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
This Office action is in response to the reply filed on December 9, 2025.
Receipt and entry of the amended claims filed on December 9, 2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 through 20 remain pending in the application, all as amended either directly or indirectly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, while applicant’s amendments to the claims correctly state that there is support for the added limitations in the claims, applicant’s amendments fail to remove at least portions of the original limitations from the claims which render the claims self-contradictory as noted in greater detail below. Additionally, the original specification/disclosure fail to provide support for the combination of limitations as recited in the previously rejected claims and of the limitations added by amendment as also noted in greater detail below. Therefore, applicant’s amendments and arguments, in combination, generally fail to overcome the previous rejections of the claims and applicant’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
However, if applicant’s representative believes that an interview would be helpful to resolve some of the issues in this application, applicant’s representative is invited to contact the examiner to set up a telephonic interview at a mutually agreed-upon time.
Election/Restriction
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention of Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 26, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 through 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim still 1 recites “a refrigerant system that only interfaces with coolant from the coolant system, and wherein all cabin heat exchange and all refrigerant heat exchange is through coolant” and independent claim 14 still recites “conducting all cabin heat exchange through coolant” and “conducting all refrigerant heat exchange through the coolant”. As previously noted in the last Office action, the original disclosure states, in paragraph [0001], that the invention relates to a hydraulic architecture where all heat exchange between vehicle components, cabin, and ambient air is through coolant.
Applicant has amended each of claims 1 and 14 to further recite that “wherein the coolant system and the refrigerant system together form a thermal management system that interfaces with a coolant based low temperature radiator that exhausts and draws from ambient” and that “combining the coolant system and the refrigerant system to form a thermal management system that interfaces with a coolant based low temperature radiator that exhausts and draws from ambient”, respectively.
However, as amended, the claims now appear to be self-contradictory in that the claims recite both that the refrigerant system only interfaces with coolant (emphasis added) and that all of the cabin and all of the refrigerant heat exchange is through coolant (emphasis added), and also that the coolant based low temperature radiator “exhausts and draws” (heat?) from ambient (air?) and thus provides an interface with both the coolant system and the refrigerant system and ambient (air?) thus appearing to contradict and negate the aforementioned earlier limitations that recite that all heat exchange is through coolant (and that therefore no heat exchange is through other means, such as through air).
Thus, the independent claims (and all claims depending therefrom) as amended recite self-contradictory limitations which are not supported by the original disclosure, thus appearing to constitute impermissible new matter and casting doubt that applicant had possession of the invention as now claimed.
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 1 through 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.
Independent claim still 1 recites “a refrigerant system that only interfaces with coolant from the coolant system, and wherein all cabin heat exchange and all refrigerant heat exchange is through coolant” and independent claim 14 still recites “conducting all cabin heat exchange through coolant” and “conducting all refrigerant heat exchange through the coolant”. As previously noted in the last Office action, the original disclosure states, in paragraph [0001], that the invention relates to a hydraulic architecture where all heat exchange between vehicle components, cabin, and ambient air is through coolant. Applicant has amended each of claims 1 and 14 to further recite that “wherein the coolant system and the refrigerant system together form a thermal management system that interfaces with a coolant based low temperature radiator that exhausts and draws from ambient” and that “combining the coolant system and the refrigerant system to form a thermal management system that interfaces with a coolant based low temperature radiator that exhausts and draws from ambient”, respectively. However, as amended, the claims now appear to be self-contradictory in that the claims recite both that the refrigerant system only interfaces with coolant (emphasis added) and that all of the cabin and all of the refrigerant heat exchange is through coolant (emphasis added), and also that the coolant based low temperature radiator “exhausts and draws” (heat?) from ambient (air?) and thus provides an interface with both the coolant system and the refrigerant system and ambient (air?) thus appearing to contradict and negate the aforementioned earlier limitations that recite that all heat exchange is through coolant (and that therefore no heat exchange is through other means, such as through air).
Thus, the independent claims (and all claims depending therefrom) as amended recite self-contradictory limitations which fail to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claims, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claims and by all claims depending therefrom.
Additionally, the newly added limitations in each of claims 1 and 14 specifically recite a radiator that “exhausts and draws from ambient”, which, while per se supported by the original disclosure, fail to clearly set forth whether heat and/or air is exhausted and drawn from ambient, thus further rendering indefinite the claims and all claims depending therefrom.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected at least as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 through 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. In particular independent claim still 1 recites “a refrigerant system that only interfaces with coolant from the coolant system, and wherein all cabin heat exchange and all refrigerant heat exchange is through coolant” and independent claim 14 still recites “conducting all cabin heat exchange through coolant” and “conducting all refrigerant heat exchange through the coolant”. As previously noted in the last Office action, the original disclosure states, in paragraph [0001], that the invention relates to a hydraulic architecture where all heat exchange between vehicle components, cabin, and ambient air is through coolant. Applicant has amended each of claims 1 and 14 to further recite that “wherein the coolant system and the refrigerant system together form a thermal management system that interfaces with a coolant based low temperature radiator that exhausts and draws from ambient” and that “combining the coolant system and the refrigerant system to form a thermal management system that interfaces with a coolant based low temperature radiator that exhausts and draws from ambient”, respectively. However, as amended, the claims now appear to be self-contradictory in that the claims recite both that the refrigerant system only interfaces with coolant (emphasis added) and that all of the cabin and all of the refrigerant heat exchange is through coolant (emphasis added), and also that the coolant based low temperature radiator “exhausts and draws” (heat?) from ambient (air?) and thus provides an interface with both the coolant system and the refrigerant system and ambient (air?) thus appearing to contradict and negate the aforementioned earlier limitations that recite that all heat exchange is through coolant (and that therefore no heat exchange is through other means, such as through air). Thus, as amended, the independent claims (and all claims depending therefrom) as amended recite self-contradictory limitations which cannot possibly both be satisfied at the same time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 through 13 and 15 through 20 could be allowable if rewritten without patentably significant broadening to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as well as under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The additional related and prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763