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
The drawings are objected to because the labels in FIG 30 are too small to be legible. See MPEP 608.02-V (p)-(3). 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 § 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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0338963 A1, hereafter Suzuki).
With regard to claim 1, Suzuki teaches an electric vehicle [0031] comprising {note: the work claim language is regarded as intended use that would not limit the structure of the vehicle}:
a battery housing (case) [0043]; and
an air cooling system to cool air within the battery housing [0035, 0043-0044]; wherein
the air cooling system includes a first evaporator and a second evaporator (first and second of four evaporators 12) supported by the battery housing (case) [0043]; and
in a plan view at least a portion of the first evaporator is forward of at least a portion of the second evaporator in a front-rear direction of the electric vehicle (first and second evaporators 12 closest to vehicle front side seen in fig. 2) [0043, fig. 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
538
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Suzuki teaches at least a portion of the first evaporator (evaporator 12 closest to front side) is higher than at least a portion of the second evaporator (evaporator 12 second closest to front side) in an up down direction of the electric vehicle (as seen in annotated fig. 3) [0043, fig. 3].
PNG
media_image2.png
576
964
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, Suzuki teaches at least a portion of the first evaporator (evaporator 12 closest to front side) is lower than at least a portion of the second evaporator (evaporator 12 second closest to front side) in an up down direction of the electric vehicle (as seen in annotated fig. 3) [0043, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 15, Suzuki teaches the air cooling system includes a third evaporator; and in a plan view at least a portion of the first evaporator and at least a portion of the second evaporator are located forward of the third evaporator in the front-rear direction of the electric vehicle (as seen in annotated fig. 3) [0043, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 16, Suzuki teaches in a side view at least a portion of the first evaporator is higher than at least a portion of the second evaporator in an up down direction of the electric vehicle; and in a side view at least a portion of the third evaporator is higher than at least a portion of the second evaporator in the up down direction of the electric vehicle (as seen in annotated fig. 3) [0043, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 18, Suzuki teaches the air cooling system includes a third evaporator and a fourth evaporator; and in a plan view at least a portion of the third evaporator is forward of at least a portion of the fourth evaporator in the front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle (as seen in annotated fig. 3) [0043, fig. 3].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1-3, 15-16, and 18 above and further in view of Heckeroth (US 2009/0223724 A1, hereafter Heckeroth).
With regard to claims 4-5, Suzuki teaches the evaporators are adjacent to battery packs [0043, fig. 2-3] but does not explicitly teach the claimed locations. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require a rearrangement of parts and rearranging batteries (which would move with adjacent evaporators taught by Suzuki) is known in the art to provide the benefit of balancing loads and lowering a vehicles center of gravity [Heckeroth 0004].
With regard to claim 7, Suzuki teaches the evaporators are adjacent to battery packs [0043, fig. 2-3] but does not explicitly teach the claimed locations. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require a rearrangement of parts and rearranging batteries (which would move with adjacent evaporators taught by Suzuki) is known in the art to provide the benefit of balancing loads and lowering a vehicles center of gravity [Heckeroth 0004].
With regard to claim 17, Suzuki teaches the evaporators are adjacent to battery packs [0043, fig. 2-3] but does not explicitly teach the claimed locations. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require a rearrangement of parts and rearranging batteries (which would move with adjacent evaporators taught by Suzuki) is known in the art to provide the benefit of balancing loads and lowering a vehicles center of gravity [Heckeroth 0004].
With regard to claim 19, Suzuki teaches the evaporators are adjacent to battery packs [0043, fig. 2-3] but does not explicitly teach the claimed locations. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require a rearrangement of parts and rearranging batteries (which would move with adjacent evaporators taught by Suzuki) is known in the art to provide the benefit of balancing loads and lowering a vehicles center of gravity [Heckeroth 0004].
Suzuki would not teach a distance between the first and third evaporator being less than a distance between the second and fourth evaporator. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require a rearrangement of parts and the evaporators would perform the same function of cooling the adjacent battery packs. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
With regard to claim 20, Suzuki teaches in a side view at least a portion of the first and third evaporators are lower than at least a portion of the second and fourth evaporators in an up down direction of the electric vehicle (as seen in annotated fig. 3) [0043, fig. 3].
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1-3, 15-16, and 18 above and further in view of Ohkuma et al. (US 2008/0251246 A1, hereafter Ohkuma).
With regard to claim 6, Suzuki teaches a battery housing (case) [0043] and teaches evaporators are adjacent to battery packs [0043, fig. 2-3] but does not teach the claimed blowers and battery module compartments. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ohkuma teaches the use of a plurality of duct (cooling passages 16 and 17) and blower (fans 19 and 20) pairs [0035-0036, fig. 1] and teaches a plurality of housing module compartments (first battery box 14 and second battery box 15) to house a plurality of battery modules (first battery 81 and second battery 82) [0034-0036, fig. 1] with each of the duct and blower pairs attached to a respective one of the plurality of battery housing module compartments [0034-0036, fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the separate housing module compartments and duct and blower pairs of Ohkuma with the electric vehicle of Suzuki for the benefit of cooling divided batteries to effectively cool the batteries and prevent temperature differentials [Ohkuma 0011]. When combined with the vehicle of Suzuki that teaches evaporators are adjacent to battery packs [0043, fig. 2-3] the duct and blower pairs taught by Ohkuma would direct air towards respective first and second evaporators.
Modified Suzuki would not explicitly teach the difference in number of duct and blower pairs or evaporator size. However, these modifications would be an obvious variation to one of ordinary skill in the art since they would only require a duplication of parts (for increasing the second number) or adjusting the size of a component (for making the second evaporator larger and would provide an obvious benefit of increasing cooling capacity. See MPEP 2144.04 IV and VI.
With regard to claim 10, Suzuki teaches the battery housing includes a chamber (fluid inlet portions 422) located between battery modules (battery packs 5) and a cover (upper surface of battery pack 500) that covers the plurality of battery modules [0043, 0050, fig. 2-3] ; and the chamber includes one or more output openings that are connected to the first evaporator and the second evaporator (connections to evaporators 12 seen in fig. 2) [0043, 0050, fig. 2-3]. Suzuki does not explicitly teach a plurality of battery housing module compartments to house the battery modules. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ohkuma teaches the use of a plurality of duct (cooling passages 16 and 17) and blower (fans 19 and 20) pairs [0035-0036, fig. 1] and teaches a plurality of housing module compartments (first battery box 14 and second battery box 15) to house a plurality of battery modules (first battery 81 and second battery 82) [0034-0036, fig. 1] with each of the duct and blower pairs attached to a respective one of the plurality of battery housing module compartments [0034-0036, fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the separate housing module compartments and duct and blower pairs of Ohkuma with the electric vehicle of Suzuki for the benefit of cooling divided batteries to effectively cool the batteries and prevent temperature differentials [Ohkuma 0011].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1-3, 15-16, and 18 above.
With regard to claim 9, Suzuki teaches the battery housing includes a first front surface (front wall of battery pack 500) and a second front surface (rear wall of battery pack 500) offset rearwardly to define a recess (accommodating chamber) between the first front surface and second front surface [0043, fig. 2];
the first evaporator is mounted within the recess [0043, fig. 2]; and
the air cooling system includes a condenser (condenser 14) [0033-0035].
Suzuki does not explicitly teach the condenser is mounted to the first front surface of the battery housing. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require making the condenser and front surface integral and the condenser would perform the same function of heat exchange and condensation. See MPEP 2144.04 V.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, would not teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of at least claims 8 or 11. Claims 8 and 11 are drawn to an electric vehicle comprising the elements recited therein. Notably claim 8 requires an evaporator and a chamber with first and second output holes with a first output hole that is smaller than a second output hole. Claim 11 requires an evaporator and a chamber with first and second output openings with a first opening that is smaller than a second opening.
The prior art of record such as Suzuki teaches a battery housing including a chamber (fluid inlet portions 422) located between battery modules (battery packs 5) and the chamber includes one or more output openings that are connected to the first evaporator and the second evaporator (connections to evaporators 12 seen in fig. 2) [0043, 0050, fig. 2-3] but would not teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed arrangement with first opening/hole that is smaller than a second opening/hole. Since claims 12-14 are dependent on claim 11 they would contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights