DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1,11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anglin et al. (US 2022/0089110).
Regarding claim 1, Anglin (A) discloses a thermal management method for an electrical heating device comprising at least one subset of resistive elements configured to release heat using an electrical supply (170, [0031], i.e., heater with would have resistive characteristics) and a carrier (24, i.e., bus bar assembly, [0038]) configured to provide the electrical supply to the resistive elements, wherein the electrical supply is controlled using a control signal (via 110) depending on a power setpoint, a temperature setpoint, an electrical current setpoint, a resistance setpoint, or a setpoint of a duty cycle of the control signal, the method comprising: observing the temperature of the carrier to create an observed temperature measurement; comparing the observed temperature measurement with at least one predefined temperature threshold; and when the observed temperature is higher than or equal to said at least one predefined temperature threshold, generating a command to lower the power setpoint, the temperature setpoint, the electrical current setpoint, the resistance setpoint, or the setpoint of the duty cycle by a predetermined increment using the control signal ([0060], the increment is determined based on the temperature and so is predetermined by the ratio).
Regarding claim 11, Anglin (A) discloses a control unit for an electrical heating device comprising: at least one subset of resistive elements (170, [0031], i.e., heater with would have resistive characteristics) configured to release heat using an electrical supply and a carrier (24, i.e., bus bar assembly, [0038]) configured to provide the electrical supply to the resistive elements, the control unit (110) being configured to generate a control signal depending on a power setpoint, a temperature setpoint, an electric current setpoint, a resistance setpoint, or a setpoint of a duty cycle of the control signal; and at least one processing means for: observing the temperature of the carrier to create an observed temperature measurement; comparing the observed temperature measurement with at least one predefined temperature threshold, and if the observed temperature measurement is higher than or equal to said at least one predefined temperature threshold, generating a command to lower the power setpoint, the temperature setpoint, the electrical current setpoint, the resistance setpoint, or the setpoint of the duty cycle by a predetermined increment using the control signal ([0060], the increment is determined based on the temperature and so is predetermined by the ratio).
Regarding claim 13, Anglin (A) discloses the control unit as claimed in claim 11, comprising one or more processing means (110) for implementing, at least in part, at least one control phase of a thermal management strategy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin et al. (US 2022/0089110) and Miyakoshi et al. (US 11,007,847 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Anglin (A) discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, but not that a predetermined number of temperature thresholds is defined, the temperature thresholds being of rank n and varying from one to a predefined maximum number m, said method further comprising: the observed temperature measurement of said carrier is compared with the temperature thresholds of rank n; and if the observed temperature measurement is higher than or equal to the temperature threshold of given rank n and lower than the temperature threshold of higher rank n+1, for n varying from one to m−1, the higher the rank n of the temperature threshold the more the lowering of said setpoint is accentuated.
However, Miyakoshi (M) discloses a vehicle air conditioning device (Abstract) with the method using a predetermined number of temperature thresholds is defined, the temperature thresholds being of rank n and varying from one to a predefined maximum number m, said method further comprising: the observed temperature of said carrier is compared with the temperature thresholds of rank n; and if the observed temperature is higher than or equal to the temperature threshold of given rank n and lower than the temperature threshold of higher rank n+1, for n varying from one to m−1, the higher the rank n of the temperature threshold the more the lowering of said setpoint is accentuated (C18, L43-65, Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize a PID calculation to control the temperature of the device which would incrementally adjust the temperature based on the delta of target temperature vs. observed temperature, thus avoiding overshoot by compensating for thermal lag within the system
Regarding claim 3, Anglin (A), as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein, after a temperature threshold of rank n has been passed beyond, and following an associated command to lower, said method comprises: observing and again comparing the temperature of said carrier with the temperature threshold of rank n and with a temperature threshold of higher rank n+1, if and as long as the observed temperature measurement is higher than or equal to the temperature threshold of rank n and lower than the temperature threshold of higher rank n+1, maintaining said lowered setpoint as set by the preceding command to lower, if the observed temperature measurement is lower than the temperature threshold of rank n, returning to the preceding command to lower said setpoint, if the observed temperature is higher than or equal to the temperature threshold of higher rank n+1, generating a command to lower said setpoint more so as to accentuate the lowering (C18, L43-65, Figure 6).
Claims 4-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin et al. (US 2022/0089110) and Emanuel et al. (US 2012/0014680).
Regarding claim 4, Anglin (A) discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, but not that wherein a maximum temperature threshold higher than said at least one temperature threshold is defined, said method comprises comparing the noted observed temperature with the maximum temperature threshold, and, if the maximum temperature threshold has been reached, said method comprises of generating a command to stop the electrical supply of said at least one subset of resistive elements.
However, Emanual (E) discloses an electric heating device (Abstract) wherein a maximum temperature threshold higher than said at least one temperature threshold is defined ([0037]), said method comprises comparing the noted observed temperature with the maximum temperature threshold, and, if the maximum temperature threshold has been reached, said method comprises of generating a command to stop the electrical supply of said at least one subset of resistive elements ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize the method of controlling the resistive heaters based on the temperature of an item (busbar or heating element) to prevent damage to them or possible fires.
Regarding claim 5, Anglin (A), as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein after the electrical supply of said at least one subset of resistive elements has been stopped, said method comprises verifying a condition permitting resumption of the electrical supply ([0056-0057], Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Anglin (A), as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein a first verifying step comprises: after the electrical supply has been stopped, observing the temperature of said carrier with the maximum temperature threshold ([0037]), and verifying whether the observed temperature of said carrier is lower than the maximum temperature threshold ([0056-0057], Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Anglin (A), as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein an additional verifying comprises: observing the temperature of the carrier of the electrical supply circuit of the resistive elements and comparing it with a predefined resumption temperature threshold, and if the noted temperature is lower than the predefined resumption temperature threshold, generating a command to resume the electrical supply of said at least one subset of resistive elements ([0056-0057], Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, Anglin (A), as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the predefined resumption threshold is lower than or equal to said at least one threshold and/or lower than the maximum threshold ([0056-0057], Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, Anglin (A), does not disclose that the resistive elements are of positive temperature coefficient (20, [0004]).
However, Emanual (E) discloses an electric heating device (Abstract) wherein the resistive elements are of positive temperature coefficient (20, [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to use a variety of common electrical heaters in vehicles due to their rapid response and relatively light weight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BARGERO whose telephone number is (571)270-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/JOHN E BARGERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762