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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 12/11/2024, and 7/17/2025 has been fully considered.
Priority
The foreign priority claim to IT102023000026589 filed on 12/13/2023 is acknowledged.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birke (DE 102010005022 A1) in view of Xiao (NPL included in the IDS filed on 7/17/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Birke teaches a road vehicle (taught by figure 1 and the abstract “The invention relates to a vehicle”) comprising:
at least one drive wheel (1 “wheels” taught by figure 1);
at least one electric motor connected to the drive wheel (3 “electric machine” taught by figure 1 and the abstract “the electric machine (3) being used to propel the vehicle as an electric motor”);
an electronic power converter, which controls the electric motor (6 “AC-DC converter” taught in figures 1-2); and
a dissipator device, which is connected to the electronic power converter and is configured to dissipate electrical energy (7 “resistance load” and 10 “latent heat storage” taught in figure 2);
wherein the dissipator device comprises an expendable body, which undergoes an endothermic transformation (10 “latent heat storage” taught in figure 2); and
wherein the dissipator device comprises an electric circuit (taught by figure 2).
However, Birke does not teach that the expendable body undergoes an endothermic transformation when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body; and
that the electric circuit is configured to make an electric current pass directly through the expendable body so that the electric current flows from one side of the expendable body to the other.
Xiao teaches an expendable body which undergoes an endothermic transformation when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body (page 3 “when electric current flows through conductive PCMs, the generated Joule heat is released”); and
an electric circuit configured to make an electric current pass directly through the expendable body so that the electric current flows from one side of the expendable body to the other (taught by the graphical abstract on page 1 included below for clarity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the expendable body and electric circuit of Birke to be the expendable body that undergoes an endothermic transformation and is connected to an electric circuit of Xiao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a PCM can store large amounts of thermal energy without increasing in temperature.
PNG
media_image1.png
184
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 2, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Xiao also teaches wherein the expendable body undergoes the endothermic transformation due to the heat generated when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body (page 3 “when electric current flows through conductive PCMs, the generated Joule heat is released”).
Regarding claim 3, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Xiao also teaches wherein the expendable body undergoes a reversible endothermic transformation when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body (taught by page 2 “As a working material, phase change materials (PCMs) are generally utilized to absorb or release a great deal of thermal energy because of their high latent heat (ΔH)” and page 6 “The electrical energy was collected during the two steps of heating and cooling in consideration of the reversed temperature difference between these two PCM composites.”)
Regarding claim 4, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Xiao also teaches wherein the expendable body undergoes a change of state when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body (page 3 “when electric current flows through conductive PCMs, the generated Joule heat is released”).
Regarding claim 10, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Birke also teaches wherein the expendable body is directly part of the electric circuit and is passed-through from side to side by the electric current flowing along the electric circuit (taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Birke also teaches wherein the drive wheel is not coupled to any mechanical brake and the braking of the drive wheel is carried out by only having the electric motor operate as a generator (taught by the abstract “the electric machine (3) being used to propel the vehicle as an electric motor and to brake the vehicle”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birke (DE 102010005022 A1) in view of Xiao (NPL included in the IDS filed on 7/17/2025) and in further view of Prakhar (NPL titled “Salt hydrate phase change materials: Current state of art and the road ahead” published July 2022).
Regarding claim 5, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Xiao does not teach wherein the expendable body is a salt, which is at least partially melted when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body
Prakhar teaches wherein the expendable body is a salt (taught by page 1 abstract “Salt hydrate phase change materials have been relevant since the earliest commercial deployment of latent heat thermal energy storage solutions”), which is at least partially melted when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body (taught by page 10 “In cold finger technique, the PCM melt is exposed to a piece of thermally conductive material (often containing coolant fluid, or a Peltier chip driven by externally supplied electrical energy)” by page 11 “Separately, energy may be added into the PCM system to assist crystallization via electrical impulses. Essentially, generating an electric field in the PCM solution across two electrodes has been found to reduce supercooling by as much as 100%”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the expendable body of Birke in view of Xiao to be a salt as taught by Prakhar, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because inorganic PCM’s like like that of Prakhar have better thermal performance, better flame retardance, lower manufacturing costs, and a more sustainable supply than their organic counterparts like that of Xiao (Prakhar page 1 abstract “These phase change materials have better thermal performance, better flame retardance, lower manufacturing costs, and a more sustainable supply than their organic counterparts”).
Claim(s) 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birke (DE 102010005022 A1) in view of Xiao (NPL included in the IDS filed on 7/17/2025) and in further view of Meroueh (US 20190153284 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, neither Birke nor Xiao teach wherein the dissipator device comprises:
a thermally insulated container, which houses, on the inside, the expendable body; and
at least a pair of electrodes, which are immersed in the expendable body and are connected to the electronic power converter.
Meroueh teaches wherein the dissipator device comprises:
a thermally insulated container, which houses, on the inside, the expendable body (13 “single component” taught by paragraph 66 “a single component 13 to contain the PCM” and figures 5A-B); and
at least a pair of electrodes, which are immersed in the expendable body and are connected to the electronic power converter (taught by paragraph 66 “Electrode plates are placed on the top and bottom of the container 13 to allow current to travel through during charging” and figures 5A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the dissipator device of Birke in view of Xiao to include the thermally insulated container of Meroueh, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because insulating the dissipator device would help prevent the heat it generates from damaging other components of the road vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Birke nor Xiao teach wherein the electric circuit comprises two electrodes which are in electric contact with two opposite ends of the expendable body so that the electric current enters the expendable body from one electrode and exits the expendable body from the other electrode.
Meroueh teaches wherein the electric circuit comprises two electrodes which are in electric contact with two opposite ends of the expendable body so that the electric current enters the expendable body from one electrode and exits the expendable body from the other electrode (taught by paragraph 66 “Electrode plates are placed on the top and bottom of the container 13 to allow current to travel through during charging” and figures 5A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the expendable body of Birke in view of Xiao to include the electrodes of Meroueh, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because electrodes allow electricity to flow into a nonmetallic part of a circuit, like the expendable body.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birke (DE 102010005022 A1) in view of Xiao (NPL included in the IDS filed on 7/17/2025) and in further view of Meroueh (US 20190153284 A1), and Milton (US 10308132 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Birke in view of Xiao and in further view of Meroueh teaches the road vehicle according to claim 6, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Birke, Xiao, nor Meroueh teach wherein: a frame is provided, which comprises a plurality of metal elements interconnected with one another; and
the container is thermally coupled to at least one corresponding metal element of the frame to transmit heat, through conduction, to the corresponding metal element.
Milton teaches a frame is provided, which comprises a plurality of metal elements interconnected with one another (1202 “cooling plates” taught by figure 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the container of Birke in view of Xiao and in further view of Meroueh to be on a metal element of a frame as taught by Milton, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a frame is essential to any vehicle, and the metal elements of Milton are specifically cooling plates which would help dissipate even more heat from the container.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birke (DE 102010005022 A1) in view of Xiao (NPL included in the IDS filed on 7/17/2025) and in further view of Claesson (SE 545082 C2).
Regarding claim 8, Birke in view of Xiao teaches the road vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Birke nor Xiao explicitly teaches wherein the expendable body undergoes an irreversible and destructive endothermic transformation when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body.
Claesson teaches wherein the expendable body undergoes an irreversible and destructive endothermic transformation when it is internally passed-through by an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body (taught by page 14 line 27 to page 15 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the expendable body of Birke in view of Xiao to undergo an irreversible and destructive endothermic transformation when current passes through it as taught by Claesson, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the expendable body being able to convert electricity into cooling to the point of failure allows for a greater amount of electrical energy to be absorbed.
Regarding claim 9, Birke in view of Xiao and in further view of Claesson teaches the road vehicle according to claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Birke nor Xiao nor Claesson explicitly teach wherein the expendable body is wood-based and is carbonized by the passage of an electric current that directly flows through the expendable body.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the expendable body wood-based, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Furthermore, all wood based materials will be carbonized by the passage of an electric current that directly flows through them.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights