DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 11/24/2025 which has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 8/27/25 and 10/28/25 have been considered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending in the application.
-The priority compliance has been corrected due to applicant cancelling claim 7.
-The specification objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending the specification accordingly.
-The claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 12 accordingly.
-The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant cancelling claim 7.
-The 103 rejection of claims 18-20 has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 18 and 20 with limitations not disclosed by the prior art of record used in the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant’s argument that “It is unclear to Applicant, as required by MPEP § 2143.02, how combining the driveline of Shrier with the ARFF vehicle of the Brochure could, with any reasonable expectation of success, achieve an acceleration "from 0 to 50 miles-per-hour in 25 seconds or less" for an ARFF vehicle weighing more than 50 tons when full with water when Shrier only discloses a driveline with the performance for a 2.7 ton vehicle. Shrier does not contemplate a driveline capable of accelerating a 6x6 ARFF vehicle with at least 3,000 gallons of water onboard. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that the combination of the Brochure and Shrier does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed ARFF vehicle recited by independent Claim 1.” has been acknowledged. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the “teachings” that Shrier provides for adding a battery pack and electric motor to facilitate accelerating of vehicle would be obvious in combination with what is taught by the brochure to meet the limitations as claimed.
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, 4-6, 10, 11, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Striker Brochure 2011 in view of GB ‘478 (both previously cited). As to claims 1 and 2, the brochure discloses an airport rescue fire fighting (ARFF) 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 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 and one or more electric motors configured to receive power from the battery pack 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.
GB discloses an electrified vehicle comprising: a battery pack (1, 2); an electric motor (5); and shows that it is well known in the art to operate the electric motor using stored energy in the battery pack 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).
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 and electric motor(s) to obtain the recited acceleration in view of GB to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost.
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 6, Brochure further comprising an engine (as described on page 2).
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 13, Brochure in view of GB further comprising: a generator (as described on page 2; hydraulic generator in Brochure); and an engine coupled to the generator, the engine configured to drive the generator to generate electricity (GB on page 4, lines 26-27 describe that if required, electrical energy conversion may include an auxiliary electric machine coupled to the combustion engine).
As to claim 17, Brochure in view of GB discloses wherein the one or more electric motors include a first motor and a second motor, wherein the first motor is mechanically coupled to the second motor (page 5, lines 24-27 and page 6, lines 9-12 in GB describes that multiple motors can be used coupled together via a drive mechanism).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barrett 5627438 (previously cited). Brochure in view of GB 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 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 as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Yakes et al 20030158638 (previously cited). As to claim 8, Brochure in view of GB 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 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 as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Nishi et al 20100033132 (previously cited). Brochure in view of GB 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 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 as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Yakes et al 20030158638. Brochure in view of GB 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 with two front axles further in view of Yakes to provide improved weight distribution, better traction and enhanced stability for vehicle performance.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brunbauer 20150246649 (previously cited). Brochure in view of GB discloses an axle (Figure on page 2 of brochures), a water pump (Fire pump described on page 2) and an engine (described on page 2 of brochures). But doesn’t disclose an electric motor coupled to the pump and axle to drive both and a generator driven by the engine as recited in claims 7 and 9.
Brunbauer discloses an electrified fire fighting vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an electric motor (8, 40) coupled to a water pump (47) and axle (via 51) to selectively drive both ([0143]) and a generator (10) coupled to and driven by an engine (39) to generator electricity.
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 with an electric motor to selectively drive water pump and axles and a generator driven by an engine to generate electricity further in view of Brunbauer to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 110270036 (previously cited). Brochure in view of GB 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 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) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochure in view of GB (previously cited) and Steinberger et al 20170370446. Brochure discloses an airport rescue fire fighting (ARFF) 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 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 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 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 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.
GB discloses an electrified vehicle comprising: a battery pack (1, 2); an electric motor (5); and shows that it is well known in the art to operate the electric motor using stored energy in the battery pack 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).
Steinberger discloses an electrified vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the vehicle with a battery pack ([0039]); an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motors (40, 50) and a gearbox (30) positioned between the plurality of electric motors (as shown in Figure 2), the electromechanical transmission coupled to the battery pack ([0039]); and a genset including an engine (20) and a generator (40 and 50 operate as generators), the engine configured to drive the generator to generate electricity ([0022], lines 12-15) to be provided to at least one of the battery pack or the electromechanical transmission.
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 and an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motor(s) to obtain the recited acceleration in view of GB and Steinberger to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost.
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).
As to claim 20, Brochure discloses an airport rescue fire fighting (ARFF) 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 transmission (described on page 2) to facilitate accelerating the ARFF vehicle from 0 to 50 miles-per-hour in 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 and an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motors and gearbox positioned between the plurality of electric motors, the electromechanical transmission electric motors configured to receive power from the battery pack to facilitate accelerating the ARFF vehicle from 0 to 50 miles-per-hour in 25 seconds or less while the water tank is at the maximum water capacity.
GB discloses an electrified vehicle comprising: a battery pack (1, 2); an electric motor (5); and shows that it is well known in the art to operate the electric motor using stored energy in the battery pack to facilitate accelerating the electrified vehicle from 0 to 50 miles-per-hour in 25 seconds or less (7 seconds or less on page 7, lines 4-11).
Steinberger discloses an electrified vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the vehicle with a battery pack ([0039]); an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motors (40, 50) and a gearbox (30) positioned between the plurality of electric motors (as shown in Figure 2), the electromechanical transmission coupled to the battery pack ([0039]); and a genset including an engine (20) and a generator (40 and 50 operate as generators), the engine configured to drive the generator to generate electricity ([0022], lines 12-15) to be provided to at least one of the battery pack or the electromechanical transmission.
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 and an electromechanical transmission including a plurality of electric motor(s) to obtain the recited acceleration in view of GB and Steinberger to increase operating efficiency of vehicle which further reduces or eliminates associated fuel cost.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment to claims 18 and 20 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 February 27, 2026