DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a single run-on sentence (i.e. not in narrative form) that appears to be a restatement of the independent claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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 of this title, 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 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200176837) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 20260011819).
Regarding claim 1: Kim discloses a battery cooling duct 11 for vehicles (Figs. 1-4; [0020]). Kim discloses what appears to be a battery and a case 7 but does not explicitly disclose a battery case configured to be disposed at a floor panel of a vehicle. Nakagawa discloses that a battery 20 can be in a battery case 21 disposed on a floor panel 10 of a vehicle (Figs. 4, 5; [0045], [0046]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Kim so as to include a battery case configured to be disposed at a floor panel of a vehicle as taught by Nakagawa. As both Kim and Nakagawa are directed to a vehicle battery cooling system, as Kim discloses a 110battery but is silent of a case for the battery and that the case is disposed at a floor panel of the vehicle, as electric battery positioning and structure are very well-known in the vehicle arts, and as Nakagawa explicitly teaches disclose a battery case configured to be disposed at a floor panel of a vehicle, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired battery encasement and positioning from a finite selection of vehicle battery placement. Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Kim, as modified by Nakagawa, discloses an inlet duct (Kim – 1) configured to draw cooling air from an interior of the vehicle into a first area of the battery case (Kim – Figs. 2, 4; [0020]; Nakagawa – discloses the battery case). Kim, as modified by Nakagawa, discloses an outlet duct (Kim – 5) divided into a plurality of noise reduction parts and configured to guide the cooling air from the first area of the battery case to be discharged to an outside of the outlet duct through a second area of the battery case and the plurality of noise reduction parts (Kim – 9, 13, 15 (Kim – Figs. 1-4; [0007], [0020], [0021], [0026]; Nakagawa – discloses a battery case; a plurality of noise reduction parts – (several duct parts - [0066])). Kim, as modified by Nakagawa, discloses the plurality of noise reduction parts comprising an expansion section (Figs. 1, 3, 4).
Regarding claim 14: Kim, as modified by Nakagawa, discloses that the outlet duct extends in a direction away from the battery case, the plurality of noise reduction parts are arranged along the direction away from the battery case, and that the outlet duct has an end that is disposed at a farthest position from the inlet duct and configured to discharge the cooling air to the outside (Kim – Figs. 1-4; Nakagawa – battery case & multiple parts of a duct).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-13 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.
Electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles as well as their batteries are very well known in the arts. Further, the battery positioning within the vehicle, the cooling of the batteries, and the battery and cooling system structures are very well known. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Kim (US 20200176837), Nakagawa et al. (US 20260011819), Murata et al. (US 20230211655), Nagusue et al. (US 20250178427), Aoki et al. (US 8717761), Nagao et al. (US 11758696), Janarthanam et al. (US 9302573), Park et al. (US 20120073797), Hasegawa et al. (US 20030067747), Kano et al. (US 12148909), and Kim et al. (US 20210257694). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a battery cooling duct for vehicles, a battery case configured to be disposed at a floor panel of a vehicle, an inlet duct configured to draw cooling air from an interior of the vehicle into a first area of the battery case, an outlet duct divided into a plurality of noise reduction parts and configured to guide the cooling air from the first area of the battery case to be discharged to an outside of the outlet duct through a second area of the battery case and the plurality of noise reduction parts, and the plurality of noise reduction parts comprising an expansion section. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, and their included references, it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited positional and structural designs and relationships of the recited duct components. Specifically, the art does not disclose the detailed attachment order of the duct components, their specific geometrical configurations and their operation in the reduction of noise caused by the cooling air flow through the duct and battery case. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional relationships, geometrical shapes, and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights