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 Amendment
The proposed amendment to the claim languages filed on 4/13/26 has been fully considered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are now pending of record in that claims 11-20 are unelected and requested to be cancelled or taken an appropriate action.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract should be revised to reflect system invention. Note that the abstract filed on 12/22/22 do not seem to belong to this application since no connection between “the electric vehicle management system “(see present abstract, lines 1-9) with the instant application.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
Since a number of difference embodiment existed in the Drawings, therefore, it is not known exactly which one of the embodiments related is/are directed to the subject matters of the pending elected claims 1-10. Since, the Figs above represented a number distinctive inventions in terms of embodiments. This objection is set forth from previous Action under drawings objected to.
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 1-10 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. This rejection is set forth from previous Action under 112 rejection section.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by DE 102011086896A1 hereinafter the '986. In an alternative as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the DE 102011086896A1(hereinafter the '986). This Rejection is set forth from previous OA under section 102 rejections dated 1/12/26.
Claims 4-6, 10 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the DE 102011086896A1 (hereinafter the '986). This rejection is set forth from previous Action under 103 rejections dated 1/12/26.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9 as best understood is/are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 al as being anticipated by Jordan et al (US 4847449). This rejection is set forth from previous Action under heading 102 rejection dated 1/12/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Election/restriction:
The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden on the examiner exists in examining claims of groups I-II inventions together. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not provided any showing or evidence to support such a conclusion. Since a single search for a number of distinction (2) inventions would not be made by a single search. And moreover, if the number of (2) inventions were searched concurrently the search would be burdensome because examination and search burden for these patentably distinct (3) inventions due to their mutually exclusive characteristics.
The (3) inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Therefore, the Restriction mailed on or about 7/9/25 (by an Examiner of record) is now made Final.
Applicants are required to cancel all non- elected invention II (claims 11-18)) or take other appropriate action.
The Drawings:
Since, a multiple system existed in the application (see Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 6), therefore for better understanding of the claimed system (claim 1-10). Applicant(s) should further define a best system which represented the clamed subject matter of claims 1-10, respectively. Note that the Examiner disagree that Figs. 1-6 directed to the elected system of claim 1-10. Because, unelected method claims directed to process of Fig. 3.
The Title:
The title directed to an assembly which does not represent the claimed system as elected. Thus, the objection is remained for same reason provided from the record, (see OA, dated 1/12/26.
The abstract:
Still objected to because it directed to a system of “an electric thermal management” (see abstract lines 1-9 as present form) which does not appear to be overlap or direct correspond to the system as elected. (See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts).
Note that the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is directed to invention other than the “system” as claimed, it is clearly that neither of specification and/or claims support “the subject matter of “an electric vehicle thermal management system” (see improper abstract filed on 12/22/22). Applicant should provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim objected to:
Since the scope of the claims clearly drawn to the system (see Fig. 2) and the unrelated features outside of the system will not be considered. Thus, the claim objection to is remain for same record reason.
The 112 rejections:
Base on claim 1, the best matching structural element represented for the system directed to Fig. 2 (system structure wise). Since the structure (system) is elected only structure elements of the system is/are being considered not the associated workpiece (e.g., pcb or wire pin and product enclosure) because they are not a part of the system and they do not further limit the system. For this reason, the 112 rejection is remained for same reason provided from the record.
The Prior art:
Applicant contends that the applied prior art to “Jordan” does not disclose several structural features required by independent claim 1, and therefore cannot anticipate. Claim 1 recites "a carrier portion having a first side and a second side configured to receive an electronic component on the first side, wherein the electronic component includes a wire pin connection, and wherein the wire pin connection passes through a first hole in the carrier portion from the first side to the second side via a conical extrusion on the second side." As described in paragraphs [0016]-[0023] and shown in FIGS. 1-2 and 4, this "conical extrusion" is a cone-shaped boss 231/460 which projects from the second side of the carrier and through which the pin exits the carrier” (see Applicant’s “Remarks”, page 5, ¶ [005] to page 6, ¶ [001]. The Examiner disagreed because the claim directed to the system and the above directed to the intended use which does not further limit the claimed system. Applicant should be aware that, 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.
Furthermore, regarding to “As described in paragraphs [0016]-[0023] and shown in FIGS. 1-2 and 4, this "conical extrusion" is a cone-shaped boss 231/460 which projects from the second side of the carrier and through which the pin exits the carrier” (see “Remarks” bottom of page 5). It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Similar to the above “see “Remarks” page 6-page 7, regarding to that Jordan does not disclose this specific assembly with the required conical extrusion/extraction geometry and three-part structure, even if some individual features (e.g., an insulating body with holes) may be loosely analogous. The Examiner agreed, however, the claim directed to the system and as best understood the Jordan meet every aspect structure of the system as claimed for reason provided from record (see previous OA under 102/103 rejections).
Claim 4 directed to outside element (e.g., component associated with the system) (see “Remarks” page 9, ¶ [003] this has been considered but not found to be convinced because the component in claim 4, which does not further limit the claimed system therefore the previous rejection retained for reason of record dated 1/12/26.
Applicant's arguments (see pages 10-13, respectively) which do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Note that there is/are no further system structure limitation existed in the dependent claims 2-5, 7 and 8 as present claim formats because it is clearly the system (as shown in Fig. 2 is/are in line with the elected system and outside elements which cited in the above claims is/are not a part of the claimed system. Therefore, not inventive when departing from Jordan reference. The skilled person would utilize the system with to assembly the outside elements (e.g., PCB, electrical pin) without exercising any inventive skills. Furthermore, Applicant's arguments regarding outside elements set forth in dependent claims above have been acknowledged. However, such arguments do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
For reasons above the previous claim objection to, the 112 rejections as well as the prior art retained for reasons provided from the previous Action dated 1/12/26.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
5/13/26
Prosecution Insights