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 Status
As mentioned in the Advisory Action mailed September 25th, 2025, the amendments to the claims required further search and consideration, as they present additional limitations and change the scope of the claims. Thus, the amended claims were not entered and the claim set filed July 4th, 2025 are considered the relevant claim set in the rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Currently claims 12-28 are pending for examination.
The objection to the specification and the drawings set forth in the Final Rejection mailed July 24th, 2025 have been withdrawn in light of the Petition Decision filed December 9th, 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 21, 26-27 set forth in the Final Rejection mailed July 24th, 2025 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments that a skilled person would understand that the coolant moving through a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger is liquid coolant.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner believes the claim should be “…simultaneously receiving coolant from the traction battery to cool the traction battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 25, applicant recites “a proportional valve configured to direct coolant through the traction battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery or when the chiller is cooling the traction battery”. There is no support in the specification to support the amendment to the instant claim that the proportional valve adjusts to direct coolant through the traction battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery or when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery. The instant disclosure supports a proportional vale adjusted to direct coolant around the traction battery when the refrigerant loop is cooling the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery (Paragraph 0048). Thus, this feature is not commensurate in scope with the disclosure of the original invention.
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 12, 14, 16, 19-21, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vader (cited in a previous office action, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210094383 A1), as evidenced by Exro (Non-Patent Literature, “The Vital Roles of EV Powertrain Components”).
Regarding claim 12, Vader teaches a thermal energy management system for an electrified vehicle (Paragraph 0010), comprising:
a thermal battery assembly having at least a first thermal battery and a second thermal battery (thermal storage modules) (Figure 3, Elements 302 and 304) (Paragraphs 0038-0040);
a traction battery (electric machine) (Figure 3, Element 116),
and a chiller (Figure 3, Element 194).
As the thermal storage modules of Vader are taught to store thermal energy associated with the battery of the vehicle and may include a phase change material (Paragraph 0014), it functions or is capable of functioning in the same manner as the thermal batteries of the instant disclosure and is considered to meet the instant claimed limitation.
Vader teaches the thermal energy management system to control the temperature of the powertrain and batteries of a vehicle (Paragraph 0009), which may be an electric vehicle. Vader teaches one or more batteries and one or more electric machines to assist with or provide power for propulsion of the vehicle and that the vehicle is an electric vehicle propelled primarily or solely by electric motors (Paragraph 0018). Vader teaches the vehicle’s powertrain, which includes an electric machine, configured to provide the propulsion of vehicle (Paragraph 0021). As also evidenced by Exro the main components of the powertrain of an electric vehicle include a traction motor, traction battery pack, traction inverter, onboard charger, DC-DC converter, vehicle control unit, and power distribution unit. Therefore, the powertrain (Figure 1, Element 114) of Vader comprises a traction battery pack which assists in the propulsion of the vehicle as taught by Vader, or it would be obvious to an ordinary artisan that the traction battery is comprised in the powertrain of Vader, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Vader teaches that the chiller (194) is configured to receive coolant (via auxiliary coolant loop 180) from the first thermal battery (304) and then the second thermal battery (302) to cool the first and second thermal batteries (Figure 3), as shown in Figure 3.
As shown in Figure 3 of Vader, the thermal batteries are arranged in parallel, where coolant in the auxiliary loop (Element 180) flows from conduits exiting each thermal battery to be directed to the chiller. It is considered that the parallel arrangement of the thermal batteries of Vader facilitates chiller being capable of sequentially receiving coolant from the first thermal battery and then the second thermal battery of Vader or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to direct coolant so that chiller sequentially receives coolant from the first thermal battery and the second thermal battery, meeting the instant claimed limitation. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Because the chiller of Vader is capable of receiving coolant sequentially, among a variety of other possible configurations of the coolant path, it could operate in the claimed manner and thus meets the instant claimed limitation.
Vader does not appear to disclose that in the embodiment of Figure 3 the first and second thermal batteries are configured to simultaneously receive coolant from the traction battery.
Vader teaches a powertrain heating and cooling system in order to cool parts of the powertrain which heat up during operation, including powertrain coolant conduit in flow communication with components of the powertrain (Paragraph 0022). Vader teaches that the auxiliary heating and cooling loop (Paragraph 0010) (Figures 1-3; Element 180) may be in flow communication with the powertrain circuit (Paragraph 0013) (Figures 1-3, Element 118), such that the heat in the powertrain coolant circuit is used by the auxiliary coolant circuit (Paragraph 0025). Vader further teaches a valve (Figure 1, Element 196) to provide flow communication between the powertrain coolant circuit and the auxiliary coolant circuit such that the powertrain coolant flowing through the powertrain coolant circuit mixes with the auxiliary coolant flowing through the auxiliary coolant circuit which affects the temperature of the auxiliary coolant (Paragraph 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide fluid from the powertrain loop (118) to the thermal batteries, via the transfer of fluid flow between the powertrain coolant circuit (118) and the auxiliary coolant circuit (180), in order to establish flow communication between the coolant loops to allow partial mixing of the coolant streams which affects temperature of the coolant and as is disclosed to be a suitable configuration (Paragraph 0031), as taught by Vader.
As shown in Figure 3 of Vader, the thermal batteries arranged in parallel, where coolant in the auxiliary loop (Element 180) branches off into conduits which flow through each of the thermal batteries. It is considered that the parallel arrangement of the thermal batteries of Vader facilitates the first and second thermal batteries of Vader being capable of simultaneously receiving coolant from the traction battery. It is noted that the configured to limitations are is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Further, the instant disclosure provides alternative arrangements in which the first and second thermal batteries do not simultaneously receive coolant, and instead coolant is directed to either the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery (Paragraphs 0048 and 0065), which indicates the first and second thermal batteries are configured to receive coolant in a variety of different ways. Because the thermal batteries of Vader are capable of receiving coolant simultaneously, among a variety of other possible configurations of the coolant path, they could operate in the claimed manner and thus meet the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Vader teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the first and second thermal batteries are first and second phase-change thermal batteries (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 16, Vader teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the chiller transfers thermal energy (in flow communication) from the coolant (auxiliary circuit coolant) (Figure 3, Element 180) to a refrigerant system (cabin refrigerant circuit) (Figure 3, Element 152) within a HVAC system of the electrified vehicle (Paragraphs 0010, 0027).
Regarding claim 19, Vader teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the first thermal battery is separate and distinct from the second thermal battery, as seen in Figure 3 of Vader (heat storage devices in parallel).
Regarding claim 20, Vader teaches the system of claim 12, further comprising a manifold (conduits of the powertrain and auxiliary cooling circuits) configured to direct the coolant from the traction battery to the first thermal battery and the second thermal battery (Figure 3, Elements 118 and 180; Paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 21, Vader teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the coolant is a liquid coolant. Vader further teaches the coolant of the powertrain coolant circuit being polyethylene glycol (Paragraph 0022) and the coolant of the auxiliary coolant circuit being ethylene glycol, both considered liquid coolants, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 26, as discussed in the above rejection of claims 12 and 21, Vader teaches a thermal energy management system for an electrified vehicle, comprising: a thermal battery assembly having at least a first thermal battery and a second thermal battery; a traction battery, the first and second thermal batteries configured to simultaneously receive liquid coolant from the traction battery to cool the traction battery; and a chiller, the chiller configured to sequentially receive liquid coolant from the first thermal battery and then the second thermal battery to cool the first and second thermal batteries.
Regarding claim 27, as discussed above in the rejection of claims 12 and 21, Vader teaches the system where the first and second thermal batteries (heat storage modules) configured to receive liquid coolant (via the auxiliary coolant circuit) from the traction battery (heat from the traction battery in the powertrain transferred to the thermal batteries via communication between the powertrain coolant circuit and the auxiliary coolant circuit) to cool the traction battery.
As discussed above, Vader teaches a valve (Figure 1, Element 196) to provide flow communication between the powertrain coolant circuit and the auxiliary coolant circuit such that the powertrain coolant flowing through the powertrain coolant circuit mixes with the auxiliary coolant flowing through the auxiliary coolant circuit which affects the temperature of the auxiliary coolant the powertrain coolant (Paragraph 0031).
As shown in Figure 3 of Vader, the thermal batteries arranged in parallel, where coolant in the auxiliary loop (Element 180) branches off into conduits which flow through each of the thermal batteries. Therefore, Vader teaches the thermal batteries simultaneously receive liquid coolant or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the thermal batteries receive liquid coolant simultaneously in accordance with their parallel arrangement, meeting the instant claimed limitations of a valve that receives liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to both the first and second thermal batteries such that the first and second thermal batteries are simultaneously receiving coolant from the traction battery to cool the traction battery, meeting the instant claimed limitations. Further, the instant disclosure provides alternative arrangements in which the first and second thermal batteries do not simultaneously receive coolant, and instead coolant is directed to either the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery (Paragraphs 0048 and 0065), which indicates the first and second thermal batteries are configured to receive coolant in a variety of different ways. Because the thermal batteries of Vader are capable of receiving coolant simultaneously, among a variety of other possible configurations of the coolant path, they could operate in the claimed manner and thus meet the instant claimed limitation.
13. Claims 15, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader as applied to claims 12, 14, 16, 19-21, and 26-27 above, further in view of Storm (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004264543 A1)
Regarding claim 15 and 22, Vader teaches the system of claim 12.
Vader is silent as to a valve actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery to the chiller or from the second thermal battery to the chiller.
However, Storm discloses a temperature management system to manage the temperature of thermal components (Paragraph 0004), which solves a similar problem as Vader in controlling the temperature of components in a system during its operation. Storm teaches a conduit system to transfer heat from a heat exchanger to a heat sink, establishing thermal communication between the elements in order to manage temperature and provide cooling to a thermal component of the system (Paragraph 0022). Storm teaches when multiple heat exchangers are required, the thermal conduit system comprises thermal conduit branches that branch out to each heat exchanger and then join back together for flow to the heat sink. Storm teaches the plurality of heat exchangers may be arranged in parallel, and the conduit system may comprise a valve for controlling the flow of fluid through each branch of the conduit (Paragraph 0025). Storm teaches the function of the valve to allow and restrict flow through the plurality of branches of the conduit system in order to isolate heat exchangers when they are not required (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, Storm discloses the value of positioning a valve at a branch point in a conduit network in order to control the flow of fluid in a variety of configurations. As seen in the annotated figure below of Vader, the coolant exiting each of the respective thermal batteries of Vader converges at a branch point.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Vader
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to modify the thermal management system of Vader to incorporate the teachings of Storm in which a valve is installed at the branch point of the conduit system, particularly at the point where the conduits containing the fluid exiting the thermal batteries converge. Doing so is known in the art as taught by Storm in order to manage fluid flow in a branched conduit network, and further provides the advantage of isolating components.
The “at least one valve that is actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery to the chiller” (claim 15) and “a valve actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery to the chiller or from the second thermal battery to the chiller” (claim 22) is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). No additional details have been recited in the instant claim to define the structural features required by the valve, therefore the valve of Vader in view of Storm is considered capable of performing the claimed function and the instant limitations are met.
Regarding claim 28, Vader teaches the system of claim 27.
Vader is silent as to a valve that receives the liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to both the first and second thermal batteries, wherein the valve is translatable to a first state that directs the liquid coolant to the first thermal battery but not the second thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery, and translatable to a second state that directs the liquid coolant to the second thermal battery but not the first thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery.
However, as discussed above, Storm teaches a conduit system to transfer heat from a heat exchanger to a heat sink, establishing thermal communication between the elements in order to manage temperature and provide cooling to a thermal component of the system (Paragraph 0022). Storm teaches when multiple heat exchangers are required, they may be arranged in parallel with a thermal conduit system including branches and a valve for controlling the flow of fluid through each branch of the conduit (Paragraph 0025). Storm teaches the function of the valve to allow and restrict flow through the plurality of branches of the conduit system in order to isolate heat exchangers when they are not required (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, Storm discloses the value of positioning a valve at a branch point in a conduit network in order to control the flow of fluid in a variety of configurations. As seen in the annotated figure below of Vader, the coolant entering each of the respective thermal batteries of Vader diverges from a branch point.
PNG
media_image2.png
564
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Vader
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to modify the thermal management system of Vader to incorporate the teachings of Storm in which a valve is installed at the branch point of the conduit system, particularly at the point where the conduits containing the fluid entering the thermal batteries diverge. Doing so is known in the art as taught by Storm in order to manage fluid flow in a branched conduit network, particularly through cooling elements which are arranged in parallel. Storm teaches the advantage of such a valve to control flow through various paths in response to heating and cooling needs of the system.
The “valve that receives the liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to both the first and second thermal batteries, wherein the valve is translatable to a first state that directs the liquid coolant to the first thermal battery but not the second thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery, and translatable to a second state that directs the liquid coolant to the second thermal battery but not the first thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is a feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). No additional details have been recited in the instant claim to define the structural features required by the valve, therefore the valve of Vader in view of Storm is considered capable of performing the claimed function and the instant limitations are met.
13. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader as applied to claims 12, 14, 16, 19-21, and 26-27 above, further in view of Neubauer (cited in the previous Office Action, Non Patent Literature “Will Your Battery Survive a World with Fast Chargers?”)
Regarding claim 17, Vader teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12. The limitation of “the thermal battery assembly is configured to cool the traction battery during a DC fast charge of the traction battery” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is a feature defined by what it does, rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. . See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Vader teaches the claimed structure of the thermal energy management system as stated in the above rejection, particularly with respect to claim 12, which outlines the teachings of the thermal batteries receiving coolant from the traction battery to cool the traction battery. Therefore, the thermal battery assembly would be capable of cooling the traction battery at any point, therefore capable of performing in the manner claimed when the traction battery is cooled during a DC fast charge.
In the alternative, Neubauer teaches the effect of fast charging on the batteries of electric vehicles, notably how aggressive charging could lead to excessive battery temperatures and degradation (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal energy management system of Vader to incorporate the teachings of Neubauer in which the thermal battery assembly cools the traction battery while it is undergoing DC fast charging. Doing so would prevent the battery from experiencing an elevated temperature during fast charging, thereby preventing degradation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader as applied to claims 12, 14, 16, 19-21, and 26-27 above.
Regarding claim 18, Vader teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Vader does not explicitly teach the system wherein the thermal battery assembly includes at least one third thermal battery.
Vader teaches the thermal management system including a thermal storage modules which assist in maintaining the temperature of the auxiliary coolant circuit supplemented by the powertrain coolant circuit (Paragraph 0040). As seen in Figure 3, Vader teaches the arrangement of the thermal storage modules in parallel in the thermal management system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide additional thermal batteries in parallel, in order to provide additional capabilities to control the temperature of the coolant in the auxiliary circuit. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader as applied to claims 12, 14, 16, 19-21, and 26-27 above, further in view of Cox (cited in a previous office action, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220134905 A1) and DeSousa (cited in a previous office action, Non-Patent Literature, “Benefits of Using a High Flow Proportional Control Valve”).
Regarding claim 24, Vader teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Vader does not teach a proportional valve adjustable to direct coolant around the traction battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery or when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery.
Cox discloses a thermal management system for electrified vehicles comprising a battery bypass loop which bypasses a traction battery pack based on the amount the heat of the coolant (Abstract). Cox teaches a valve (Figure 2, Element 76) which controls the flow of coolant into the battery pack (Figure 2, Element 24) or into the battery bypass loop (Figure 2, Element 78) (Paragraph 0048). Cox teaches the valve including a first outlet (Figure 2, Element 88) which can be opened to delivery coolant to the inlet of the battery and a second outlet (Figure 2, Element 90) which can be opened to delivery coolant to the battery bypass loop such that it does not thermally manage the cells of the battery pack (Paragraph 0049). Cox teaches a control unit (Figure 2, Element 96) which receives feedback from a coolant temperature sensor and a battery cell temperature sensor in order to determine the position of the valve directing coolant either to the battery case or to the battery bypass loop (Paragraph 0054). Cox teaches the advantage of the battery bypass loop as mitigating the rise in temperatures of the battery cell when the coolant is too hot, which improves the performance and lifetime of the battery cells (Paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal management system of Vader to incorporate the teachings of Cox in which there is a battery bypass loop controlled by a valve receiving input from battery and coolant sensors to determine its open/closed positions which directs coolant either into the battery or the battery bypass loop. Doing so would advantageously result in the prevention of the battery from warming up to a temperature which negatively impacts performance and lifetime of the battery cell, as recognized by Cox.
When implemented into the thermal management system taught by Vader, it would be further obvious to an ordinary artisan to implement the sensor-controlled valve and bypass loop of Cox so that the sensors detect the temperature of the coolant as they cool the thermal batteries and the valve is positioned to direct coolant around the traction battery while the chiller is cooling the first or second thermal batteries.
Vader modified by Cox as described above does not explicitly teach the valve is a proportional valve.
However, DeSousa discloses a proportional valve capable of delivering a high flow rates using a pressure balancing valve design (Page 15, Column 2, Paragraph 3). DeSousa teaches the advantage of the proportional valves with pressure balancing to be increasing the flow rate for applications while decreasing power consumption and overall product size, allowing for the replacement of multiple smaller valves or one large valve with a single, compact, and efficient valve. The result is a reduction in the overall space required for the system (Page 17, Column 1, Paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Vader in view of Cox to incorporate the teachings of DeSousa in which the valve is a proportional valve. Doing so would advantageously result in decreased power consumption and size of the system, as recognized by DeSousa.
Regarding claim 25, modified Vader teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 24, wherein the proportional valve is configured to direct coolant through the traction battery when the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery is cooling the traction battery.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 24, Vader modified by Cox and DeSousa teach a thermal management system comprising valve including a first outlet (Figure 2, Element 88) which can be opened to delivery coolant to the inlet of the battery and a second outlet (Figure 2, Element 90) which can be opened to delivery coolant to the battery bypass loop where it does not thermally manage the cells of the battery pack (Paragraph 0049).
The limitation of “the proportional valve is configured to direct coolant through the traction battery when the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery is cooling the traction battery” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
In this instance, Vader in view of Cox and DeSousa teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection as the valve of Cox is capable of directing coolant into the traction battery through an opening (Figure 2, Element 88), therefore the instant claimed limitation is met.
Claim 28 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader as applied to claims 12, 14, 16, 19-21, and 26-27 above, further in view of Vetrovec (cited in the previous office action, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080216777).
Regarding claim 28, Vader teaches the thermal energy management system of claim 27.
Vader is silent as to a valve that receives the liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to both the first and second thermal batteries, wherein the valve is translatable to a first state that directs the liquid coolant to the first thermal battery but not the second thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery, and translatable to a second state that directs the liquid coolant to the second thermal battery but not the first thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery.
However, Vetrovec discloses a cooling system for an internal combustion engine which includes a heat accumulator to temporarily store excess heat (Abstract). Vetrovec teaches a diverter valve (Figure 1, Element 82) of the cooling system which is adapted to selectively regulate the amount of coolant which is circulated through the block portion (Figure 1, Element 54) and the head portion (Figure 1, Element 58) of the engine (Figure 1, Element 52) via parallel coolant inlet lines represented by elements 56, 64 and 68, respectively (Paragraph 0026).
PNG
media_image3.png
270
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Vetrovec
Vetrovec teaches the adjustment of the valve to direct coolant flow through the head and the block portions of the engine (Paragraph 0033). Vetrovec teaches the control of coolant via the diverter valve to increase cooling system efficiency (Paragraph 0026).
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 thermal energy management system of Vader to incorporate the teachings of Vetrovec where a diverter valve directs coolant along pipes in parallel. Doing so would advantageously result in improved cooling system efficiency, as recognized by Vetrovec.
Applied to the system of Vader, the diverter valve controls the flow of coolant through the thermal batteries which are arranged in parallel, shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
552
849
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Vader
As described above, Vader in view of Vetrovec teaches the diverter valve may direct full coolant flow to the first coolant inlet (Figure 1, Element 64). The diverter valve may also be adjusted to direct a portion of the coolant flow to the second coolant inlet (Figure 1, Element 68). These two positions are considered to be the first and second states defined by the instant claim, where the diverter valve is translatable between them in order to direct coolant, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
There are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of the second state of the valve for how to direct the coolant flow to the second conduit path in a system of two parallel conduits, where the second conduit receives somewhere between 0 to 100 percent of the total coolant entering the diverter valve, where 0% defines the first state of the instant claim, where full coolant flow is directed to the first thermal battery. It would be obvious to an ordinary artisan to try to direct 100 percent of the coolant flow into the second thermal battery in the second state of the valve, as Vetrovec teaches increased coolant flow to the second coolant inlet makes it easier to maintain the desired operating temperature (Paragraph 0026). Furthermore, the resulting diverter valve with first and second states would yield predictable results in directing coolant in a thermal energy management system. See MPEP 2143 (I), rationale (E).
Claim 12-23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidner (cited in a previous office action, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0210196 A1) in view of Cheng (cited in a previous office action, Chinese Patent Publication No. 112563618 A) and Schmidt (German Patent Publication No. 102013200786 A1), as evidenced by the Britannica definition of “traction battery”
Regarding claim 12, Bidner teaches a thermal energy management system (Figures 1A-B, Element 100) for an electrified vehicle (Paragraph 00024), comprising:
a thermal battery assembly having at least a first thermal battery (Figure 1B, Element 50) (Paragraph 0025)
A traction battery: Bidner teaches the thermal energy management system for an electric vehicle, where a battery driven electric motor provides electricity to a motor (Paragraph 0024). According to Britannica, the definition of the traction battery is a battery employed in a vehicle. Thus, the high-voltage battery that powers the electric motor and provides energy for propulsion of a taught by Bidner considered a traction battery, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
A chiller: Bidner teaches that the heat in the thermal storage device (Figure 1B, Element 50) may be transferred to the coolant in the coolant circuit (Figure 1B, Element 102) through the heat exchange loop (Figure 1B, Element 103) (Page 3, Paragraph 0031). The coolant circuit of Bidner is being equated with the chiller of the instant application, as both serve the same purpose of removing heat from the coolant exiting the thermal batteries, simultaneously cooling the first and second thermal batteries. Thus, Bidner teaches the claimed thermal energy management system comprising a chiller.
Bidner does not teach the thermal energy management system comprising a second thermal battery.
Cheng teaches an electric automobile battery temperature control device comprising a phase change heat storage device (thermal battery) and a spare phase change heat storage device connected in parallel (Abstract). The phase change heat storage device of Cheng construed as a thermal battery, as both structures function to store excess heat produced by the battery for later use (Page 15, Paragraph 5). Cheng discloses that it is beneficial to include aspare thermal battery as an additional reservoir for heat storage when the main phase change heat storage device is close to saturation.This allows for additional heat to be removed from the battery in order to maintain its function in the ideal working temperature range (Page 15, Paragraph 5).
Schmidt discloses a cooling system for a battery in an electric vehicle (Paragraph 0001), including a plurality of heat sinks which assist in cooling down the battery cells of a battery (Paragraphs 0009 and 0011). Schmidt teaches the coolant flowing through the coolant circuit is supplied to a second cooling body (heat sink) via a discharge tube (Paragraph 0030). As seen in Figures 3-5, Schmidt teaches a plurality of second cooling bodies (Elements 5, 5’, and 5’’) integrated into the cooling circuit to reduce the temperature of the coolant, wherein the heat sinks are arranged into a variety of different but suitable configurations (Paragraph 00032). Particularly, as taught and shown in Figure 3, Schmidt teaches it is known in the art to position a plurality of heat sinks (thermal batteries) in parallel with one another (Paragraphs 0016, 0033).
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 Bidner to incorporate the teachings of Cheng and Schmidt in which a second thermal battery is arranged in the thermal management system to be in parallel with the first thermal battery of Bidner. Arranging thermal batteries in a variety of configurations, including series and parallel arrangements, are taught by Schmidt to be known in the art in order to reduce the temperature of coolant circulating to cool a traction battery. Further, this modification would allow for additional heat storage capabilities when the first thermal battery approaches its saturation level, resulting in continuous heat removal from the hot battery and homeostasis of the working temperature range, as recognized by Cheng.
As discussed above in the modification of Bidner by Cheng and Schmidt, the thermal batteries are arranged in parallel. It is considered that the parallel arrangement of the thermal batteries of modified Bidner facilitates the first and second thermal batteries of modified Bidner capable of simultaneously receiving coolant from the traction battery or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to direct coolant so that the first and second thermal batteries simultaneously receive coolant from the traction battery, meeting the instant claimed limitation. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Further, the instant disclosure provides alternative arrangements in which the first and second thermal batteries do not simultaneously receive coolant, and instead coolant is directed to either the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery (Paragraphs 0048 and 0065), which indicates the first and second thermal batteries are configured to receive coolant in a variety of different ways. Because the thermal batteries of Vader are capable of receiving coolant simultaneously, among a variety of other possible configurations of the coolant path, they could operate in the claimed manner and thus meet the instant claimed limitation.
As discussed above in the modification of Bidner by Cheng and Schmidt, the thermal batteries are arranged in parallel. It is considered that the parallel arrangement of the thermal batteries of modified Bidner facilitates the chiller being capable of sequentially receiving coolant from the first thermal battery and then the second thermal battery of modified Bidner or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to direct coolant so that chiller sequentially receives coolant from the first thermal battery and the second thermal battery, meeting the instant claimed limitation. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Because the chiller of modified Bidner is capable of receiving coolant sequentially, among a variety of other possible configurations of the coolant path, it could operate in the claimed manner and thus meets the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Bidner discloses the thermal storage device may generate thermal energy through chemical adsorption, such as through adsorber cells filled with adsorbent (Page 4, Paragraph 0039). Thus, the thermal storage devices of Bidner are considered adsorption thermal batteries, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Bidner discloses the thermal storage device may capture and store heat generated by the engine using one or more phase change materials (Page 2, Paragraph 0025). Thus, the thermal storage devices of Bidner are considered phase-change thermal batteries, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Bidner teaches the heat in the thermal battery may be transferred to the coolant in the coolant circuit (equated with the instant chiller) through the heat exchange loop positioned within the thermal storage device (Page 3, Paragraph 0031). Further, Bidner teaches the heat exchange loop includes a valve (Figure 1B, Element 124) which may regulate the amount of coolant flowing out of the thermal storage device and into the coolant circuit (Page 3, Paragraph 0032).
Bidner discloses the ability to adjust the valve between a closed first position and a fully open second position, which is considered equivalent to the instant claim’s actuatable valve.
The “at least one valve that is actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery to the chiller” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). No additional details have been recited in the instant claim to define the structural features required by the valve, therefore the valve of Bidner is considered capable of performing the claimed function.
Thus, Bidner teaches the system further comprising at least one valve that is actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery to the chiller.
Regarding claim 16, Bidner teaches the system of claim 12.
Bidner teaches that the thermal battery captures and stores heat generated during the operation of the vehicle, which may be stored and used later, such as to warm a passenger cabin in response to a passenger request the heat the cabin (Paragraph 0025).
As discussed above, the coolant circuit (Figure 1B, Element 102) of Bidner is equated with the instant chiller. Bidner teaches the coolant circuit includes an engine circuit (Figure 1B, Element 105) and a heater circuit (Figure 1B, Element 106) (Paragraph 02029).
Bidner teaches in response to a passenger request to heat the cabin, a controller signals coolant is the engine circuit to be circulated through the heater loop, which transfers the heat from the coolant to a heater core and is blown into the passenger cabin by a fan (Paragraph 0044).
As the engine circuit and the heater circuit are considered part of the coolant circuit (chiller), Bidner teaches the chiller transferring thermal energy from the coolant to a refrigerant system within a HVAC system of the electrified vehicle, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12, wherein the thermal battery assembly is configured to cool the traction battery during a DC fast charge of the traction battery.
The limitation of “the thermal battery assembly is configured to cool the traction battery during a DC fast charge of the traction battery” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is a feature defined by what it does, rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Bidner teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection, particularly with respect to claim 1 which outlines the teachings of the thermal batteries receiving coolant from the traction battery to cool the traction battery. Therefore, the thermal battery assembly would be capable of cooling the traction battery at any point, therefore capable of performing in the manner claimed when the traction battery is cooled during a DC fast charge.
Regarding claim 18, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Bidner does not explicitly teach the system wherein the thermal battery assembly includes at least one third thermal battery.
However, as described above, Schmidt teaches numerous configurations of heat sinks which are identified as suitable in the art in order to provide sufficient cooling to a traction battery during its use in an electric vehicle. In Figures 3-5 of Schmidt, three thermal batteries (Elements 5, 5’, and 5’’) are depicted, illustrating how it is known to incorporate a plurality of thermal batteries in different arrangements in a thermal energy management system in order to provide temperature control of a traction battery. Notably, as seen in Figure 3, Schmidt teaches a configuration of three thermal batteries in parallel, providing further evidence that it would have been obviously to further modify Bidner to incorporate the teachings of Cheng and Schmidt in which a third thermal battery is included in the thermal battery assembly, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
The modification of Bidner by Cheng and Schmidt outlined above incorporated a second thermal battery into the thermal battery assembly. As seen in the depictions of the thermal battery assemblies of Cheng (Figure 1) and Schmidt (Figures 3-5), the thermal batteries according to the modification are separate and distinct, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
The limitation of “a manifold configured to direct the coolant from the traction battery to the first thermal battery and the second thermal battery” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is a feature defined by what it does, rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
The modification of Bidner by Cheng and Schmidt outlined above incorporated a second thermal battery into the thermal battery assembly. As seen in the depictions of the thermal battery assemblies of Schmidt, a known configuration of a plurality of thermal batteries in an assembly include thermal batteries in parallel, wherein a manifold (branches of a discharge line) (Figure 3, Elements 4, 4’, and 4’’) delivers coolant to each of the respect thermal batteries (Paragraph 0033). Therefore, the modification of Bidner by Cheng and Schmidt discussed in the rejection of claim 12 teaches a manifold configured to direct the coolant from the traction battery to the first thermal battery and the second thermal battery, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 21, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Bidner teaches a coolant in the thermal energy management system transfers heat throughout the system, as seen in Figure 1B. Bidner teaches a heat exchange circuit (Element 101) including a thermal battery (Element 50), coolant heat exchange loop (Element 103), and heat recovery loop (Element 104).
Bidner teaches the fluids in the heat recovery loop in thermal communication with the gasses in the exhaust passage from the engine, such that the heated fluid from the heat recovery loop transports the heat from the exhaust gases to the thermal storage device. Thus, the thermal battery captures and stores the thermal energy obtained from hot exhaust gases (Paragraph 0029).
As the embodiment represented in Figure 1B of Bidner is an embodiment of the thermal energy management system implemented in a gasoline-powered vehicle. However, as discussed above, Bidner teaches the thermal energy management system implemented in electric vehicles, where the engine is omitted (Paragraph 0024). In such an embodiment, although not shown, the ordinary artisan would recognize the engine is replaced by an arrangement for propulsion of the electric vehicle, including a traction battery with powers the electric motor, as recognized by Bidner. As electric vehicles generate propulsion without exhaust, the thermal energy management system of Bidner would rely on a fluid to establish thermal communication between the traction battery cells and heat recovery loop. It would be obvious to the ordinary artisan to implement a liquid coolant to transfer heat from the traction battery pack to the coolant in the heat recovery loop so that it may be captured and stored in the thermal battery, as Bidner teaches liquid coolant is suitable to transfer thermal energy in the thermal energy management system. This selection would have been obvious to try, as the fluid from the propulsion assembly may be either a liquid or a gas, so the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to select liquid coolant from a list of two options. See MPEP 2143(I), rationale E.
Thus, in an embodiment where the engine of Bidner is replaced by an electric vehicle drivetrain, the coolant that is received by the first and second thermal batteries from the traction battery is a liquid coolant and the coolant that is received by the chiller from the first and second thermal batteries is liquid coolant, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 22, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Bidner teaches the heat in the thermal battery may be transferred to the coolant in the coolant circuit (equated with the instant chiller) through the heat exchange loop positioned within the thermal storage device (Page 3, Paragraph 0031). Further, Bidner teaches the heat exchange loop includes a valve (Figure 1B, Element 124) which may regulate the amount of coolant flowing out of the thermal storage device and into the coolant circuit (Page 3, Paragraph 0032).
Bidner discloses the ability to adjust the valve between a closed first position and a fully open second position, which is considered equivalent to the instant claim’s actuatable valve.
The recitation of “a valve actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery to the chiller or from the second thermal battery to the chiller” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). No additional details have been recited in the instant claim to define the structural features required by the valve, therefore the valve of Bidner is considered capable of performing the claimed function.
Thus, Bidner teaches the system further comprising a valve actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery to the chiller or from the second thermal battery to the chiller, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 23, Bidner teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the valve is upstream from the first and second thermal batteries and downstream from the chiller relative to a direction of coolant flow, as shown in the annotated Figures 1B of Bidner below.
PNG
media_image5.png
838
1039
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
838
1168
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, as discussed in the above rejection of claims 12 and 21, Bidner in view of Cheng and Schmidt teaches a thermal energy management system for an electrified vehicle, comprising: a thermal battery assembly having at least a first thermal battery and a second thermal battery; a traction battery, the first and second thermal batteries configured to simultaneously receive liquid coolant from the traction battery to cool the traction battery; and a chiller, the chiller configured to sequentially receive liquid coolant from the first thermal battery and then the second thermal battery to cool the first and second thermal batteries.
Regarding claim 27, modified Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 26.
Bidner teaches a valve (Figure 1B, Element 120) that receives the liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to the thermal battery (Figure 1B, Element 50) (Paragraph 0030).
The modification of Bidner by Cheng and Schmidt outlined above incorporated a second thermal battery into the thermal battery assembly. As seen in the depictions of the thermal battery assemblies of Schmidt, a known configuration of a plurality of thermal batteries in an assembly include thermal batteries in parallel (Paragraph 0016), wherein a manifold (branches of a discharge line) (Figure 3, Elements 4, 4’, and 4’’) delivers coolant to each of the respect thermal batteries (Paragraph 0033). Schmidt teaches in this arrangement, part of the coolant discharged from the battery flows through the cooling body 5 (Figure 3, Element 5), the cooling body 5' (Figure 3, Element 5’), and the cooling body 5" (Figure 3, Element 5”). Therefore, as seen in Figure 3 of Schmidt the thermal batteries simultaneously receive liquid coolant or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the thermal batteries receive liquid coolant simultaneously in accordance with their parallel arrangement,
Therefore, the modification of Bidner by Cheng and Schmidt discussed in the rejection of claim 26 teaches a valve that received liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to both the first and second thermal batteries such that the first and second thermal batteries are simultaneously receiving coolant from the traction battery to cool the traction battery, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 15 and 22 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidner in view of Cheng and Schmidt as applied to claims 12-23, 26-27 above, further in view of Storm (cited above).
Regarding claims 15 and 22, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
In the event that a valve of Bidner is found to not be capable of selectively directing coolant from the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery to the chiller, an additional rejection of claims 15 and 22 is present in view of Storm.
As discussed above, Storm discloses a temperature management system to manage the temperature of thermal components (Paragraph 0004), which solves a similar problem as Bidner in controlling the temperature of components in a system during its operation. Storm teaches a configuration of multiple heat exchangers arranged in parallel with a thermal conduit system comprises thermal conduit branches that branch out to each heat exchanger and then join back together for flow to the heat sink. Storm teaches the conduit system may comprise a valve for controlling the flow of fluid through each branch of the conduit (Paragraph 0025). Storm teaches the function of the valve to allow and restrict flow through the plurality of branches of the conduit system in order to isolate heat exchangers when they are not required (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, Storm discloses the value of positioning a valve at a branch point in a conduit network in order to control the flow of fluid in a variety of configurations. As seen in the annotated figure below the teaching of Schmidt which modified Bidner to incorporate a second thermal battery in parallel, the coolant exiting each of the respective thermal batteries of modified Bidner converges at a branch point.
PNG
media_image7.png
674
639
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Schmidt
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to modify the thermal management system of Bidner in view of Cheng and Schmidt to incorporate the teachings of Storm in which a valve is installed at the branch point of the conduit system, particularly at the point where the conduits containing the fluid exiting the thermal batteries converge. Doing so is known in the art as taught by Storm in order to manage fluid flow in a branched conduit network, and further provides the advantage of isolating components.
The “at least one valve that is actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery to the chiller” (claim 15) and “a valve actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery to the chiller or from the second thermal battery to the chiller” (claim 22) is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). No additional details have been recited in the instant claim to define the structural features required by the valve, therefore the valve of Bidner in view of Storm is considered capable of performing the claimed function and the instant limitations are met.
Claim 16 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidner in view of Cheng and Schmidt as applied to claims 12-23, 26-27 above, further in view of Bevirt (cited in a previous office action, WO 2021062305) and Durrani (cited in a previous office action, German Patent Publication No. 102018101518 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12, including a coolant circuit which is equated with the instant chiller, as discussed previously.
Bidner teaches that the thermal management system may be coupled to the passenger cabin (Figure 1A, Elements 4 and 100) and that the heat from the thermal storage device may be used to warm the passenger cabin in response to a passenger request to heat the cabin (Page 2, Paragraph 0025).
Bevirt teaches a thermal management system for a vehicle cabin, in which the system can function to manage cabin temperature including increasing the air temperature, decreasing the air temperature, maintaining the air temperature, and/or otherwise suitably manipulating the air temperature (Page 4, Paragraph 0033). Thus, the system of Bevirt is equated with the instant HVAC system.
Bevirt teaches that during cabin heating mode, the on-board thermal management subsystem heats the cabin using waste heat generated by the battery during operation and or store by a thermal mass (Page 3, Paragraph 0031). Further, Bevirt teaches a refrigeration loop which may be used for the vehicle cabin exclusively (Page 24, Paragraph 0096). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the embodiment taught by Bevirt in which the refrigeration loop serves the passenger cabin. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would perform with no inventive effort required. Furthermore, the refrigeration loop would yield predictable results in controlling climate in the passenger cabin of the electric vehicle. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Durrani teaches the implementation of the refrigerant system to electrified vehicles because the high voltage battery usually has a higher refrigeration demand than motor vehicles with a pure internal combustion engine. Particularly, Durrani teaches the increased requirement for cooling results from fast charging the electrical energy storage, a phenomenon also recognized in the instant application (Paragraph 6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chiller of Bidner to incorporate the teachings of Bevirt motivated by Durrani in which the chiller transfers thermal energy from the coolant to a refrigerant system within a HVAC system of the electrified vehicle.
Claim 17 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidner in view of Cheng and Schmidt as applied to claims 12-23, 26-27 above, further in view of Neubauer (Non Patent Literature “Will Your Battery Survive a World with Fast Chargers?”)
Regarding claim 17, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
If Bidner is not found to teach the instant claimed structural limitation with respect to the cooling of the traction battery during a DC fast charge, an alternative rejection of the claim in view of Neubauer is presented.
Neubauer teaches the effect of fast charging on the batteries of electric vehicles, notably how aggressive charging could lead to excessive battery temperatures and degradation (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal energy management system of Bidner to incorporate the teachings of Neubauer in which the thermal battery assembly cools the traction battery while it is undergoing DC fast charging. Doing so would prevent the battery from experiencing an elevated temperature during fast charging, thereby preventing degradation, as recognized by Neubauer.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidner in view of Cheng and Schmidt as applied to claims 12-23, 26-27 above, further in view of Cox (cited in a previous office action, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220134905 A1) and DeSousa (cited in a previous office action, Non-Patent Literature, “Benefits of Using a High Flow Proportional Control Valve”).
Regarding claim 24, Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Bidner does not teach a proportional valve adjustable to direct coolant around the traction battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery or when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery.
Cox discloses a thermal management system for electrified vehicles comprising a battery bypass loop which bypasses a traction battery pack based on the amount the heat of the coolant (Abstract). Cox teaches a valve (Figure 2, Element 76) which controls the flow of coolant into the battery pack (Figure 2, Element 24) or into the battery bypass loop (Figure 2, Element 78) (Paragraph 0048). Cox teaches the valve including a first outlet (Figure 2, Element 88) which can be opened to delivery coolant to the inlet of the battery and a second outlet (Figure 2, Element 90) which can be opened to delivery coolant to the battery bypass loop such that it does not thermally manage the cells of the battery pack (Paragraph 0049). Cox teaches a control unit (Figure 2, Element 96) which receives feedback from a coolant temperature sensor and a battery cell temperature sensor in order to determine the position of the valve directing coolant either to the battery case or to the battery bypass loop (Paragraph 0054). Cox teaches the advantage of the battery bypass loop as mitigating the rise in temperatures of the battery cell when the coolant is too hot, which improves the performance and lifetime of the battery cells (Paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal management system of Bidner to incorporate the teachings of Cox in which there is a battery bypass loop controlled by a valve receiving input from battery and coolant sensors to determine its open/closed positions which directs coolant either into the battery or the battery bypass loop. Doing so would advantageously result in the prevention of the battery from warming up to a temperature which negatively impacts performance and lifetime of the battery cell, as recognized by Cox.
When implemented into the thermal management system taught by Bidner, it would be further obvious to an ordinary artisan to implement the sensor-controlled valve and bypass loop of Cox so that the sensors detect the temperature of the coolant as they cool the thermal batteries and the valve is positioned to direct coolant around the traction battery while the chiller is cooling the first or second thermal batteries.
Bidner modified by Cox as described above does not explicitly teach the valve is a proportional valve.
However, DeSousa discloses a proportional valve capable of delivering a high flow rates using a pressure balancing valve design (Page 15, Column 2, Paragraph 3). DeSousa teaches the advantage of the proportional valves with pressure balancing to be increasing the flow rate for applications while decreasing power consumption and overall product size, allowing for the replacement of multiple smaller valves or one large valve with a single, compact, and efficient valve. The result is a reduction in the overall space required for the system (Page 17, Column 1, Paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Bidner in view of Cox to incorporate the teachings of DeSousa in which the valve is a proportional valve. Doing so would advantageously result in decreased power consumption and size of the system, as recognized by DeSousa.
Regarding claim 25, modified Bidner teaches the system as discussed above with respect to claim 24, wherein the proportional valve is configured to direct coolant through the traction battery when the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery is cooling the traction battery.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 24, Bidner modified by Cox and DeSousa teach a thermal management system comprising valve including a first outlet (Figure 2, Element 88) which can be opened to delivery coolant to the inlet of the battery and a second outlet (Figure 2, Element 90) which can be opened to delivery coolant to the battery bypass loop where it does not thermally manage the cells of the battery pack (Paragraph 0049).
The limitation of “the proportional valve is configured to direct coolant through the traction battery when the first thermal battery or the second thermal battery is cooling the traction battery” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
In this instance, Bidner in view of Cox and DeSousa teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection as the valve of Cox is capable of directing coolant into the traction battery through an opening (Figure 2, Element 88), therefore the instant claimed limitation is met.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidner in view of Cheng and Schmidt as applied to claims 12-23, 26-27 above, further in view of Storm (cited above).
Regarding claim 28, Bidner teaches the system of claim 27.
Bidner is silent as to a valve that receives the liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to both the first and second thermal batteries, wherein the valve is translatable to a first state that directs the liquid coolant to the first thermal battery but not the second thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery, and translatable to a second state that directs the liquid coolant to the second thermal battery but not the first thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery.
However, as discussed above, Storm teaches a conduit system to transfer heat from a heat exchanger to a heat sink, establishing thermal communication between the elements in order to manage temperature and provide cooling to a thermal component of the system (Paragraph 0022). Storm teaches when multiple heat exchangers are required, they may be arranged in parallel with a thermal conduit system including branches and a valve for controlling the flow of fluid through each branch of the conduit (Paragraph 0025). Storm teaches the function of the valve to allow and restrict flow through the plurality of branches of the conduit system in order to isolate heat exchangers when they are not required (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, Storm discloses the value of positioning a valve at a branch point in a conduit network in order to control the flow of fluid in a variety of configurations. As seen in the annotated figure below of the thermal batteries of Schmidt which modified Bidner in the rejection of claim 12, the coolant entering each of the respective thermal batteries of Schmidt diverges from a branch point.
PNG
media_image8.png
674
633
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Schmidt
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to modify the thermal management system of Bidner to incorporate the teachings of Storm in which a valve is installed at the branch point of the conduit system, particularly at the point where the conduits containing the fluid entering the thermal batteries diverge. Doing so is known in the art as taught by Storm in order to manage fluid flow in a branched conduit network, particularly through cooling elements which are arranged in parallel. Storm teaches the advantage of such a valve to control flow through various paths in response to heating and cooling needs of the system.
The “valve that receives the liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to both the first and second thermal batteries, wherein the valve is translatable to a first state that directs the liquid coolant to the first thermal battery but not the second thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery, and translatable to a second state that directs the liquid coolant to the second thermal battery but not the first thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). No additional details have been recited in the instant claim to define the structural features required by the valve, therefore the valve of modified Bidner in view of Storm is considered capable of performing the claimed function and the instant limitations are met.
Claim 28 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidner in view of Cheng and Schmidt as applied to claims 12-23, 26-27 above, further in view of Vetrovec (cited in the previous office action, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080216777).
Regarding claim 28, Bidner teaches the thermal energy management system of claim 27.
Bidner is silent as to a valve that receives the liquid coolant from the traction battery and directs the liquid coolant to both the first and second thermal batteries, wherein the valve is translatable to a first state that directs the liquid coolant to the first thermal battery but not the second thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery, and translatable to a second state that directs the liquid coolant to the second thermal battery but not the first thermal battery when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery.
However, Vetrovec discloses a cooling system for an internal combustion engine which includes a heat accumulator to temporarily store excess heat (Abstract). Vetrovec teaches a diverter valve (Figure 1, Element 82) of the cooling system which is adapted to selectively regulate the amount of coolant which is circulated through the block portion (Figure 1, Element 54) and the head portion (Figure 1, Element 58) of the engine (Figure 1, Element 52) via parallel coolant inlet lines represented by elements 56, 64 and 68, respectively (Paragraph 0026).
PNG
media_image3.png
270
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Vetrovec
Vetrovec teaches the adjustment of the valve to direct coolant flow through the head and the block portions of the engine (Paragraph 0033). Vetrovec teaches the control of coolant via the diverter valve to increase cooling system efficiency (Paragraph 0026).
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 thermal energy management system of Bidner to incorporate the teachings of Vetrovec where a diverter valve directs coolant along pipes in parallel. Doing so would advantageously result in improved cooling system efficiency, as recognized by Vetrovec.
Applied to the system of Bidner in view of Schmidt, the diverter valve of Vetrovec controls the flow of coolant through the thermal batteries which are arranged in parallel, shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image9.png
674
633
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Schmidt
As described above, Bidner in view of Vetrovec teaches the diverter valve may direct full coolant flow to the first coolant inlet (Figure 1, Element 64). The diverter valve may also be adjusted to direct a portion of the coolant flow to the second coolant inlet (Figure 1, Element 68). These two positions are considered to be the first and second states defined by the instant claim, where the diverter valve is translatable between them in order to direct coolant, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
There are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of the second state of the valve for how to direct the coolant flow to the second conduit path in a system of two parallel conduits, where the second conduit receives somewhere between 0 to 100 percent of the total coolant entering the diverter valve, where 0% defines the first state of the instant claim, where full coolant flow is directed to the first thermal battery. It would be obvious to an ordinary artisan to try to direct 100 percent of the coolant flow into the second thermal battery in the second state of the valve, as Vetrovec teaches increased coolant flow to the second coolant inlet makes it easier to maintain the desired operating temperature (Paragraph 0026). Furthermore, the resulting diverter valve with first and second states would yield predictable results in directing coolant in a thermal energy management system. See MPEP 2143 (I), rationale (E).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 of the Remarks in the Appeal Brief, filed December 2nd, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 23, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5 of the Remarks in the Appeal Brief, filed December 2nd, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 25 and 28, have been fully considered.
Upon reconsideration of the originally-filed disclosure, the Examiner acknowledges that the entry of the proposed amendments would overcome the 112(a) rejection of claims 25 and 28 set forth in the Final Rejection mailed July 24th, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to a skilled person to modify Bidner to incorporate the teaching of Cheng in which a second thermal battery is incorporated. Applicant argues that Bidner does not teach a deficiency of the first thermal battery that would necessitate the inclusion of a second thermal battery would be incorporated according to Chen.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation provided by Cheng for a second thermal battery providing additional heat storage capabilities so that the thermal management may continue to operate continuously even as the first thermal battery approaches saturation. As described above, according to the MPEP, the secondary reference of Cheng provides the teaching which establishes obviousness to combine the references. Obviousness is not dependent on a deficiency of the primary reference which is modified, only a teaching of a secondary reference which motivates the combination.
Further, in the rejection of claim 12 presented above, Schmidt was included as a relevant teaching in the rejection as evidence that it is known in the art to assemble a plurality of thermal batteries in a variety of configurations in order to meet the desired heating and cooling needs of the thermal energy management system.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to a skilled person to modify Bidner to incorporate the teaching of Cheng in which a second thermal battery is incorporated. Applicant argues that the proposed modification conflicts with Bidner's goal of estimating state of charge based on a temperature of coolant exiting the thermal storage device, rendering he prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner presents that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II). Additionally, the examiner presents that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145(III). Further, as Bidner does not explicitly teach away from the addition of a second thermal battery, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot say for sure that such a modification would make the SOC estimation less accurate, as applicant alleges. As Cheng provides a motivation for the modification, obviousness is established with a clear recited benefit provided by Cheng recited, namely additional heat storage capabilities, continuous heat removal from the hot battery, and homeostasis of the working temperature range.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner appears to speculate and does not offer persuasive reasoning without the benefit of impermissible hindsight, as to why an artisan would have been motivated to modify Bidner according to the teachings of Cheng in which a second thermal battery is incorporated into the assembly.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner presents that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner does in fact offer persuasive reasoning as to why an artisan would be motivated to modify Bidner to include a second thermal battery. As stated in the non final rejection, the motivation for the modification of Bidner by Cheng is provided by Cheng who describes a second thermal battery providing additional heat storage capabilities so that the thermal management may continue to operate continuously even as the first thermal battery approaches saturation. This teaching establishes the obviousness which would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to make such a modification to Bidner.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the recitation of a chiller “configured to sequentially receive coolant from the first thermal battery and then the second thermal battery to cool the first and then the second thermal batteries” is not found in the rejection and is dismissed as a functional limitation. Applicant argues that “configured to” is a structural feature of the claimed system and a person having skill in the art would be able to structurally distinguish a system having a chiller configured in the aforementioned way and a chiller that is not configured in this way.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner presents that the chiller configured to sequentially receive coolant is a structural feature of the thermal energy management system, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. However, the arguments do not point to a specific structure which results in the chiller being configured to sequentially receive coolant from the first thermal battery and then the second thermal battery to cool the first and then the second thermal batteries. The applicant does not elaborate on how a person of ordinary skill would be able to distinguish between a chiller configured in the claimed manner and a chiller which is not configured in this way. The arguments further do not point out why the valve of Bidner modified by Cheng which regulates the amount of coolant flowing out of the thermal storage device and into the coolant circuit doesn’t meet the claimed limitation. As such, no specific structure is required by the disclosure and the valve structure of Bidner in view of Cheng is capable of performing the claimed function therefore meeting the claimed limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 13-14, 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons presented above for claim 12.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the addition of a third thermal battery to the arrangement taught by Bidner yields new or unexpected results such as allowing for the advantageously resizing or downsizing of a refrigeration system to cool the thermal batteries rather than needing to be sized to cool an entire thermal battery assembly.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents that that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
The Examiner further presents in the rejection of claim 18 presented above, Schmidt was included as a relevant teaching in the rejection as evidence that it is known in the art to assemble a plurality of thermal batteries in a variety of configurations, including three thermal batteries in parallel exemplified by Figure 3, in order to meet the desired heating and cooling needs of the thermal energy management system.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the valve 124 of Bidner is not taught as being actuated to selectively direction coolant from a first thermal battery or second thermal battery. The applicant alleges that the valve does not provide and lacks the structure for a selective choice between two different thermal batteries, which is argued to be understood in light of the specification.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents that the recitation of “a valve actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery to the chiller or from the second thermal battery to the chiller” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). No additional details have been recited in the instant claim to define the structural features required by the valve, therefore the valve of Bidner is considered capable of performing the claimed function.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the valve of Bidner is not upstream for both thermal batteries as the instant claim recites.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents the new rejection of claim 23 presented above, wherein the included annotated drawings better demonstrate how the valve of the instant claim is upstream from the thermal batteries and downstream from the chiller, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the valve 124 of Bidner is not taught as being actuated to selectively direction coolant from a first thermal battery or second thermal battery. The applicant alleges that the valve does not provide and lacks the structure for a selective choice between two different thermal batteries, which is argued to be understood in light of the specification.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents that the recitation of “a valve actuated to selectively direct coolant from the first thermal battery to the chiller or from the second thermal battery to the chiller” is interpreted by the Examiner as a functional limitation which is feature defined by what is does rather than what it is. The limitation is met as long as the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). No additional details have been recited in the instant claim to define the structural features required by the valve, therefore the valve of Bidner is considered capable of performing the claimed function.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 16-17, 20, 24-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons presented above for claim 12.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 24-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the valve of Cox is not taught as adjusting to direct coolant around a traction battery when the chiller is cooling the first thermal battery or when the chiller is cooling the second thermal battery. Applicant argues that the proportional valve must be structurally arranged to direct coolant through the traction battery and that this is not a generic statement of function therefore the rejection fails to show a teaching of a proportional valve configured as claimed.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents that the modification of Bidner by Cox is capable of performing in this way. Cox teaches a valve which controls the flow of coolant into the battery pack or into the battery bypass loop. Cox teaches the advantage of the battery bypass loop as mitigating the rise in temperatures of the battery cell when the coolant is too hot, which improves the performance and lifetime of the battery cells, as recited in the previous office action. Therefore, Cox teaches that coolant may be shunted off when it is too hot, which occurs when the chiller is cooling the first or second thermal battery, according to the teachings of Cox and Bidner.
In response to applicant's arguments, the examiner presents that the valve of Bidner in view of Cheng, Cox, and DeSousa teaches the thermal management system comprising a valve, controller, and physical pathways which enables the routing as described in the instant claim and is therefore configured to perform the claimed operation.
61. Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 21, 26-27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
62. Applicant argues Vader does not teach any traction battery because the electric machine of Vader is not a traction battery.
63. These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents the rejection of claim 12 presented above in view of Vader, as evidenced by Exro:
Vader teaches the thermal energy management system to control the temperature of the battery of a vehicle (Paragraph 0009), which may be an electric vehicle. Vader teaches one or more batteries and one or more electric machines to assist with or provide power for propulsion of the vehicle. Vader also teaches the vehicle is an electric vehicle propelled primarily or solely by electric motors (Paragraph 0018). Vader teaches the vehicle’s powertrain, which includes an electric machine, configured to provide the propulsion of vehicle (Paragraph 0021). As evidenced by Exro the main components of the powertrain of an electric vehicle include a traction motor, traction battery pack, traction inverter, onboard charger, DC-DC converter, vehicle control unit, and power distribution unit. Therefore, the powertrain (Figure 1, Element 114) of Vader comprises a traction battery pack which assists in the propulsion of the vehicle as taught by Vader, or it would be obvious to an ordinary artisan that the traction battery is comprised in the powertrain of Vader, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 21, 26-27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Vader does not teach a coolant circuit connected to the vehicle's battery pack and the thermal storage module 304 do not "simultaneously receive liquid coolant from" the batteries 186. The arguments also allege that Vader is not capable of directing coolant to a traction battery since there is no traction battery taught in Vader's thermal energy management system.
These arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents the rejection of claim 12 presented above in view of Vader, as evidenced by Exro, where each limitation of the claim is taught by Vader.
Applicant's arguments filed December 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 28 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons presented above for claim 27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789