DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending. Claim 7 is canceled. Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11-12, and 16-18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-20 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.
Applicant did not proffer any arguments against the dependent claims specifically.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the electric machine (104) in the cooling circuit of Figure 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110” has been used to designate both a shaft in Figure 1 and a heat exchanger in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “quiet” in claims 2,15-17, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quiet” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims and specification fail to define or otherwise clarify what level of noise or sound qualifies as “quiet,” this term renders the level of noise or sound indeterminate and therefore the claims indefinite.
The term “efficient” in claims 4, 16, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “efficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims and specification fail to define or otherwise clarify which specific performance efficiency is intended to be encompassed by the term “efficient,” this term renders efficient operation indeterminate and therefore the claims indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Crombez et al. (US 2014/0114514 A1), hereafter referred to as “Crombez,” and Ragazzi (US 2015/0260442 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Porras teaches an electrified vehicle (title) comprising: an electric machine (14) arranged to selectively provide propulsive torque to wheels of the electrified vehicle (title);
a battery (24) electrically coupled to the electric machine (paragraph [0015]);
a heater (112) powered by the battery (24) and configured to heat a cooling fluid (130, paragraph [0033]);
a cooling circuit (130, paragraph [0033]) arranged to circulate the cooling fluid through the electric machine (14), the battery (24), the heater (112), and a heat exchanger (66 or 68);
a heat pump (52) in fluid communication with the heat exchanger (paragraph [0026]); and
a controller (100) having an associated memory (paragraph [0023]) containing a stored heating source preference (paragraph [0023], [0026] and [0035]), the stored heating source preference (paragraph [0023], [0026] and [0035]) being changeable from a heating source default preference to a heating source user preference (via selection, paragraph [0034]), the controller (100) programmed to, responsive to receiving a heating request while the stored heating source preference is the heating source default preference (paragraph [0034]): when the electrified vehicle (see Figure 1) is electrically connected to an external power source (36 to 38) to receive external electric power (paragraph [0021]) and state of charge of the battery (24) is above an associated state of charge threshold (paragraph [0034], preconditioning, the vehicle charging and uses the wall power when in the preconditioning mode at the wall charging station and uses the electric heater), operate the heater (112) to heat the cooling fluid;
Porras fails to teach to operate the heat pump to heat the cooling fluid when either the electrified vehicle is not electrically connected to the external power source to receive external electric power is not available, or when the battery is not above the associated state of charge threshold.
Crombez teaches a human-machine interface (HMI, 70, paragraph [0024]), wherein a controller (VSC, 68) is further programmed to store a heating source user preference received via the human-machine interface in an associated memory (withing 68, paragraphs [0023]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a human-machine interface (HMI), wherein the controller is further programmed to store a heating source user preference received via the human-machine interface in the associated memory to the structure of Porras as taught by Crombez in order to advantageously provide structure to receive user input to program the controller (see Crombez, paragraph [0024]).
Ragazzi teaches to operate (via 212, paragraph [0044]) a heat pump (232) to heat a cooling fluid when either an electrified vehicle (10, paragraph [0015]) is not electrically connected to an external power source (step 408, 400, Figure 4) to receive external electric power is not available (460 to 470 to 472), or when a battery is not above an associated state of charge threshold (462 to 464 of Figure 4, paragraphs [0079]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided to operate the heat pump to heat the cooling fluid when either the electrified vehicle is not electrically connected to the external power source to receive external electric power is not available, or when the battery is not above the associated state of charge threshold to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Ragazzi in order to advantageously improve heating efficiency and energy use (see Ragazzi, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 3: Porras teaches wherein the controller (100, paragraph [0023]) is further programmed to operate the heat pump (step 408) to heat the cooling fluid in response to the available external electric power being less than an associated power threshold (not plugged in, paragraphs [0034]-[0035], [0042],[0046]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 5: Porras teaches wherein the controller (100, paragraph [0023]) is further programmed to, responsive to the heating request (400, Figure 7), the stored heating source preference (paragraph [0023]), and operating conditions of the electrified vehicle being within a predetermined special zone of operation (preconditioning at the external charging station, paragraph [0034]), operate the heater to heat the cooling fluid (step 404, paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 9: Porras modified supra fails to teach further comprising a human-machine interface, wherein the controller is further programmed to store a heating source user preference received via the human-machine interface in the associated memory.
Crombez teaches a human-machine interface (HMI, 70, paragraph [0024]), wherein a controller (VSC, 68) is further programmed to store a heating source user preference received via the human-machine interface in an associated memory (withing 68, paragraphs [0023]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided comprising a human-machine interface, wherein the controller is further programmed to store a heating source user preference received via the human-machine interface in the associated memory to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Crombez in order to advantageously provide structure to receive user input to program the controller (see Crombez, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 11: Porras teaches a method for controlling an electrified vehicle (title, Figure 1) a battery (24) powering an electric machine (14) to provide torque to vehicle wheels (paragraph [0014]), an electric heater (112) powered by the battery (24), and a heat pump (52, paragraph [0026]), the method comprising, by a vehicle controller (100, paragraph [0023]): determining whether a heating source user preference (selection by user, paragraph [0034]) has been stored in an associated memory location (paragraph [0023]) accessible by the vehicle controller (100, paragraph [0023]); and responsive to receiving a heating request when a heating source user preference (via 100 and other controllers, paragraph [0023]) has not been stored in the associated memory location accessible by the vehicle controller (100, paragraph [0023]), operating the heater (112) to heat a cooling fluid when the electrified vehicle (see Figure 1) is electrically connected to an external power source to receive external power and state of charge of the battery is above an associated state of charge threshold (wall charging, paragraph [0034]),
Porras fails to teach having a human-machine interface configured to store a heating source user preference, and operating the heat pump to heat the cooling fluid when the electrified vehicle is not electrically connected to the external power source to receive external power or when state of charge of the battery is not above the associated state of charge threshold.
Crombez teaches a human-machine interface configured to store a heating source user preference (HMI, 70, paragraph [0024],VSC, 68, paragraphs [0023]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a human-machine interface configured to store a heating source user preference to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Crombez in order to advantageously provide structure to receive user input to program the controller (see Crombez, paragraph [0024]).
Ragazzi teaches operating (via 212, paragraph [0044]) a heat pump (232) to heat a cooling fluid when an electrified vehicle (paragraph [0005]) is not electrically connected to an external power source to receive external power (step 408, 400, Figure 4, step 430 then to 438) or when state of charge of a battery (11, paragraph [0015]) is not above an associated state of charge threshold (462 to 464 of Figure 4, paragraphs [0079]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided operating the heat pump to heat the cooling fluid when the electrified vehicle is not electrically connected to the external power source to receive external power or when state of charge of the battery is not above the associated state of charge threshold to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Ragazzi in order to advantageously improve heating efficiency and energy use (see Ragazzi, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 12: Porras modified supra fails to teach further comprising receiving a user preference associated with a preferred heating source via the human machine interface, and selecting at least one of the heater and the heat pump for operation to provide heat in response to the heating request based on the user preference associated with the preferred heating source.
Crombez teaches a user preference (via 72) associated with a preferred heating source via an human machine interface (70), and selecting at least one of a heater (EV Mode, paragraph [0029]) and a heat pump for operation (HVAC 74) to provide heat in response to a heating request based on the user preference (paragraph [0019]) associated with the preferred heating source (in EV the electric heater is operated, paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided comprising receiving a user preference associated with a preferred heating source via the human machine interface, and selecting at least one of the heater and the heat pump for operation to provide heat in response to the heating request based on the user preference associated with the preferred heating source to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Crombez in order to advantageously provide structure to receive user input to program the controller (see Crombez, paragraphs [0019] and [0024]).
Regarding Claim 13: Porras teaches further comprising selecting at least one of the heater (step 404) and the heat pump (step 408) for operation based on operation of the electrified vehicle being within a predetermined special zone of operation (preconditioning at the external charging station, paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 14: Porras teaches wherein the predetermined special zone of operation (paragraph [0047]) comprises an ambient temperature range (see Figure 7).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Crombez et al. (US 2014/0114514 A1), hereafter referred to as “Crombez,” and Ragazzi (US 2015/0260442 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porras et al. (US 2015/0336568 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras ‘568.”
Regarding Claim 2: Porras modified supra fails to teach wherein the controller is further programmed to, responsive to the heating request and the stored heating source preference being a heating source user preference corresponding to quiet operation that biases operation toward the heater relative to the heat pump to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness: operate the heater to heat the cooling fluid when the state of charge of the battery is above a corresponding threshold; and operate the heat pump to heat the cooling fluid when the state of charge of the battery is not above the corresponding threshold.
Porras ‘568 teaches a controller (60) is further programmed to, responsive to a heating request and a stored heating source preference (in the processor 64, memory 68) being a heating source user preference (paragraph [0038]) corresponding to quiet operation that biases operation toward a heater relative to a heat pump to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness (paragraphs [0038]-[0040], stored preference in memory 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the controller is further programmed to, responsive to the heating request and the stored heating source preference being a heating source user preference corresponding to quiet operation that biases operation toward the heater relative to the heat pump to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Ragazzi in order to advantageously improve heating efficiency and energy use (see Ragazzi, paragraph [0005]).
Ragazzi teaches a controller (212, paragraph [0044]) is further programmed to operate a heater (265, 267) to heat a cooling fluid when a state of charge of a battery (11) is above a corresponding threshold (paragraph [0072]); and operate a heat pump (232) to heat the cooling fluid when the state of charge of the battery is not above the corresponding threshold (battery charging, not in use, paragraph [0061], 232 in use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the controller is further programmed to operate the heater to heat the cooling fluid when the state of charge of the battery is above a corresponding threshold; and operate the heat pump to heat the cooling fluid when the state of charge of the battery is not above the corresponding threshold to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Ragazzi in order to advantageously improve heating efficiency and energy use (see Ragazzi, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 4: Porras modified supra fails to teach wherein the controller is further programmed to, responsive to the heating request and the stored heating source preference being a heating source user preference corresponding to efficient operation that biases operation toward the heat pump relative to the heater to improve heating efficiency, operate the heat pump to heat the cooling fluid.
Porras ‘568 teaches a controller (60) is further programmed to, responsive to a request (154) and a stored heating source preference (in the processor 64, memory 68) being a heating source user preference (paragraph [0061]) corresponding to efficient operation that biases operation toward a heat pump (hybrid mode utilizing the compressor) relative to a heater (electric mode, PTC heaters) to improve heating efficiency, operate the heat pump (hybrid mode utilizing the compressor) to heat a cooling fluid (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the controller is further programmed to, responsive to the heating request and the stored heating source preference being a heating source user preference corresponding to efficient operation that biases operation toward the heat pump relative to the heater to improve heating efficiency, operate the heat pump to heat the cooling fluid to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Porras ‘568 in order to advantageously utilize the correct mode depending on power parameters (see Porras ‘568, paragraph [0046]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Crombez et al. (US 2014/0114514 A1), hereafter referred to as “Crombez,” and Ragazzi (US 2015/0260442 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hirabayashi et al. (US 2015/0102118 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hirabayashi.”
Regarding Claim 6: Porras modified supra fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined special zone of operation corresponds to operation within a geofenced region.
Hirabayashi teaches a predetermined special zone of operation corresponds to operation within a geofenced region (paragraph [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the predetermined special zone of operation corresponds to operation within a geofenced region to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Hirabayashi in order to advantageously provide power use depending on demand/load (see Hirabayashi, paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 8: Porras modified supra fails to explicitly state wherein the predetermined special zone of operation corresponds to operation below a predetermined vehicle speed.
Hirabayashi teaches a predetermined special zone of operation corresponds to operation below a predetermined vehicle speed (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective 16filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the predetermined special zone of operation corresponds to operation below a predetermined vehicle speed to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Hirabayashi in order to advantageously provide power use depending on demand/load (see Hirabayashi, paragraph [0058]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Crombez et al. (US 2014/0114514 A1), hereafter referred to as “Crombez,” and Ragazzi (US 2015/0260442 A1),” as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 110168829 A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 10: Porras modified supra fails to teach wherein the controller is further programmed to bias operation of the heater and the heat pump in response to the heating request, the stored heating source user preference, and current operating conditions of the electrified vehicle.
Liu teaches a controller (10) is further programmed to bias operation of a heater and a heat pump in response to a heating request, a stored heating source user preference, and current operating conditions of the electrified vehicle (priority logic page 16 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective 16filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the controller is further programmed to operate the electric heater before operating the heat pump in response to the system being within a predetermined special zone of operation regardless of the previously stored preference to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Liu in order to advantageously provide power use depending on demand/load (see Liu, page 16 of machine translation).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Crombez et al. (US 2014/0114514 A1), hereafter referred to as “Crombez,” and Ragazzi (US 2015/0260442 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hirabayashi et al. (US 2015/0102118 A1), hereafter referred as “Hirabayashi.”
Regarding Claim 14 (alternate rejection): Porras modified supra fails to explicitly state wherein the predetermined special zone of operation comprises an ambient temperature range.
Hirabayashi teaches a predetermined special zone of operation comprises an ambient temperature range (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the predetermined special zone of operation comprises an ambient temperature range to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Hirabayashi in order to advantageously provide power use depending on demand/load (see Hirabayashi, paragraph [0049]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Crombez et al. (US 2014/0114514 A1), hereafter referred to as “Crombez,” and Ragazzi (US 2015/0260442 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yoshimi (US 2011/0307134 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Porras modified supra fails to teach wherein the predetermined special zone of operation comprises a geographical region designated as a quiet zone.
Yoshimi teaches a predetermined special zone of operation comprises a geographical region designated as a quiet zone (paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the predetermined special zone of operation comprises a geographical region designated as a quiet zone to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Yoshimi in order to advantageously reduce sound of the vehicle (see Yoshimi, paragraph [0065]).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Porras et al. (US 2015/0336568 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras ‘568.”
Regarding Claim 16: Porras teaches a system for an electrified vehicle (title, see Figure 1), the system (title, see Figure 1) comprising: a cooling circuit (see Figure 2) including at least an electric heater (112) and a heat pump (52) configured to generate heat to a coolant circulating within the cooling circuit (see Figure 2); and a controller (100, paragraph [0023]).
Porras fails to teach the controller programmed to, responsive to receiving a heating request, operate at least one of the electric heater and the heat pump based on a previously stored preference indicating either quiet operation of the system that biases operation toward the electric heater relative to the heat pump to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness of the electrified vehicle or efficient operation of the system that biases operation toward the heat pump relative to the electric heater to improve heating efficiency of the electrified vehicle.
Porras ‘568 teaches a controller (60, paragraph [0038]) programmed to, responsive to receiving a heating request, operate at least one of an electric heater (electric mode, has an electric heater suing battery power) and a heat pump (hybrid mode using the engine) based on a previously stored preference indicating either quiet operation of a system (paragraphs [0041]-[0044]) that biases operation toward the electric heater relative to the heat pump to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness of the electrified vehicle or efficient operation of the system that biases operation toward the heat pump relative to the electric heater to improve heating efficiency of the electrified vehicle (paragraphs [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the controller programmed to, responsive to receiving a heating request, operate at least one of the electric heater and the heat pump based on a previously stored preference indicating either quiet operation of the system that biases operation toward the electric heater relative to the heat pump to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness of the electrified vehicle or efficient operation of the system that biases operation toward the heat pump relative to the electric heater to improve heating efficiency of the electrified vehicle to the structure of Porras as taught by Porras ‘568 in order to advantageously reduce the noise from the powertrain while in operation (see Porras ‘568, paragraphs [0038]-[0040]).
Regarding Claim 17: Porras modified supra further teaches wherein the controller (100, paragraph [0023] of Porras) is further programmed to operate the electric heater (112 of Porras) before operating the heat pump responsive to the previously stored preference indicating the quiet operation of the system (paragraphs [0038]-[0040] of Porras ‘568, stored preference in memory as taught by Porras ‘568).
Regarding Claim 18: Porras modified supra further teaches wherein the controller (100, paragraph [0023] of Porras) is further programmed to operate the heat pump before operating the electric heater (112 of Porras) responsive to the previously stored preference indicating the efficient operation of the system (paragraphs [0038]-[0040] of Porras ‘568, stored preference in memory as taught by Porras ‘568).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Porras et al. (US 2015/0336568 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras ‘568,” as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 110168829 A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 19: Porras modified supra fails to teach wherein the controller is further programmed to operate the electric heater before operating the heat pump in response to the system being within a predetermined special zone of operation regardless of the previously stored preference.
Liu teaches a controller (10) is further programmed to operate an electric heater before operating a heat pump in response to a system being within a predetermined special zone of operation regardless of previously stored preference (page 16 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective 16filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the controller is further programmed to operate the electric heater before operating the heat pump in response to the system being within a predetermined special zone of operation regardless of the previously stored preference to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Liu in order to advantageously provide power use depending on demand/load (see Liu, page 16 of machine translation).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porras et al. (US 2017/0008407 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras,” in view of Porras et al. (US 2015/0336568 A1), hereafter referred to as “Porras ‘568,” and Liu (CN 110168829 A, machine translation), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yoshimi (US 2011/0307134 A1).
Regarding Claim 20: Porras modified supra fails to teach wherein the predetermined special zone of operation comprises a designated geographical quiet zone.
Yoshimi teaches a predetermined special zone of operation comprises a designated geographical quiet zone (sleep mode, paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective 16filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the predetermined special zone of operation comprises a designated geographical quiet zone to the structure of Porras modified supra as taught by Yoshimi in order to advantageously reduce sound of the vehicle (see Yoshimi, paragraph [0065]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (US 10,882,411 B2).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763