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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/908,255 filed on 10/07/2024.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“D4”,
“D5”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 appears to be independent and should therefore include all limitations of claim 1 rather than simply referring to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an opening/closing part” in claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 16-17,
“With continued reference to FIGS. 2 and 3, the vehicle 10 according to the present disclosure may include an opening/closing part 400 provided at one side of the connection duct 300 and configured to control the opening and closing between a region of the connection flow path S, which faces the outlet part 200, and another region. The opening/closing part 400 may be configured to open the connection flow path S at an ordinary time so that the fluid, which is introduced into the connection flow path S through the second hole H2 formed in the outlet part 200, may flow through the connection flow path S and then be introduced into the internal space of the vehicle 10. In case that there is a concern that a gas is produced from the battery because of an abnormal operation of the battery, such as thermal runaway of the battery, the opening/closing part 400 may close a part of the connection flow path S to prevent the fluid, which is introduced into the connection flow path S through the second hole H2, from being introduced into the internal space of the vehicle 10. As illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3, at least some components (a blocking member to be described below) of the opening/closing part 400, the second hole H2, and the discharge hole H3 may be provided in a space defined by the connection flow path S.” (Detailed Description – 29th paragraph, FIG. 2-4 and 6)
“a vent member” in claim 2,
“As illustrated in FIGS. 2, 3, 4, and 6, the vehicle 10 according to the present disclosure may further include a vent member 500 provided in the discharge hole H3 and configured to close the discharge hole H3. If the applied pressure exceeds (e.g., meets and/or exceeds and/or satisfies) a predetermined pressure (a threshold pressure), the vent member 500 may open the discharge hole H3. In case that the fluid, introduced into the connection flow path S through the first hole H1, is discharged into the internal space of the vehicle in the first state, the vent member 500 may close the discharge hole H3 and serve to prevent the fluid in the connection duct 300 from being discharged to the external space of the vehicle. In case that the fluid, introduced into the connection flow path S through the first hole H1, needs to be discharged to the external space of the vehicle, (e.g., in the second state), the vent member 500 may open the discharge hole H3 and serve to discharge the fluid in the connection duct 300 to the external space of the vehicle. For example, if a pressure exceeds a predetermined pressure, a partial region of the vent member 500 may be fractured to open the discharge hole H3. As another example, the vent member 500 may be a component, such as a relief valve or a safety valve, that may reversibly switch between the opened state and the closed state of the discharge hole H3 in accordance with a change in pressure.” (Detailed Description – 38th-39th paragraphs, FIG. 2-4 and 6)
“a blocking member” in claims 4-7, 14, and 16,
“In this case, with reference to FIGS. 4 and 7, the opening/closing part 400 may include a blocking member 410 configured to be movable between a first state in which the blocking member 410 opens the intermediate space S3 of the connection flow path S and a second state in which the blocking member 410 closes the intermediate space S3, and a power supply member 420 (e.g., a power supply/motor) configured to operate the blocking member 410. That is, the blocking member 410 may be provided in the intermediate space S3. The blocking member 410 may be a blocking structure configured to block/stop/obstruct the connection flow path S in the intermediate space S3. The power supply member 420 may be an electric motor such as a servo motor. The power supply member 420 may include a rotary shaft configured to be rotatable, and the blocking member 410 may be coupled to the rotary shaft. If the rotary shaft performs a rotational motion, the blocking member 410 may also perform a rotational motion. Therefore, the blocking member 410 may reversibly switch from the first state to the second state and/or from the second state to the first state in accordance with a rotation angle of the blocking member 410 (e.g., controlled by the power supply member 420). For example, the blocking member 410 may have an approximately rod shape extending in a longitudinal direction of the rotary shaft. An extension direction of a region of the connection flow path S, in which the rotary shaft and the blocking member 410 may be provided, may intersect the longitudinal direction of the rotary shaft and the blocking member 410. The extension direction of the region of the connection flow path S, in which the rotary shaft and the blocking member 410 may be provided, may perpendicularly intersect the longitudinal direction of the rotary shaft and the blocking member 410. The extension direction of the connection flow path S and/or the connection duct 300 is defined herein as a flow direction in which a fluid would through the connection flow path S in a case that thermal runaway of the battery is not occurring. For example, the longitudinal direction of the blocking member 410 and the rotary shaft may be parallel to the horizontal direction.” (Detailed Description – 31st-33rd paragraphs, FIG. 4-7)
“a power supply member” in claims 4 and 6-7.
“In this case, with reference to FIGS. 4 and 7, the opening/closing part 400 may include a blocking member 410 configured to be movable between a first state in which the blocking member 410 opens the intermediate space S3 of the connection flow path S and a second state in which the blocking member 410 closes the intermediate space S3, and a power supply member 420 (e.g., a power supply/motor) configured to operate the blocking member 410. That is, the blocking member 410 may be provided in the intermediate space S3. The blocking member 410 may be a blocking structure configured to block/stop/obstruct the connection flow path S in the intermediate space S3. The power supply member 420 may be an electric motor such as a servo motor. The power supply member 420 may include a rotary shaft configured to be rotatable, and the blocking member 410 may be coupled to the rotary shaft. If the rotary shaft performs a rotational motion, the blocking member 410 may also perform a rotational motion. Therefore, the blocking member 410 may reversibly switch from the first state to the second state and/or from the second state to the first state in accordance with a rotation angle of the blocking member 410 (e.g., controlled by the power supply member 420).” (Detailed Description – 31st-32nd paragraphs, FIG. 4-7)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0207919 A1) in view of Higashino (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0027632 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kim teaches:
A vehicle comprising: a battery; a cooling flow path configured to cool the battery via a fluid flowing through the cooling flow path;, (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 10th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 63rd-73rd paragraphs))
an inlet forming a first hole in a first side of the vehicle, wherein the first hole is configured to communicate with an internal space of the vehicle;, (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 20th-21st and 32nd-33rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 60th-62nd and 82nd-87th paragraphs, FIG. 15-16))
an outlet forming a second hole in a second side of the vehicle; a connection duct forming a connection flow path configured to connect the outlet and the internal space of the vehicle;, (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 26th-29th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 64th-77th and 88th paragraphs, FIG. 4-8))
Kim does not teach but Higashino teaches:
and an opening/closing part configured to control opening or closing between a first region, of the connection flow path, facing the outlet, and a second region, of the connection flow path, away from the outlet, wherein the first hole and the second hole are in communication with the cooling flow path., (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 125th-126th and 131st-137th paragraphs, FIG. 11A-11B and 13A-13B))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Higashino in order to create an efficient vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Higashino’s battery pack and vehicle with the battery pack in order to include an opening/closing part to control opening or closing between a first and second region of a connection flow path of a vehicle battery. Combining Kim and Higashino would thus provide “a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability.” (Higashino: Summary of Invention – 6th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further teaches:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the connection flow path is in communication with an external space to the vehicle via a discharge hole formed in the second side of the vehicle,, (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 26th-29th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 64th-77th and 88th paragraphs, FIG. 4-8))
Kim does not teach but Higashino teaches:
[…] and wherein the vehicle further comprises a vent member provided in the discharge hole and configured to: close the discharge hole if an applied pressure does not satisfy a threshold pressure, or open the discharge hole if an applied pressure satisfies the threshold pressure., (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 85th and 102nd-104th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Higashino in order to create an efficient vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Higashino’s battery pack and vehicle with the battery pack in order to include an opening/closing part to control opening or closing between a first and second region of a connection flow path of a vehicle battery. Combining Kim and Higashino would thus provide “a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability.” (Higashino: Summary of Invention – 6th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 3:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Kim further teaches:
The vehicle of claim 2, wherein the connection flow path defines a space comprising: at least a part of the opening/closing part, the second hole, and the discharge hole., (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 26th-30th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 64th-77th and 82nd-88th paragraphs, FIG. 4-8))
Regarding Claim 4:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Kim does not teach but Higashino teaches:
The vehicle of claim 2, wherein the opening/closing part comprises: a blocking member provided in an intermediate space configured to connect a first flow path space, of the connection flow path, in communication with the second hole and the discharge hole, to a second flow path space, of the connection flow path, in communication with the internal space of the vehicle; and a power supply member configured to operate the blocking member., (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 126th-132nd and 135th-139th paragraphs, FIG. 11A-11B and 13A-13B))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Higashino in order to create an efficient vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Higashino’s battery pack and vehicle with the battery pack in order to include an opening/closing part to control opening or closing between a first and second region of a connection flow path of a vehicle battery. Combining Kim and Higashino would thus provide “a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability.” (Higashino: Summary of Invention – 6th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Kim does not teach but Higashino teaches:
The vehicle of claim 4, wherein the blocking member is configured to be movable between a first state in which the blocking member opens the intermediate space and a second state in which the blocking member closes the intermediate space., (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 126th-132nd and 135th-139th paragraphs, FIG. 11A-11B and 13A-13B))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Higashino in order to create an efficient vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Higashino’s battery pack and vehicle with the battery pack in order to include an opening/closing part to control opening or closing between a first and second region of a connection flow path of a vehicle battery. Combining Kim and Higashino would thus provide “a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability.” (Higashino: Summary of Invention – 6th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further teaches:
[…] based on a temperature of the battery satisfying a threshold, close a part of the connection flow path., (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 35th-36th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 91st-97th paragraphs))
Kim does not teach but Higashino teaches:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the opening/closing part is configured to,, (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 125th-126th and 131st-137th paragraphs, FIG. 11A-11B and 13A-13B))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Higashino in order to create an efficient vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Higashino’s battery pack and vehicle with the battery pack in order to include an opening/closing part to control opening or closing between a first and second region of a connection flow path of a vehicle battery. Combining Kim and Higashino would thus provide “a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability.” (Higashino: Summary of Invention – 6th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 14:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Kim further teaches:
The vehicle of claim 4, wherein the connection duct comprises: a first duct region extending in a first direction and comprising a region of the connection flow path in communication with the first hole and the discharge hole; a second duct region extending in a second direction from an end of the first duct region; and a third duct region extending in a third direction from an end of the second duct region, wherein the second direction is not parallel to the first direction and is not parallel to the third direction,, (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 26th-29th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 62nd-70th paragraphs, FIG. 7-8))
Kim does not teach but Higashino teaches:
[…] and wherein the blocking member is configured to open or close a connection flow path through the second duct region., (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 126th-132nd and 135th-139th paragraphs, FIG. 11A-11B and 13A-13B))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Higashino in order to create an efficient vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Higashino’s battery pack and vehicle with the battery pack in order to include an opening/closing part to control opening or closing between a first and second region of a connection flow path of a vehicle battery. Combining Kim and Higashino would thus provide “a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability.” (Higashino: Summary of Invention – 6th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 15:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further teaches:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first hole spaced apart from the connection duct, and the first hole is configured to be in communication with the internal space of the vehicle., (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 20th-21st, 26th-29th, and 32nd-33rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 60th-62nd, 64th-77th, and 82nd-88th paragraphs, FIG. 4-8 and 15-16))
Regarding Claim 17:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim further teaches:
A method of controlling the vehicle of claim 1, the method comprising: closing, based on a temperature of the battery exceeding a threshold temperature, (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 35th-36th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 91st-97th paragraphs))
[…] wherein the closing configures the opening/closing part to prevent the fluid, introduced into the connection flow path via the second hole, from reaching the internal space of the vehicle., (See (Kim: Summary of the Invention – 9th and 39th-40th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 75th-81st and 98th paragraphs))
Kim does not teach but Higashino teaches:
[…] and via the opening/closing part, a part of the connection flow path; […], (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 125th-126th and 131st-137th paragraphs, FIG. 11A-11B and 13A-13B))
[…] and discharging, based on a pressure in a region of the connection flow path adjacent to a discharge hole satisfying a threshold pressure, the fluid in the connection flow path to an outside of the vehicle via the discharge hole, […], (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 85th and 102nd-104th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Higashino in order to create an efficient vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Higashino’s battery pack and vehicle with the battery pack in order to include an opening/closing part to control opening or closing between a first and second region of a connection flow path of a vehicle battery. Combining Kim and Higashino would thus provide “a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability.” (Higashino: Summary of Invention – 6th paragraph)
Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0207919 A1) in view of Higashino (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0027632 A1) in further view of Misu (U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0030069 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Kim in view of Higashino does not teach but Misu teaches:
The vehicle of claim 2, wherein the first hole, the second hole, and the discharge hole are formed in a floor surface of the vehicle., (See (Misu: Summary of the Invention – 9th-14th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments – 53rd-55th, 77th-82nd, 91st-94th, and 103rd-107th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Higashino with these above aforementioned teachings from Misu in order to create an effective vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Misu’s vehicle power source device that introduces cooling air into a battery casing through an opening formed through a vehicle floor in order to include a first hole, a second hole, and a discharge hole of a vehicle battery formed in a floor surface between a front seat and a rear seat of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Misu would thus provide “an electric power source device for an automotive vehicle, wherein a resistance to a flow of cooling air to a battery pack is relatively low.” (Misu: Summary of the Invention – 7th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Kim in view of Higashino does not teach but Misu teaches:
The vehicle of claim 8, wherein the first hole and the discharge hole are formed in a region of the floor surface between a front seat of the vehicle and a rear seat positioned rearward of the front seat., (See (Misu: Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments – 91st-92nd and 102nd-107th paragraphs, FIG. 16))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Higashino with these above aforementioned teachings from Misu in order to create an effective vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Misu’s vehicle power source device that introduces cooling air into a battery casing through an opening formed through a vehicle floor in order to include a first hole, a second hole, and a discharge hole of a vehicle battery formed in a floor surface between a front seat and a rear seat of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Misu would thus provide “an electric power source device for an automotive vehicle, wherein a resistance to a flow of cooling air to a battery pack is relatively low.” (Misu: Summary of the Invention – 7th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 10:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Kim in view of Higashino does not teach but Misu teaches:
The vehicle of claim 9, wherein the second hole is formed in a region of the floor surface towards the rear seat relative to the first hole., (See (Misu: Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments – 53rd-54th, 66th, 71st-79th, 86th-92nd, and 101st-104th paragraphs, FIG. 16))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Higashino with these above aforementioned teachings from Misu in order to create an effective vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Misu’s vehicle power source device that introduces cooling air into a battery casing through an opening formed through a vehicle floor in order to include a first hole, a second hole, and a discharge hole of a vehicle battery formed in a floor surface between a front seat and a rear seat of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Misu would thus provide “an electric power source device for an automotive vehicle, wherein a resistance to a flow of cooling air to a battery pack is relatively low.” (Misu: Summary of the Invention – 7th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 13:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Kim in view of Higashino does not teach but Misu teaches:
The vehicle of claim 8, wherein at least a part of the connection duct is tightly attached to the floor surface., (See (Misu: Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments – 67th-70th and 84th-86th paragraphs, FIG. 16))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Higashino with these above aforementioned teachings from Misu in order to create an effective vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Misu’s vehicle power source device that introduces cooling air into a battery casing through an opening formed through a vehicle floor in order to include a first hole, a second hole, and a discharge hole of a vehicle battery formed in a floor surface between a front seat and a rear seat of the vehicle. Combining Kim and Misu would thus provide “an electric power source device for an automotive vehicle, wherein a resistance to a flow of cooling air to a battery pack is relatively low.” (Misu: Summary of the Invention – 7th paragraph)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0207919 A1) in view of Higashino (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0027632 A1) in further view of Kang (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0013758 A1).
Regarding Claim 16:
Kim in view of Higashino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Kim does not teach but Higashino teaches:
The vehicle of claim 2, wherein the opening/closing part comprises a blocking member provided in an intermediate space configured to connect a first flow path space, of the connection flow path, in communication with the second hole and the discharge hole, to a second flow path space, of the connection flow path, in communication with the internal space of the vehicle,, (See (Higashino: Description of Embodiments – 126th-132nd and 135th-139th paragraphs, FIG. 11A-11B and 13A-13B))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with these above aforementioned teachings from Higashino in order to create an efficient vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Higashino’s battery pack and vehicle with the battery pack in order to include an opening/closing part to control opening or closing between a first and second region of a connection flow path of a vehicle battery. Combining Kim and Higashino would thus provide “a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability.” (Higashino: Summary of Invention – 6th paragraph)
Kim in view of Higashino does not teach but Kang teaches:
[…] and wherein the blocking member is configured to close the intermediate space by increasing, based on a temperature of the blocking member, in volume., (See (Kang: Detailed Description – 46th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Higashino with these above aforementioned teachings from Kang in order to create a safe vehicle and controlling method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s battery pack with a function of discharging venting gas and control system with Kang’s vehicular battery pack and vehicle in order to include a blocking member of an opening/closing part of a vehicle battery to close an intermediate space by increasing in volume based on a temperature of the blocking member. Combining Kim and Kang would thus provide “a vehicular battery pack capable of minimizing or inhibiting the occurrence of a fire and delaying combustion by blocking air from entering the battery pack when thermal runaway occurs in a battery cell inside the battery pack, and a vehicle including the battery pack.” (Kang: Summary – 10th paragraph)
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claims 6-7 and 12 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 allowable subject matter in claim 6 includes a blocking member that has a first width in a first dimension perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the rotary shaft and has a second width in a second dimension perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the rotary shaft and to the first dimension, wherein the first width is smaller than a width in a first direction of the connection flow path in the intermediate space, and wherein the second width corresponds to the width in the first direction.
The allowable subject matter in claim 7 includes a power supply member configured to cause opening between a first region and a second region by orienting the blocking member such that the first dimension, characterized by the first width, to be parallel to the first direction and wherein the power supply member is configured to cause closing between the first region and the second region by orienting the blocking member such that the second dimension, characterized by the second width, to be parallel to the first direction.
The allowable subject matter in claim 12 includes a first width in a first direction of a cross-section of the connection duct perpendicular to an extension direction of the connection duct is larger than a second width, in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, of the cross-section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights