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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/4/25 and 3/3/23 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. Examiner has reviewed the specification and the drawings and it remains unclear the Examiner what Applicant is attempting to claim in Claim 4 and limit by the language recited in claim 4. As Examiner reads the claim, it appears to the Examiner that the claim is stating that the controller does not operate based off a measured current when determining to turn on or off the electric heater. However, such a broad interpretation does not appear to truly further limit the claims in any way. For purposes of examination the Examiner has treated the claim as he suggests it reads which is extremely broad and almost non limiting, Examiner highly recommends amendments to the claims to clarify exactly the unique aspect of said control that Applicant is attempting to claim.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected based off their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108820 (hereinafter “Shin”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Shin discloses a vehicle air conditioning control system (See, Figure 2) comprising: an electric heater (41: PTC heater) configured to apply heat to an air conditioning airflow(See, Arrow) which shows airflow to be blown out (through duct 31) into a space in a vehicle compartment (See, Figure 2); a direct-current-to-direct-current converter (referred as a LDC throughout Shin Publication) configured to convert a voltage of electric power of an in-vehicle battery into a predetermined voltage (See, Paragraph [0012]; an engine system temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of one or each of an engine and a member related to the engine (See, Figure 9: coolant temperature being measured said coolant temperature being tied to engine) ; and a controller (50; See also, Figure 6-7 and 9 and Paragraph [0039])configured to control an operating state of the electric heater based on the temperature measured by the engine system temperature sensor, wherein the direct-current-to-direct-current converter (LDC) is configured to output a current that is switchable between a steady-state current and a short-time current, the short-time current having a current value higher than a current value of the steady-state current and being outputtable for a predetermined time period or less (See, Paragraph [0017] which discloses setting the voltage at different settings depending on the temperature condition and charge of the battery), and the controller is configured to, upon determining, based on the temperature, that the electric heater is to operate, perform a control of switching the operating state between a first operating state and a second operating state, the first operating state being an operating state in which the electric heater is turned on and the direct-current-to-direct-current converter is caused to output the short-time current, the second operating state being an operating state in which the electric heater is turned off and the direct-current-to-direct-current converter is caused to output the steady-state current. See, Paragraph [0020-0021] and [0041-044]. See, Figure 7 for voltage output control.
In Reference to Claim 2:
Shin further discloses wherein the controller is configured to, upon starting the control of the operating state, stop the control at a timing when the temperature measured by the engine system temperature sensor reaches a predetermined temperature. As shown in Figure 9 wherein the engine is running, the PTC is stopped.
In Reference to Claim 4:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 issues above) Shin further discloses wherein the controller is configured not to perform a control of switching a state of the electric heater between an on-state and an off-state when a value of the current outputted from the direct-current-to-direct-current converter is less than or equal to a current value of a rated current even if the electric heater is turned on. See, Figure 9 and Figure 7 for the control. Examiner notes that the controller does not turn off the electrical heat based off the current but based off coolant temperature operation and ending running.
In Reference to Claim 5:
Shin further discloses wherein the electric heater is configured to have a heat application intensity that is switchable, and the controller is configured to perform switching of a state of the electric heater between an on-state and an off-state and switching of the heat application intensity. See, Figure 5A of prior art which selects two different voltages depending on condition. See also Paragraph [0051-0052] which discloses the controller determining whether the system enters its high electric load mode or not (typically during start-stop condition).
In Reference to Claim 6:
Shin further discloses a converter system temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of a member (battery temperature sensor which measures low or high; See, Figure 5) related to cooling of the direct-current-to-direct-current converter, wherein the controller is configured to perform the switching of the state of the electric heater between the on-state and the off-state while performing the switching of the heat application intensity and thereby decreasing the heat application intensity of the electric heater for the on-state in accordance with an increase in the temperature measured by the converter system temperature sensor. Examiner notes that the voltage output by the LDC is altered based off the temperature condition and therefore the heat intensity is altered.
In Reference to Claim 7:
Shin further discloses further comprising a converter system temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of a member related to cooling of the direct-current-to-direct-current converter, wherein the controller is configured to perform, depending on the temperature measured by the converter system temperature sensor, a control of performing the switching of the heat application intensity without turning off the electric heater. See, Figure 5 which shows a temperature senso measuring the temperature of the battery (a component which is responsible for powering the DC converter and therefore meets the claim language) adjusts its intensity (voltage) based on the temperature of the battery.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108820 (hereinafter “Shin”) in view of Woo et al., Korean Patent Publication KR200500287341 (hereinafter “Woo”).
In Reference to Claim 8-9 and 11-13:
Shin discloses all the limitations to claim 1,2 and 4-6, but fails to disclose wherein an engine cooling system and a converter cooling system are configured as a same cooling system, the engine cooling system being configured to cool the engine, the converter cooling system being configured to cool the direct-current-to-direct-current converter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Woo discloses an engine cooling system being configured to cool the engine and the converter. See, Figure 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows coolant loop 107 which interacts with cooling block of Figure 1 and said block being connected to the DC converter for cooling the converter and as shown in Figure 1 also provides for cooling of the engine.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Shin such that it features a cooling loop which is responsible for cooling the converter and engine because such a modification would allow for a reduction in parts and saving of cost, by only requiring a single cooling circuit and also a single temperature sensor in the coolant line.
In Reference to Claim 14-15 and 17-19:
Shin as modified further discloses the use a coolant temperature sensor. See, Figure 1 and Figure 3 and brief discussion within Paragraph [0008].
Examiner note that given the modification of Woo wherein the engine cooling system and the DC converter are within a single coolant loop, that it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to utilize a single coolant temperature sensor being as it is linked to the DC converter and the engine to sense the cooling of both the engine and the DC converter as recited by claims 14-16 and 17-19. Such a feature as discussed above would reduce the cost of manufacture by allowing for a single temperature sensor to be used to determine the cooling of the engine and the DC converter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 10, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to change a time period depending on the temperature measured by the converter system temperature sensor, the time period being a time period for which the electric heater is turned on as recited in claim 3. Claims 10 and 16 would be allowed based off their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 20160086567 discloses a LDC heating system in vehicle wherein the minimum power is controlled and would meet claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745