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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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) 21-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “a coolant circuit”. It is unclear if this is the same “coolant circuit” from claim 1, line 8. For purposes of examination “a coolant circuit” will be considered - - the coolant circuit - - .
Claim 22 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (DE102018202142) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0031140).
Per claim 12, Schroeder teaches a temperature-control container for a motor vehicle for an at least partially electrically driven motor vehicle, comprising:
a first heat exchanger (1.1) for temperature control of the temperature-control container (“storage space 1”, pg. 5, first full paragraph),
a temperature-control container coolant circuit (1.1-1.6), which is connected to the first heat exchanger (1.1) and has a coolant compressor (1.2) and at least one expansion valve (1.4) assigned to the first heat exchanger,
a further heat exchanger arrangement which has at least one second heat exchanger (1.31) which is connected to a coolant circuit (2) of the motor vehicle, wherein the coolant circuit is connected to at least one electrical drive component or storage component, the electrical drive component or storage component comprising a battery (2.32) of the motor vehicle, for cooling the at least one electrical drive component or the storage component comprising the battery (2.32) of the motor vehicle, and wherein the coolant circuit has a chiller (2.3), which is connected to a vehicle coolant circuit but fails to explicitly teach wherein the temperature-control container coolant circuit is configured to conduct a coolant in different flow directions through the first heat exchanger in a first configuration and in a second configuration, wherein in the first configuration the first heat exchanger is configured to operate as a evaporator configured to extract heat from the temperature-control container and wherein a flow direction is a first direction, and wherein in the second configuration the first heat exchanger is configured to act as a condenser or gas cooler configured to add heat to the temperature-control container and wherein the flow direction is a second direction opposite the first direction.
However, Zhang teaches a vehicle cooling system wherein a cooling circuit (circuit propagated via 11) is configured to conduct coolant in different flow directions through a first heat exchanger (18) in a first configuration (figure 1) and in a second configuration (figure 2), wherein in the first configuration (fig. 1) the first heat exchanger (18) is configured to operate as a evaporator configured to extract heat to the temperature-control container and wherein a flow direction is a first direction (“Then through the throttling action of the throttling 16 the temperature of the refrigerant is decreased. In the second heat exchanger 18, the refrigerant in the first channel of the second heat exchanger 18 exchanges heat with the coolant in the second channel of the second heat exchanger 18. Then coolant flows through and exchanges heat with the heat generating component cooling device and the in-cabin heat exchanger 23 so as to decrease the temperature inside the cabin and cool the heat generating components”, para. 0067), and wherein in the second configuration (fig. 2) the first heat exchanger (18) is configured to act as a condenser or gas cooler configured to add heat to the temperature-control container and wherein the flow direction is a second direction opposite the first direction (“The high-temperature refrigerant in the first channel of the second heat exchanger 18 exchanges heat with the coolant in the second channel of the second heat exchanger 18, and the coolant passes through and exchanges heat with the in-cabin heat exchanger so as to increase the temperature”, para. 0071) for decreasing waste heat and improved cooling of heat generating components (para. 0007).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a cooling circuit configured to conduct coolant in different flow directions through a first heat exchanger in a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein in the first configuration the first heat exchanger is configured to operate as a evaporator configured to extract heat and wherein a flow direction is a first direction, and wherein in the second configuration the first heat exchanger is configured to act as a condenser or gas cooler configured to add heat and where the flow direction is a second direction opposite the first direction, as taught by Zhang in the invention of Schroeder, in order to advantageously decrease waste heat and improve cooling of heat generating components (para. 0007).
When the Zhang first and second configuration is combined with the temperature control container of Zhang, the result is wherein the temperature-control container coolant circuit is configured to conduct a coolant in different flow directions through the first heat exchanger in a first configuration and in a second configuration, wherein in the first configuration the first heat exchanger is configured to operate as a evaporator configured to extract heat to the temperature-control container and wherein a flow direction is a first direction, and wherein in the second configuration the first heat exchanger is configured to act as a condenser or gas cooler configured to add heat to the temperature-control container and wherein the flow direction is a second direction opposite the first direction, as claimed.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (DE102018202142) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0031140) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Tashiro (EP3492844).
Per claims 13-15, Schroeder, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Schroeder, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the coolant circuit has a reversing line section which branches off downstream of the coolant compressor and upstream of the second heat exchanger (claim 13), by the coolant compressor under high pressure flows through the first heat exchanger (claim 14), wherein the temperature-control container coolant circuit has at least one valve device comprising at least one 3/2-way valve, which is configured to enable or prevent the coolant flow through the reversing line section (claim 15).
However, Tashiro teaches a coolant circuit including a reversing line section (see annotated figure below of figure 1 of Tanaka) which branches off downstream of a coolant compressor (1) and upstream of a second heat exchanger (3) (claim 13), wherein the reversing line section (see annotated figure below of figure 1 of Tanaka) opens out upstream of the coolant compressor (1) and between a first heat exchanger (5) and the coolant compressor in such a way that a coolant conveyed by the coolant compressor under high pressure flows through the first heat exchanger (see figure 1 showing the refrigerant directed from the compressor to the first heat exchanger, thus high pressure/high temperature refrigerant is directed to the first heat exchanger) (claim 14), wherein the coolant circuit has at least one valve device (21, 22) comprising at least one 3/2-way valve (see figure 1 showing the 3/2-way valve)8, which is configured to enable or prevent the coolant flow through the reversing line section (see figure 1 showing the coolant flow being enable or prevented from flowing to the reversing line section) (claim 15) for improved heat transfer performance (col. 3, lines 26-27). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide wherein the coolant circuit has a reversing line section which branches off downstream of the coolant compressor and upstream of the second heat exchanger (claim 13), wherein the reversing line section opens out upstream of the coolant compressor and between the first heat exchanger and the coolant compressor in such a way that a coolant conveyed by the coolant compressor under high pressure flows through the first heat exchanger (claim 14), and wherein the temperature-control container coolant circuit has at least one valve device comprising at least one 3/2-way valve, which is configured to enable or prevent the coolant flow through the reversing line section (claim 15), as taught by Tashiro in the invention of Schroeder, as modified, in order to advantageously improve heat transfer performance (col. 3, lines 26-27).
When the Tashiro reversing line section and 3/2-way valve is combined with the temperature-control container coolant circuit of Schroeder, as modified, the result is wherein the temperature-control container coolant circuit has a reversing line section which branches off downstream of the coolant compressor and upstream of the second heat exchanger (claim 13), and wherein the temperature-control container coolant circuit has at least one valve device comprising at least one 3/2-way valve, which is configured to enable or prevent the coolant flow through the reversing line section (claim 15), as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 23, Schroeder, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 14. Further, Schroeder, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and claim 15 contains similar limitations as claim 23. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 15.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (DE102018202142) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0031140) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2017/0021698).
Per claim 19, Schroeder, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Schroeder, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein a bypass arrangement is provided in the coolant circuit, which is designed to conduct coolant past the further heat exchanger arrangement.
However, Hatakeyama teaches a vehicular air conditioning system including a bypass arrangement (46) provided in a coolant circuit (4), which is designed to conduct coolant past a further heat exchanger arrangement (5) for improved refrigeration efficiency (para. 0006). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a bypass arrangement provided in a coolant circuit, which is designed to conduct coolant past a further heat exchanger arrangement, as taught by Hatakeyama in the invention of Schroeder, as modified, in order to advantageously provide improved refrigeration efficiency (para. 0006).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (DE102018202142) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0031140) and Tashiro (EP3492844) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2017/0021698).
Per claim 27, Schroeder, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Schroeder, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and claim 19 contains similar limitations as claim 27. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 19.
Per claim 28, Schroeder, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 14. Further, Schroeder, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and claim 19 contains similar limitations as claim 28. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 19.
Per claim 29, Schroeder, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 15. Further, Schroeder, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and claim 19 contains similar limitations as claim 29. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 19.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (DE102018202142) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0031140) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Rupar (US 2009/0218849).
Per claims 21-22, Schroeder, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Schroeder, as modified, teaches wherein the motor vehicle has a high-voltage storage device (232) configured to be cooled by the coolant circuit (2), wherein the temperature-control container (“storage space 1”, pg. 5, first full paragraph), with the temperature-control container coolant circuit, is arranged in the motor vehicle but fails to explicitly teach wherein the container is arranged in a rear area of the motor vehicle and at least partially arranged in a rear baggage compartment (claim 21), wherein the temperature-control container has a closable opening which faces toward an interior of the motor vehicle in a manner permitting goods to be temperature controlled to be filled into the temperature-control container from the interior or can be removed from the temperature-control container (claim 22).
However, Rupar teaches vehicle (1) including a temperature control container (3) arranged in a rear area (2) of the vehicle (1) and at least partially arranged in a rear baggage compartment (“a cargo storage compartment 3”, para. 0025) (claim 21),
wherein the temperature-control container (3) has a closable opening (4) which faces toward an interior of the motor vehicle in a manner permitting goods to be temperature controlled to be filled into the temperature-control container from the interior or removed from the container (see figures 2 and 3; “The cargo space floor 4 contains a hinged lid 4a in order to gain access to the cargo storage compartment 3 that is covered by the cargo space floor 4. The hinged lid 4a is designed such that it can be pivoted on the cargo space floor 4 and makes it possible to gain access to the cargo storage compartment 3 without having to remove the entire cargo space floor 4, namely by pivoting back the hinged lid”, para. 0027) (claim 22) for storing equipment at a controlled temperature in the vehicle (para. 0017) while providing seating room for occupants. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a temperature control container arranged in a rear area of the vehicle and at least partially arranged in a rear baggage compartment (claim 21), wherein the temperature-control container has a closable opening which faces toward an interior of the motor vehicle in a manner permitting goods to be temperature controlled to be filled into the temperature-control container from the interior or removed from the container (claim 22), as taught by Rupar in the invention of Schroeder, as modified, in order to advantageously store equipment at a controlled temperature in the vehicle (para. 0017) while providing seating room for occupants.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the Applicant’s argument that page 11, first paragraph, that the reason for combining Zhang and Schroeder is missing; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Zhang teaches a vehicle cooling system wherein a cooling circuit (circuit propagated via 11) is configured to conduct coolant in different flow directions through a first heat exchanger (18) in a first configuration (figure 1) and in a second configuration (figure 2), wherein in the first configuration (fig. 1) the first heat exchanger (18) is configured to operate as a evaporator configured to extract heat to the temperature-control container and wherein a flow direction is a first direction (“Then through the throttling action of the throttling 16 the temperature of the refrigerant is decreased. In the second heat exchanger 18, the refrigerant in the first channel of the second heat exchanger 18 exchanges heat with the coolant in the second channel of the second heat exchanger 18. Then coolant flows through and exchanges heat with the heat generating component cooling device and the in-cabin heat exchanger 23 so as to decrease the temperature inside the cabin and cool the heat generating components”, para. 0067), and wherein in the second configuration (fig. 2) the first heat exchanger (18) is configured to act as a condenser or gas cooler configured to add heat to the temperature-control container and wherein the flow direction is a second direction opposite the first direction (“The high-temperature refrigerant in the first channel of the second heat exchanger 18 exchanges heat with the coolant in the second channel of the second heat exchanger 18, and the coolant passes through and exchanges heat with the in-cabin heat exchanger so as to increase the temperature”, para. 0071) for decreasing waste heat and improved cooling of heat generating components (para. 0007). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 12 that it is not clear how Schroeder would otherwise be improved by Zhang. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Zhang teaches a vehicle cooling system wherein a cooling circuit (circuit propagated via 11) is configured to conduct coolant in different flow directions through a first heat exchanger (18) in a first configuration (figure 1) and in a second configuration (figure 2), wherein in the first configuration (fig. 1) the first heat exchanger (18) is configured to operate as a evaporator configured to extract heat to the temperature-control container and wherein a flow direction is a first direction (“Then through the throttling action of the throttling 16 the temperature of the refrigerant is decreased. In the second heat exchanger 18, the refrigerant in the first channel of the second heat exchanger 18 exchanges heat with the coolant in the second channel of the second heat exchanger 18. Then coolant flows through and exchanges heat with the heat generating component cooling device and the in-cabin heat exchanger 23 so as to decrease the temperature inside the cabin and cool the heat generating components”, para. 0067), and wherein in the second configuration (fig. 2) the first heat exchanger (18) is configured to act as a condenser or gas cooler configured to add heat to the temperature-control container and wherein the flow direction is a second direction opposite the first direction (“The high-temperature refrigerant in the first channel of the second heat exchanger 18 exchanges heat with the coolant in the second channel of the second heat exchanger 18, and the coolant passes through and exchanges heat with the in-cabin heat exchanger so as to increase the temperature”, para. 0071) for decreasing waste heat and improved cooling of heat generating components (para. 0007). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 13, first paragraph, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Tashiro with the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tashiro teaches a coolant circuit including a reversing line section (see annotated figure below of figure 1 of Tanaka) which branches off downstream of a coolant compressor (1) and upstream of a second heat exchanger (3) (claim 13), wherein the reversing line section (see annotated figure below of figure 1 of Tanaka) opens out upstream of the coolant compressor (1) and between a first heat exchanger (5) and the coolant compressor in such a way that a coolant conveyed by the coolant compressor under high pressure flows through the first heat exchanger (see figure 1 showing the refrigerant directed from the compressor to the first heat exchanger, thus high pressure/high temperature refrigerant is directed to the first heat exchanger) (claim 14), wherein the coolant circuit has at least one valve device (21, 22) comprising at least one 3/2-way valve (see figure 1 showing the 3/2-way valve)8, which is configured to enable or prevent the coolant flow through the reversing line section (see figure 1 showing the coolant flow being enable or prevented from flowing to the reversing line section) (claim 15) for improved heat transfer performance (col. 3, lines 26-27). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 13, second paragraph, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Hatakeyama with the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hatakeyama teaches a vehicular air conditioning system including a bypass arrangement (46) provided in a coolant circuit (4), which is designed to conduct coolant past a further heat exchanger arrangement (5) for improved refrigeration efficiency (para. 0006). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 13, second paragraph, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Rupar with the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Rupar teaches vehicle (1) including a temperature control container (3) arranged in a rear area (2) of the vehicle (1) and at least partially arranged in a rear baggage compartment (“a cargo storage compartment 3”, para. 0025) (claim 21), wherein the temperature-control container (3) has a closable opening (4) which faces toward an interior of the motor vehicle in a manner permitting goods to be temperature controlled to be filled into the temperature-control container from the interior or removed from the container (see figures 2 and 3; “The cargo space floor 4 contains a hinged lid 4a in order to gain access to the cargo storage compartment 3 that is covered by the cargo space floor 4. The hinged lid 4a is designed such that it can be pivoted on the cargo space floor 4 and makes it possible to gain access to the cargo storage compartment 3 without having to remove the entire cargo space floor 4, namely by pivoting back the hinged lid”, para. 0027) (claim 22) for storing equipment at a controlled temperature in the vehicle (para. 0017) while providing seating room for occupants. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
Conclusion
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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights