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 .
Drawings
The drawings received on 07/24/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 07/24/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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(s) 1-7, 10, and 15-20 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one battery” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the polisher” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the plurality of polisher assemblies” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2022/0173415 A1; hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an electrical system (Title) for an electric vehicle ([0003]), comprising:
at least one electrical component (fuel cell stack 10);
a coolant loop (as shown in Fig 1) including a low-conductivity coolant (not explicitly described, but as indicated by removing ions via the ion filter 50, [0062], the coolant is necessarily “low-conductivity” because ions have been removed, i.e. the coolant is necessarily ionically non conductive) coupled to each of the at least one electrical component (as shown in Fig 1), wherein the cooling loop is configured to flow or circulate the low conductivity coolant through each of the at least one electrical component (as shown in Fig 1); and
at least one filter (ion filter 50) in the cooling loop (as shown in Fig 1);
wherein the at least one filter includes a polishing material (as indicated by the term “ion filter” and [0062] which describes removing ions from the coolant).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses that the at least one filter is positioned in the cooling loop and configured to continuously polish the low conductivity coolant circulating through the at least one electrical component during operation of the vehicle (as shown in Figs 1 and 2, ion filter 50 is disposed within the cooling circuit, and does not appear to be described as a bypass filter, and therefore necessarily continuously filters, i.e. polishes, ions during operation).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses that the at least one filter and the polisher material within the at least one filter is configured to have a similar service life (it is noted that the ion filter 50 is disclosed as one component, i.e. the filter is the polishing material, and therefore necessarily has a similar service life).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses that the filter comprises:
a filter bed support (not explicitly labeled, but as indicated by ion filter 50 being a separate component, which necessarily requires some form of support, e.g. a housing); and
a filter bed supported by the filter bed support (not explicitly labeled, but as indicated by ion filter 50 being a filter, which necessarily required a “filter bed”);
wherein the filter bed contains the polisher material such that as fluid flows through the filter bed, the fluid is polished by the polisher material (as indicated by the term “ion filter” and [0062], which necessarily requires the fluid to flow through the polishing material in order to filter ions).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park further discloses an electric vehicle comprising the recited electrical system ([0003]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0173415 A1; hereinafter “Park”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wen et al. (CN 114300710 A; hereinafter “Wen”).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park discloses that the at least one filter is coupled in the cooing loop (as shown in Fig 1), but does not disclose that the filter is removably coupled so as to be replaceable.
Wen teaches a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle integrated deionizer (Abstract). Wen teaches that the deionizer is integrated into a replacing part, which saves maintenance time and cost without needing to disassemble the cooling pipeline (Abstract).
Park and Wen are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrical systems for electric vehicles.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely design the ion filter of Park as a replaceable part, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would save maintenance time and cost without needing to disassemble the cooling pipeline, as suggested by Wen.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0173415 A1; hereinafter “Park”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Savoy et al. (US 10,550,494 B2; hereinafter “Savoy”).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Park discloses the polisher material configured to remove ions from a fluid (as noted above), but does not appear to be concerned with the particular material used, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the polisher material comprises ionically active polymer beads.
Savoy teaches filter arrays (Title/Abstract). Savoy teaches that the filter array may comprise a chemically active moiety that are microparticles or nanoparticles comprising an ionic polymer that interacts differentially with ions in a mixture, and may be in the form of particles, beads, spheres, or microspheres (col. 6, lines 40-63).
Park and Savoy are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely ion filters.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the in filter of Park must necessarily be composed of some material, and would therefore find it obvious to routinely utilize an ionic polymer in the form of e.g. beads, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-9 and/or 11-14 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 10 and/or 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a cooling system and/or an electrified system comprising:
(claim 8) wherein a polisher material is mixed into the low conductivity coolant and flows with the low conductivity coolant; and/or
(claim 13) a polisher assembly integrally coupled to each of the electrical components in the plurality of electrical components.
Park et al. (US 2022/0173415 A1; hereinafter “Park”) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to independent claims 8 and 13. Park discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Park does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited polisher material flowing with the coolant, nor a plurality of polisher assemblies integrally coupled to individual electrical components. To the contrary, Park discloses the polisher material/assembly as an ionic filter disposed int eh cooling circuit (as shown in e.g. Fig 1), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon such a filter and be directed towards a concurrently flowing polisher material because such would not reasonably filter the coolant from the ions meant to be filtered, nor be directed towards a plurality of polisher assemblies because such filtering is already accomplished via one ion filter in the complete cooling circuit.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Choi et al. (US 2022/0231314 A1) discloses optimizing performance in a fuel cell system; and
Kim et al. (US 2008/0221248 A1) discloses polymer microspheres for selective separation of heavy metal ions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 03/14/2026
Prosecution Insights