa further discloses:
a plurality of blowers, in this case the first intake fan (¶ [0053], Fig. 1, ref. no. 20), and second intake fan (¶ [0062], Fig. 1, ref. no. 31), and
the electronic component includes a controller, in this case the first junction box includes control components (¶ [0102]).
Nakagawa does not disclose that each of the blowers attaches to a respective one of the plurality of ducts and that the electronic component is programmed to control the plurality of blowers. However, Takeo teaches an electric work vehicle comprising:
a plurality of fans (¶ [0126], Fig. 2, ref. no. 90); and
a controller programmed to control the plurality of blowers, in this case the fan operates under control of the control device (¶ [0124], Fig. 2, ref. no. 30).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a fan or blower to each of the plurality of ducts would have provided the desired degree of heat exchange (see ¶ [0124]-[0126]) and that controlling each fan or blower would have suppressed overheating (¶ [0327]) and reduced power consumption (¶ [0306]), thereby facilitating improved electric work vehicle operation and safety. Furthermore, there is not patentable significance to merely duplicating parts absent new and unexpected results. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. B. Here, providing a blower to each of the ducts would yield the predictable result providing cooling are to the battery module connected to the respective ducts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a blower to each of the ducts and to have controlled each of the blowers with the controller in order to have facilitated improved electric work vehicle operation and safety.
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa further discloses:
a plurality of blowers, in this case the first intake fan (¶ [0053], Fig. 1, ref. no. 20) and second intake fan (¶ [0062], Fig. 1, ref. no. 31); and
a controller, in this case the control unit (¶ [0105]).
Nakagawa does not disclose that each of the blowers attaches to a respective one of the plurality of ducts and that the controller is programmed to control the plurality of blowers. However, Takeo teaches an electric work vehicle comprising:
a plurality of fans (¶ [0126], Fig. 2, ref. no. 90); and
a controller programmed to control the plurality of blowers, in this case the fan operates under control of the control device (¶ [0124], Fig. 2, ref. no. 30).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a fan or blower to each of the plurality of ducts would have provided the desired degree of heat exchange (see ¶ [0124]-[0126]) and that controlling each fan or blower would have suppressed overheating (¶ [0327]) and reduced power consumption (¶ [0306]), thereby facilitating improved electric work vehicle operation and safety. Furthermore, there is not patentable significance to merely duplicating parts absent new and unexpected results. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. B. Here, providing a blower to each of the ducts would yield the predictable result providing cooling are to the battery module connected to the respective ducts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a blower to each of the ducts and to have controlled each of the blowers with the controller in order to have facilitated improved electric work vehicle operation and safety.
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa further discloses to set the battery temperature to 60°C or less (¶ [0104]). Takeo teaches programming the controller to control the blowers as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, above. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to program the controller to control the blowers based on the battery temperature in order to maintain the desired temperature of the batteries, namely 60°C or less (see ¶ [0104]), thereby facilitating improved electric work vehicle operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have programmed the controller to control the blowers based on battery temperature in order to have facilitated improved electric work vehicle operation and safety.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa as applied to claim 8, above, and further in view of Takeo and Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0178675 A1), hereinafter “Suzuki.”
Regarding claim 9, Nakagawa does not disclose first and second evaporators. However, Suzuki teaches providing an evaporator as a cold-air-generating unit (¶ [0026], Fig. 4, ref. no. 31) for cooling battery cells (¶ [0032], Fig. 4, ref. no. 25). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including evaporators would have improved the system’s cooling efficiency (see ¶ [0034]) and that providing a plurality of evaporators would have yielded the desired amount of heat exchange in the same way that providing a plurality of fans or blowers would (see Takeo ¶ [0124]-[0126]). Furthermore, there is not patentable significance to merely duplicating parts absent new and unexpected results. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. B. Additionally, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have selected evaporators of sufficient size in order to have provided the desired amount of cooling, such as 60°C or less (Nakagawa ¶ [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a first evaporator and a relatively larger second evaporator each connected to respective ducts directing cooling air to respective battery modules in order to have facilitated improved cooling efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, Nakagawa does not disclose first and second evaporators. However, Suzuki teaches providing an evaporator as a cold-air-generating unit (¶ [0026], Fig. 4, ref. no. 31) for cooling battery cells (¶ [0032], Fig. 4, ref. no. 25). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including evaporators would have improved the system’s cooling efficiency (see ¶ [0034]) and that providing a plurality of evaporators would have yielded the desired amount of heat exchange in the same way that providing a plurality of fans or blowers would (see Takeo ¶ [0124]-[0126]). Furthermore, there is not patentable significance to merely duplicating parts absent new and unexpected results. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. B. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have provided evaporators in order to have provided the desired amount of cooling, such as 60°C or less (Nakagawa ¶ [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a first and second evaporators each connected to respective ducts directing cooling air to respective battery modules in order to have facilitated improved cooling efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Nakagawa does not disclose the evaporators. Suzuki teaches the evaporators as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, above, but does not specify their location with respect to the centerline extending in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle. However, merely rearranging the location of components will not render a device patentable if the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, changing the specific location of the evaporators would not have altered their function of provided cooled air to the ducts in order to provide battery cooling. The specific location of both evaporators would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one with ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as available space, ease of access for servicing, proximity to the heat-generating elements requiring temperature control, and other factors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the first and second evaporators on the same side of the front-rear centerline as an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 12, Nakagawa does not disclose an evaporator. However, Suzuki teaches providing an evaporator as a cold-air-generating unit (¶ [0026], Fig. 4, ref. no. 31) for cooling battery cells (¶ [0032], Fig. 4, ref. no. 25). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including an evaporator would have improved the system’s cooling efficiency (see ¶ [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an evaporators in order to have facilitated improved cooling efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Nakagawa further discloses that:
the battery housing includes a chamber located between the plurality of battery housing module compartments, in this case the spaces located within the housing part (¶ [0037], Figs. 1 & 3, ref. no. 4) and outside of the battery modules (¶ [0035], Fig. 3, ref. no. 3), and a cover that covers the plurality of battery housing module compartments, in this case the lid part (¶ [0036], Fig. 3, ref. no. 5);
the plurality of ducts are located within the chamber (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 22, 25, 27, 36); and
the chamber includes one or more output openings, in this case the linking parts (¶ [0096], Fig. 2, ref. no. 44)of the gas-exhaust duct (¶ [0096], Fig. 2, ref. no. 43).
Nakagawa does not disclose an evaporator. However, Suzuki teaches providing an evaporator as a cold-air-generating unit (¶ [0026], Fig. 4, ref. no. 31) for cooling battery cells (¶ [0032], Fig. 4, ref. no. 25). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including an evaporator would have improved the system’s cooling efficiency (see ¶ [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an evaporators in order to have facilitated improved cooling efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Nakagawa further discloses that:
the one or more output openings include a first opening and a second opening, in this case the two linking parts (¶ [0096], Fig. 2, ref. no. 44);
the first opening connects to a first warm air path, in this case each linking part is connected to a gas-exhaust pipe (¶ [0096], Fig. 1, ref. no. 15); and
the second opening connects the battery housing to a second warm air path, in this case each linking part is connected to a gas-exhaust pipe (¶ [0096], Fig. 1, ref. no. 15).
Nakagawa does not disclose the specific size of the first and second openings relative to each other. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have sized the various outlet openings and ducts appropriately in order to have provided the necessary air flow to achieve the desired level of cooling or temperature control, such as 60°C or less for batteries (¶ [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have mad ethe first opening smaller than the second opening in order to have achieved the desired level of cooling.
Regarding claim 15, Nakagawa does not disclose the evaporator. However, Suzuki teaches providing an evaporator as a cold-air-generating unit (¶ [0026], Fig. 4, ref. no. 31) for cooling battery cells (¶ [0032], Fig. 4, ref. no. 25) and a pathway for guiding warm air from the batteries to the evaporator (see Fig. 4, ref. nos. 25, 31, W, & arrows). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including evaporators would have improved the system’s cooling efficiency (see ¶ [0034]) and that providing a plurality of evaporators and ducts or pathways for recycling warmed air from the batteries for each evaporator would have yielded the desired amount of heat exchange in the same way that providing a plurality of fans or blowers would (see Takeo ¶ [0124]-[0126]). Furthermore, there is not patentable significance to merely duplicating parts absent new and unexpected results. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. B. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have provided evaporators in order to have provided the desired amount of cooling, such as 60°C or less (Nakagawa ¶ [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a first and second evaporators each connected to respective ducts directing cooling air to respective battery modules in order to have facilitated improved cooling efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, Nakagawa does not disclose the evaporators. Suzuki teaches the evaporators as set forth in the rejection of claim 15, above, but does not teach their location with respect to the centerline extending in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle. However, merely rearranging the location of components will not render a device patentable if the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, changing the specific location of the evaporators would not have altered their function of provided cooled air to the ducts in order to provide battery cooling. The specific location of both evaporators would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one with ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as available space, ease of access for servicing, proximity to the heat-generating elements requiring temperature control, and other factors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the first and second evaporators on the same side of the front-rear centerline as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 17, Nakagawa further discloses that:
the one or more output openings include a first opening and a second opening, in this case the two linking parts (¶ [0096], Fig. 2, ref. no. 44);
the first opening connects to a first warm air path, in this case each linking part is connected to a gas-exhaust pipe (¶ [0096], Fig. 1, ref. no. 15);
the second opening connects the battery housing to a second warm air path, in this case each linking part is connected to a gas-exhaust pipe (¶ [0096], Fig. 1, ref. no. 15); and
the first and second openings are fluidly connected to the same battery housing module compartment, in this case the linking parts are all fluidly connected with the exhaust pipes of the battery modules and the common exhaust part (see Fig. 13, ref. nos. 15, 44, & 46).
Regarding claim 18, Nakagawa does not disclose the evaporator. However, Suzuki teaches providing an evaporator as a cold-air-generating unit (¶ [0026], Fig. 4, ref. no. 31) for cooling battery cells (¶ [0032], Fig. 4, ref. no. 25) and a pathway for guiding warm air from the batteries to the evaporator (see Fig. 4, ref. nos. 25, 31, W, & arrows). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including evaporators would have improved the system’s cooling efficiency (see ¶ [0034]) and that providing a plurality of evaporators and ducts or pathways for recycling warmed air from the batteries for each evaporator would have yielded the desired amount of heat exchange in the same way that providing a plurality of fans or blowers would (see Takeo ¶ [0124]-[0126]). Furthermore, there is not patentable significance to merely duplicating parts absent new and unexpected results. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. B. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have provided evaporators in order to have provided the desired amount of cooling, such as 60°C or less (Nakagawa ¶ [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a first and second evaporators each connected to respective ducts directing cooling air to respective battery modules in order to have facilitated improved cooling efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, Nakagawa further discloses that:
the one or more output openings include a first opening and a second opening, in this case the two linking parts (¶ [0096], Fig. 2, ref. no. 44);
the first opening connects to a first warm air path, in this case each linking part is connected to a gas-exhaust pipe (¶ [0096], Fig. 1, ref. no. 15); and
the second opening connects the battery housing to a second warm air path, in this case each linking part is connected to a gas-exhaust pipe (¶ [0096], Fig. 1, ref. no. 15).
Nakagawa does not disclose the locations of the first and second openings being located at a bottom and a lateral side surface of the housing, respectively. However, merely rearranging the location of components will not render a device patentable if the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, changing the specific orientation of the ducts and openings would not have altered their function of providing cooling air to and removing warmed air from the batteries, thus facilitating improved electric work vehicle operation and safety. Furthermore, the specific orientation of the battery modules and associated ducts relative to the electric work vehicle would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one with ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as available space, ease of access for servicing, and other factors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged some of the openings to be placed at the bottom and side of the housing in order to have provided the cooling air to and removed warmed air from the battery modules and have facilitated improved electric work vehicle operation and safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights