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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20210257694 A1).
Re Claim 1, Kim et al. disclose:
An outlet duct system for a vehicle air-cooled battery, the outlet duct system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first duct (Fig. 1: 30) fluidly connected to a battery assembly (as seen annotated in Fig. 1; Para 0030) disposed under a floor (as seen annotated in Fig. 1) of a vehicle, wherein the first duct is mounted on a top surface of the floor (as seen annotated in Fig. 1); and
a second duct (Fig. 1: 40) configured to receive air from the first duct, wherein the second duct comprises an outlet opening (Fig. 8: 42) configured to discharge air to the floor,
wherein the second duct comprises a surface, in which a plurality of holes are formed (as seen annotated in Fig. 8), adjacent to the outlet opening (as seen annotated in Fig. 8), and
wherein each hole has an opening area less than an opening area of the outlet opening (each hole of the plurality of holes as annotated in Fig. 8 has a smaller opening area than the outlet opening 42).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Kim et al. (US 20210257694 A1)
PNG
media_image2.png
590
987
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Kim et al. (US 20210257694 A1)
Re Claim 2, Kim et al. disclose:
the plurality of holes comprise a plurality of upper holes provided in a first wall (as seen annotated in Fig. 8), of the second duct, facing away from the floor (the upper holes face upward, facing away from the floor).
Re Claim 8, Kim et al. disclose:
the first duct and the second duct extend in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (as seen in the annotated Fig. 1),
the first duct extends in a direction from a front of the vehicle toward a rear of the vehicle, and the second duct extends from the first duct toward the rear of the vehicle (as seen by the dashed arrow connecting the first duct to the second duct).
Re Claim 9, Kim et al. disclose:
the first duct comprises a front portion (as seen annotated in Fig. 1) towards a front of the vehicle, and a rear portion (as seen annotated in Fig. 1) towards a rear of the vehicle, and
the front portion of the first duct forms an opening configured to communicate via air flow with the battery assembly (as seen annotated in Fig. 1; Para 0008).
Re Claim 10, Kim et al. disclose:
a noise absorbing material attached to the front portion of the first duct (Fig. 4: 32; Para 0044).
Re Claim 12, Kim et al. disclose:
An outlet duct system for a vehicle air-cooled battery, the outlet duct system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first duct (Fig. 1: 30) configured to, when mounted on a top surface of a floor of a vehicle (as seen in Fig. 1), provide air to a battery assembly disposed under the floor of the vehicle (as seen in Fig. 1); and
a second duct (Fig. 1: 40), configured to receive air from the first duct, comprising:
an outlet (Fig. 8: 42) forming an opening configured to discharge the air, and
one or more walls (as seen in annotated Fig. 8), adjacent to the opening of the outlet, forming a plurality of holes each having an opening area less than an opening area of the opening of the outlet (each hole of the plurality of holes as annotated in Fig. 8 has a smaller opening area than the outlet opening 42).
Re Claim 17, Kim et al. disclose:
the first duct and the second duct are configured to extend in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (as seen in the annotated Fig. 1), when the outlet duct system is installed in the vehicle, such that the second duct extends from the first duct toward a rear of the vehicle (as seen by the dashed arrow connecting the first duct to the second duct).
Re Claim 18, Kim et al. disclose:
the first duct comprises a front portion (as seen annotated in Fig. 1) towards a front of the vehicle, and a rear portion (as seen annotated in Fig. 1) towards a rear of the vehicle, and the front portion of the first duct forms an opening configured to communicate via air flow with the battery assembly (as seen annotated in Fig. 1; Para 0008).
Re Claim 19, Kim et al. disclose:
A vehicle (Abstract) comprising:
a battery assembly (Abstract; as seen annotated in Fig. 1; Para 0008) disposed under a floor of the vehicle; and
an outlet duct system (Fig. 1) mounted on a top surface of the floor, the outlet duct system comprising:
a first duct (Fig. 1: 30) fluidly connected to the battery assembly; and
a second duct (Fig. 1: 40) configured to receive air from the first duct, wherein the second duct comprises an outlet opening (Fig. 8: 42) configured to discharge the air to the floor,
wherein the second duct comprises a surface, in which a plurality of holes are formed, adjacent to the outlet opening (as seen annotated in Fig. 8), and
wherein each hole has an opening area less than an opening area of the outlet opening (each hole of the plurality of holes as annotated in Fig. 8 has a smaller opening area than the outlet opening 42).
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.
Claims 3-4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210257694 A1) further in view of Smith (US 20110165832 A1).
Re Claim 3 and 13, Kim et al. disclose a second duct comprising a plurality of holes, but does not disclose a second wall comprising a plurality of lower holes facing toward the floor.
Smith, however, disclose that a second duct can include a second wall comprising of a plurality of holes facing toward the floor (as seen annotated in Fig. 2 of Smith; Para 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second duct, as disclosed by Kim et al., such that a plurality of lower holes is placed on the second duct that faces the floor, as taught by Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the proper mixing of air flow occurs and effectively cools the electric equipment.
Re Claim 4, Kim et al., disclose the plurality of holes further comprise a plurality of rear holes provided in a portion of the second duct towards a rear of the vehicle (as seen in Fig. 8 of Kim et al.; the rear holes are towards the rear of the vehicle).
PNG
media_image3.png
439
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Smith (US 20110165832 A1)
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210257694 A1) and Smith (US 20110165832 A1) and further in view of Nagamine et al. (JP 2007276668 A).
Re Claim 5 and 15, while Kim et al. and Smith disclose a floor, a first duct and a second duct comprising a plurality of holes provided on the walls, neither Kim et al. not Smith disclose a carpet pad.
Nagamine et al., on the other hand, disclose a carpet pad that covers the floor and the ducts (Fig. 1: 170- carpet pad, 204- first duct, 206- second duct; Para 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the outlet duct system, as disclosed by Kim et al., by adding a carpet pad to cover the top surface of the floor and both ducts, as taught by Nagamine et al., such that it would provide a seamless appearance in the interior of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 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 reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 6-7 and 16 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the gaps between the second duct and the carpet pad and the second duct and the floor. Claim 7 also mentions a set of lower holes on the second duct that faces the floor. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Kim et al., do not teach or suggest the lower holes as claimed. While Kim et al. disclose a plurality of holes on the top surfaces of the second duct, the reference is silent on the inclusion of holes on the bottom surface of the second duct.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 11 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a ridge portion. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Kim et al., do not teach or suggest the ridge portion as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Kim et al.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 14 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to rear wall comprising a plurality of holes facing the rear of the vehicle. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Kim et al., do not teach or suggest the rear wall as claimed. While Kim et al. disclose a set of holes towards the rear portion of the second duct, it does not mention that the rear wall has a plurality of holes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all disclose an outlet duct system for air-cooled battery:
Janarthanam et al. (US 20150060169 A1) disclose an inlet portion above a battery module through which the air is directed through a passageway to a rear array.
Koike et al. (US 20080196957 A1) disclose a battery cooling structure that has an intake duct and an exhaust duct.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE J THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JASMINE JAMES THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
September 28, 2026
