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 § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gullberg (US 10,072,557) in view of Steinmetz (US 11,287,783) and Yokkoyama et al. (US 2012/0168140)
In re claim 1, Gullberg teaches a cooling arrangement comprising: a fan arrangement comprising: a centrifugal fan assembly (3), an impeller (16), a stationary inlet shroud (4), and a stator (13) comprising a plurality of stator blades (14) located radially or semi-radially outside the impeller (col. 6, ln. 37-45), a mount (8).
Gullberg differs in that it doesn’t explicitly teach an axial flux motor. Nonetheless, it does teach that a motor can be used in place of an engine (col. 5, ln 49-52). Likewise, axial flux electric motors are well known motors in the vehicle arts (and in the electrical arts at large).
Likweise, Gullberg doesn’t explicitly teach a control unit arranged to control the cooling arrangement. Attention, however, is directed to the Yokkoyama which teaches a control unit configured to: obtain a predicted cooling requirement of the vehicle for a future time by obtaining information from a navigation unit about a characteristic of a planned path of the vehicle at the future time and using the heat estimation model to estimate the amount of heat generated at the future time based on the characteristic of the planned path of the vehicle (par. 90-95).
In re claim 2, the examiner takes official notice that high voltage power supplies were well known and conventional in the art at the time of invention and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into the vehicle of Gullberg.
In re claim 3, the examiner takes official notice that it was well known in the art for the use of main traction batteries which operate as an energy source of the vehicle and similarly used for peripheral items is well known and conventional in the art. Tesla, for example, has been using its main traction motor for peripherals for over a decade.
In re claim 13, Yokkoyama teaches the control unit is further configured to preemptively increase cooling based on the predicted cooling requirement for the future time (clear from par. 90-95).
Claim(s) 5-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gullberg (US 10,072,557) Yokkoyama et al. (US 2012/0168140) and further in view of Steinmetz (US 11,287,783).
In re claim 5, Steinmetz teaches the cooling arrangement further comprises an interface arranged to accept control input from the control unit and alter an operational parameter of the cooling arrangement in dependence of the control input (clear from col. 5, ln 3 – col. 6, ln 9).
In re claim 6, Steinmetz differs in that it doesn’t teach the operational parameter is at least one of a fan speed, electric motor speed, or electric motor torque. Nonetheless, it does teach engine speed and engine torque as operational parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in electric vehicles, where the powertrain is a motor and not an engine, parameters such as motor speed and electric torque should be taken into account for the same reasons engine speed and engine torque are considered in engine based vehicles. Namely anticipated heat generation.
In re claims 7, the examiner finds that the claimed limitations in the methods would be obvious over Gullberg in view of Steinmetz and Yokkoyama for those reasons provided in respect to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above. The examiner notes all of the limitations therein are addressed above.
In re claim 8, the examiner takes official notice that adjusting parameters based on previous experience was well known and conventional in the control system arts. Moreover, Steinmetz teaches this at col. 8, ln 60 – col. 9, ln 7.
In re claim 9, Steinmetz teaches calculating an operational parameter of the cooling arrangement comprises using a cooling model, the cooling model being determined as a model of a relation between the operational parameter of the cooling arrangement and a generated cooling effect (fig. 2).
In re claim 10, Steinmetz teaches the cooling model is adjusted in dependence of information about the cooling effect generated during a prior operation of the vehicle (col. 8, ln 60 – col. 9, ln 7; fig. 2).
In re claim 11, the examiner finds that the claimed limitations in the methods would be obvious over Gullberg in view of Steinmetz and Yokkoyama for those reasons provided in respect to claims 1-3 and 5-9 above. The examiner notes all of the limitations therein are addressed above.
In re claims 4 and 12, the examiner takes official notice that the inclusion of flat parts on mounts of all sorts has been well known and conventional in the mechanical arts well before the time of invention and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re claim 14, Steinmetz teaches the control unit is further configured to: determine a difference between the estimated amount of heat generated and an actual amount of heat generated; and adjust the heat estimation model based on the difference between the estimated amount of heat generated and the actual amount of heat generated (col. 9, ln 8-col. 10, ln 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues that Yokkoyama doesn’t teach the use of a heat estimation model. The examiner disagrees. Applicant is pointed to paragraph 95 which provides “[i]f it is forecast that the motor and the inverter device will operate in the second operational region in which the amount of heat that is generated is large, then it is possible to change over from the first cooling mode to the second cooling mode in which the cooling capacity is high a predetermined distance before the road section for the second operational region.” As should be clear by the use of the term “forecast”, the amount of heat generated is estimated.
Applicant next disputes that axial flux motors are well known and conventional in the art. Applicant is now directed to Deak et al. (US 10,291,086) which has the title “Axial Flux Motor for Motor Vehicle”. This patent was granted prior to filing date of the instant application and specifically deals with powering a vehicle with an axial flux motor.
Applicant next disputes the inclusion of a flat surface on a mounting device, noting Examiner previously identified that subject matter as allowable. Examiners, like other individuals make mistakes at times. Applicant wishes to see a vehicle mount with a flat surface. Applicant is now pointed to Bork et al. (US 202/0079243) which teaches a mount with flat surface. See fig. 1, which shows a mount 6 which incorporates numerous flat surfaces. The examiner notes the term mount is not limited in any way in the claims and there are a substantial number of mounts in vehicles of all different types, many of which have flat surfaces. For example, every vehicle the examiner has owned has had a wheel mount connected to the axle with a flat surface to which the wheel rim is attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EREZ GURARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571) 270-5985. 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.
/EREZ GURARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614