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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,667. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower patented claims anticipate the broader instant application claims.
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, 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (Patent No.: US 8,739,892 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Moore discloses an electrified fire fighting vehicle (100, FIG. 1) comprising:
a chassis (120, FIG. 1);
a cab (102, FIG. 1);
a body (104, FIG. 1);
a front axle (106, FIG. 1);
a rear axle (108, FIG. 1);
an energy storage system (energy source, e.g., stored energy source; col. 4, lines 25-26);
a water pump (Fire Pump; col. 4, line 56); and
an electromagnetic device electrically coupled to the energy storage system (an electric motor; col. 4, line 32), the electromagnetic device coupled to the water pump and at least one of the front axle or the rear axle, the electromagnetic device configured to receive stored energy from the energy storage system and provide a mechanical output to selectively drive the water pump and the at least one of the front axle or the rear axle (“Transmission 132 is coupled to engine 130 and is configured to transfer power and mechanical energy received from engine 130 to one or more wheels of vehicle 100, which in turn propel vehicle 100 in a forward or rearward (or other) direction. Transmission 132 may be further configured to transfer power and mechanical energy to one or more components of vehicle 100 (e.g., a fire pump, etc.). Transmission 132 may be any of a variety of suitable transmissions (e.g., standard, split shaft, etc.). According to one exemplary embodiment, transmission 132 is an automatic transmission” col. 8, lines 48-59).
Regarding claim 11, Moore discloses the electrified fire fighting vehicle, wherein the energy storage system includes a battery pack positioned rearward of at least one of the cab or the rear axle (col. 8, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 12, Moore discloses an electrified driveline for a fire fighting vehicle, the electrified driveline comprising:
a front axle (106, FIG. 1);
a rear axle (108, FIG. 1);
an energy storage system (energy source, e.g., stored energy source; col. 4, lines 25-26);
a water pump (Fire Pump; col. 4, line 56); and
an electromagnetic device (an electric motor; col. 4, line 32) electrically coupled to the energy storage system, the electromagnetic device coupled to the water pump and at least one of the front axle or the rear axle, the electromagnetic device configured to receive stored energy from the energy storage system and provide a mechanical output to selectively drive the water pump and the at least one of the front axle or the rear axle (“Transmission 132 is coupled to engine 130 and is configured to transfer power and mechanical energy received from engine 130 to one or more wheels of vehicle 100, which in turn propel vehicle 100 in a forward or rearward (or other) direction. Transmission 132 may be further configured to transfer power and mechanical energy to one or more components of vehicle 100 (e.g., a fire pump, etc.). Transmission 132 may be any of a variety of suitable transmissions (e.g., standard, split shaft, etc.). According to one exemplary embodiment, transmission 132 is an automatic transmission” col. 8, lines 48-59).
Regarding claim 19, Moore discloses the electrified driveline, wherein the energy storage system includes a battery pack positioned rearward of the rear axle (col. 8, lines 30-35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 10 and 13 – 18 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, as well as overcoming Double patenting rejection set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663