DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-16 and 18-24 are pending in the application. Claims 6, 7, 13 and 17 are cancelled and claims 21-24 are new.
-The 103 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 1, 18 and 20 with limitations not disclosed by the prior art of record used in the rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/17/26 has been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Striker Brochure 2011 in view of GB’476 (both previously cited) and Klucsarits et al 20190225071. As to claims 1 and 2, the brochure discloses an airport rescue fire fighting vehicle comprising: at least one front axle (as shown on page 1 picture and on page 2 drawing); two rear axles (as shown on page 1 picture and on page 2 drawing); a water tank having a maximum water capacity of greater than or equal to about 3,000 gallons (as described on page 2); and a power source to facilitate accelerating the ARFF vehicle from 0 to 50 miles-per-hour in 22 seconds and 25 seconds or less while the water tank is at the maximum water capacity (as described on pages 1 and 2 of brochure). However, the brochure doesn't disclose the use of a battery pack providing a first electrical energy, a separate genset including an engine driving a generator to provide a second electrical energy and an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of motors coupled to a gearbox to receive the first and second electrical energies as recited.
GB discloses an electrified vehicle comprising: a battery pack (1, 2) and an electromechanical transmission (page 5, lines 23-24 describe a continuously variable transmission associated with the electrical energy sources); and shows that it is well known in the art for the electromechanical transmission to receive the battery pack electrical energy (page 4, lines 16-17) to facilitate accelerating the electrified vehicle from 0 to 50 miles-per-hour in 22 seconds and 25 seconds or less (7 seconds or less on page 7, lines 4-11).
Klucsarits discloses an electrified airport rescue fire fighting vehicle ([0036]) comprising: at least one front axle (6); two rear axles (6, 6); and shows that it is well known in the art to have a battery pack (10) configured to provide first electrical energy; an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motors (as shown in Figure 2; 11, 28) and a gearbox (25, 27) coupled to the plurality of electric motors; and a genset separate from the electromechanical transmission, the genset including an engine (8) and a generator (9) driven by the engine to provide second electrical energy; wherein the electromechanical transmission is configured to receive the first electrical energy from the battery pack and the second electrical energy from the genset ([0051]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fire fighting vehicle in the brochure with a battery pack, electromechanical transmission and genset as recited in view of GB and Klucsarits to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost by transitioning between multiple energy power sources as needed.
As to claim 4, Brochure discloses wherein the maximum water capacity is less than or equal to about 4,500 gallons (as described on page 2, water tank is 3000 gallons which is less than 4500).
As to claim 5, Brochure discloses wherein the maximum water capacity is less than or equal to about 3,500 gallons (as described on page 2, water tank is 3000 gallons which is less than 3500).
As to claim 10, Brochure in view of GB further comprising a controller configured to monitor a depth-of-discharge of the battery pack during a discharge event and prevent the depth-of-discharge from exceeding a depth-of-discharge threshold to prevent accelerated degradation of a state-of-health of the battery pack (GB on page 6, lines 1-6 describe that the capacity of storage system should be maintained at 20-80% of maximum capacity).
As to claim 11, Brochure in view of GB further comprising a controller configured to prevent charging the battery pack above a maximum state-of-charge threshold that is less than 100% state-of-charge to prevent accelerated degradation of a state-of-health
of the battery pack (GB on page 6, lines 1-6 describe that the capacity of storage system should be maintained at 20-80% of maximum capacity).
As to claim 15, Brochure in view of Klucsarits further comprising a water pump (Fire pump described on page 2 in brochure and 19; [0065] in Klucsarits), wherein the electromechanical transmission is coupled to (a) the water pump (indirectly coupled via electrical connection to 8 and 9 in Klucsarits) and (b) at least one of the at least one front axle or the two rear axles (as shown in Figure 2 in Klucsarits).
As to claim 18, Brochure discloses an airport rescue fire fighting vehicle comprising: at least one front axle (as shown on page 1 picture and on page 2 drawing); two rear axles (as shown on page 1 picture and on page 2 drawing); a water tank having a maximum water capacity of greater than or equal to about 3,000 gallons (as described on page 2); a transmission (as described on page 2) to facilitate accelerating the ARFF vehicle from 0 to 50 miles-per-hour in 22 seconds or less while the water tank is at the maximum water capacity (as described on pages 1 and 2 of brochure). However, the brochure doesn't disclose the use of a battery pack and an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motors and a gearbox positioned between the plurality of electric motors, the electromechanical transmission coupled to the battery pack; and a separate genset including an engine and a generator, the engine configured to drive the generator to generate electricity to be provided to at least one of the battery pack or the electromechanical transmission.
GB discloses an electrified vehicle comprising: a battery pack (1, 2) and an electromechanical transmission (page 5, lines 23-24 describe a continuously variable transmission associated with the electrical energy sources); and shows that it is well known in the art for the electromechanical transmission to receive the battery pack electrical energy (page 4, lines 16-17) to facilitate accelerating the electrified vehicle from 0 to 50 miles-per-hour in 22 seconds or less (7 seconds or less on page 7, lines 4-11).
Klucsarits discloses an electrified airport rescue fire fighting vehicle ([0036]) comprising: at least one front axle (6); two rear axles (6, 6); and shows that it is well known in the art to have a battery pack (10); an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motors (as shown in Figure 2; 11, 28) and a gearbox (25, 27) positioned between the plurality of electric motors and coupled to the battery pack (as shown in Figure 1); and a genset separate from the electromechanical transmission, the genset including an engine (8) and a generator (9) driven by the engine to generate electricity to be provided to at least one of the battery pack or the electromechanical transmission ([0051]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fire fighting vehicle in the brochure with a battery pack, electromechanical transmission and genset as recited in view of GB and Klucsarits to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost by transitioning between multiple energy power sources as needed.
As to claim 19, Brochure discloses wherein the maximum water capacity is about 3,170 gallons (as described on page 2, water tank is 3000 gallons which corresponds to "about" 3170 gallons).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barrett 5627438 (previously cited). Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits discloses a battery pack, but doesn't explicitly describe the capacity as recited.
Barrett discloses an electrified heavy vehicle (column 9, lines 41-43) and shows that it is well known in the art to have a battery pack (86) with a capacity of greater than or equal to about 200 kWh (column 9, lines 37-38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits with a battery pack having a 200 kWh capacity further in view of Barrett to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yakes et al 20030158638 (previously cited). As to claim 8, Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits discloses the engine and battery pack, but doesn't disclose a controller starting the engine with a condition that a state of charge of battery pack reaching a minimum state of charge threshold is sufficient to facilitate a performance condition.
Yakes discloses an electrified fire vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to have a controller start the engine in response to a start condition including a state of battery charge having a minimum threshold sufficient to facilitate a performance condition ([0346] and page 37, via starting/charging system testing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a controller start the engine including a condition pertaining to battery state of charge threshold in Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits and further in view of Yakes to ensure reliable engine ignition which enhances fuel efficiency of vehicle.
As to claim 9, Brochure in view of GB discloses wherein the performance condition including (i) accelerating the ARFF vehicle to a driving speed of at least 50
miles-per-hour in an acceleration time of 25 second or less (GB on page 7, lines 4-11 describes the speed to be 0-60 mph) and (ii) maintaining or exceeding the driving speed for a period of time, wherein an aggregate of the acceleration time and the period of time is at least 3 minutes (GB on page 7, lines 4-11 describe that the top speed 100 mph which exceeds the 0-60 mph can be maintained for several hours which is obviously at least 3 minutes as recited).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishi et al 20100033132 (previously cited). Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits discloses a controller and battery pack, but doesn't disclose the controller monitoring temperature of the battery pack and preventing the temperature from exceeding a threshold to prevent accelerated degradation of state of health of battery pack.
Nishi discloses an electrified vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a controller (50) configured to monitor a temperature (30) of a battery pack (60) and prevent the temperature from exceeding a threshold to prevent accelerated degradation of state of health of battery pack ([0133]-[0141]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a controller monitor battery pack health in Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits and further in view of Nishi to prevent rapid deterioration of battery pack during operation of vehicle.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yakes et al 20030158638. Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits discloses at least one front axle, but doesn't disclose two front axles.
Yakes discloses an electrified fire vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to have provide the vehicle with two front axles (1914).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits with two front axles further in view of Yakes to provide improved weight distribution, better traction and enhanced stability for vehicle performance.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 110270036 (previously cited). Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits discloses a rear axle and battery pack, but doesn't disclose that pack positioned rearward of the axle as recited.
CN discloses an electrified fire fighting vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a battery pack (4) positioned rearward of a rear axle (30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a battery pack in Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits rearward of a rear axle further in view of CN to improve weight distribution in vehicle and increase thermal management due to better air flow in rear axle area.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Striker Brochure 2011 in view of GB’476 and Klucsarits et al 20190225071 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of DE 102017119256 (with machine translation). As to claim 22, Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits discloses a water pump (Fire pump described on page 2 in brochure and 19; [0065] in Klucsarits), but doesn’t disclose a pump motor coupled to water pump and receiving power from battery pack to drive pump.
DE discloses an electrified airport rescue fire fighting vehicle (page 1, lines 8-9 in translation) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide vehicle with a water pump (20) and a pump motor (22) coupled to pump, wherein the motor is configured to receive power from a battery pack (30) to drive the pump (mode F, page 5, lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fire fighting vehicle in the brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits with a pump motor configured to receive power from a battery pack to drive the water pump further in view of DE to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost used when driving water pump with engine operation.
As to claim 23, Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits further in view of DE further comprising a mechanical coupler (as shown in Figure 1; 22 to 20 in DE) positioned between the water pump and the pump motor to selectively couple the pump motor to the water pump.
As to claim 24, Brochure in view of GB and Klucsarits further in view of DE wherein the pump motor is powered by the battery pack to drive the water pump and the electromechanical transmission is powered by the battery pack to drive the ARFF vehicle ([0051]-[0058] in Klucsarits) to perform an electric pump-and-roll operation (mode F, page 5, lines 15-18 in DE).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Striker Brochure 2011 in view Klucsarits et al 20190225071 and DE 102017119256. As to claim 20, Brochure discloses an airport rescue fire fighting vehicle comprising: at least one front axle (as shown on page 1 picture and on page 2 drawing); two rear axles (as shown on page 1 picture and on page 2 drawing); a water tank having a maximum water capacity of greater than or equal to about 2500 gallons (as described on page 2) and a water pump (Fire pump as described on page 2). Although the brochure describes pump and roll capabilities on page 2, it doesn’t disclose an electric pump and roll operation which is performed by a pump motor powered by a battery pack to drive the water pump and an electromechanical transmission powered by the battery pack to drive the vehicle wherein the transmission includes a plurality of electric motors and a gearbox positioned between the motors.
Klucsarits discloses an electrified airport rescue fire fighting vehicle ([0036]) comprising: at least one front axle (6); two rear axles (6, 6); and shows that it is well known in the art to have a battery pack (10); an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motors (as shown in Figure 2; 11, 28) and a gearbox (25, 27) positioned between the plurality of electric motors and coupled to the battery pack (as shown in Figure 1); and a genset separate from the electromechanical transmission, the genset including an engine (8) and a generator (9) driven by the engine to generate electricity to be provided to at least one of the battery pack or the electromechanical transmission ([0051]-[0058]).
DE discloses an electrified airport rescue fire fighting vehicle (page 1, lines 8-9 in translation) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide vehicle with a water pump (20) and a pump motor (22) coupled to pump, wherein the motor is configured to receive power from a battery pack (30) to drive the pump to perform an electric pump and roll operation (mode F, page 5, lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fire fighting vehicle in the brochure in view of Klucsarits with an electromechanical transmission and in view of DE with a pump motor configured to receive power from a battery pack to drive the water pump during pump and roll operation to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost used when driving water pump with engine operation.
As to claim 21, Brochure in view of Klucsarits discloses a genset separate from the electromechanical transmission, the genset including an engine (8) and a generator (9) driven by the engine.
Conclusion
There is no additional prior art made of record and relied upon as the examiner considers the prior art used in the rejections above the most pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights