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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 10 3 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. 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 non-obviousness. 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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zang et al. (US 2019/0286079) . Regarding claim 7, Zang et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a heat management system (Abstract, [0005]) for an electrified motor vehicle ([0028]) , wherein the electrified motor vehicle ([0028]) comprises a plurality of heat management-relevant components ([0045]) including at least a high-voltage storage device (ref N001, [0045]) and an electric machine ([0028], [0045]) , the heat management system (Abstract, [0005]) comprising: at least one electronic control unit (ref 200) configured to: determine at least one route section-related historic heating or cooling effect profile on a basis of a plurality of heat management-relevant data (“mathematical model”, [0047]-[0054]) of a navigation system ([0016], [0030], [0056]) acquired for a specified duration of a journey ([0016], [0030], [0056]) ; acquire, for a same specified duration ([0016], [0030], [0056]) , a route section-related historic temperature profile by sensor ([0050], [0052]) for each of the plurality of heat management-relevant components ([0045]) ; determine at least one route section-related predicted heating or cooling effect profile ([0009], [0023]) on a basis of the heat management-relevant data of the navigation system ([0016], [0030], [0056]) , which are predictable for at least one predefined horizon ([0016], [0030], [0056]) ; and ascertain a predicted temperature profile ([0047]-[0054]) for each component ([0045]) on a basis of the historic heating or cooling effect profile ([0047]-[0054]) , the historic temperature profile ([0050], [0052]) , and the predicted heating or cooling effect profile ([0047]-[0054]) . Even assuming, arguendo, that Zang et al. does not anticipate claim 7 , claim 7 is still obvious over Zang et al. because the electronic control unit (ref 200) of Zang et al. includes a computer processer and data memory ([0009], [0023], [0042], [0043]) which calls on mathematical models stored within the computer processor to determine temperature profiles for each individual component controlled by the electronic control unit and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the electronic control unit of Zang et al. has capabilities including all of the aspects of the heat management system of the instant claim, including integrating the route section-related historic heating or cooling effect profile based on data from the navigation system of a journey / distance a vehicle has traveled, and use the mathematical model to predict temperature profiles for each individual component of the heat management system. Regarding claim 8 , Zang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the at least one electronic control unit (ref 200) is configured to: determine ([0047] -[ 0054], Fig 3) the at least one section-related predicted heating or cooling effect profile taking into consideration a predicted intrinsic heating of each component ([0045]) . Even assuming, arguendo, that Zang et al. does not anticipate claim 8 , claim 8 is still obvious over Zang et al. because the electronic control unit (ref 200) of Zang et al. includes a computer processer and data memory ([0009], [0023], [0042], [0043]) which calls on mathematical models stored within the computer processor to determine temperature profiles for each individual component controlled by the electronic control unit and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the electronic control unit of Zang et al. determine s the at least one section-related predicted heating or cooling effect profile taking into consideration a predicted intrinsic heating of each component. Regarding claim 9, Zang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the at least one electronic control unit (ref 200) is configured to: ascertain the predicted temperature profile in the form of a probability distribution for each component ([0047], [0049] -[ 0054]) . Even assuming, arguendo, that Zang et al. does not anticipate claim 9, claim 9 is still obvious over Zang et al. because the electronic control unit (ref 200) of Zang et al. includes a computer processer and data memory ([0009], [0023], [0042], [0043]) which calls on mathematical models stored within the computer processor to determine temperature profiles for each individual component controlled by the electronic control unit and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the electronic control unit of Zang et al. ascertains predicted temperatures in the form of a probably distribution. Regarding claim 10 , Zang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the at least one electronic control unit (ref 200) is configured to: change ([0047] -[ 0054]) stored heating and/or cooling thresholds for controlling of thermo modules of the components proportionally to the predicted temperature profiles ([0047]-[0054]) . Even assuming, arguendo, that Zang et al. does not anticipate claim 10 , claim 10 is still obvious over Zang et al. because the electronic control unit (ref 200) of Zang et al. includes a computer processer and data memory ([0009], [0023], [0042], [0043]) which calls on mathematical models stored within the computer processor to determine temperature profiles for each individual component controlled by the electronic control unit and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the electronic control unit of Zang et al. store s heating and/or cooling thresholds for controlling of thermo modules of the components proportionally to the predicted temperature profiles . Regarding claim 11, Zang et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a vehicle ([0028]) comprising the heat management system (Abstract, [0005]) as set forth above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yamamoto (US 2007/0120537) discloses in Figs 1-9, a secondary battery ([0022]) including a controller that i ncludes a calculation unit which when operated calculates and estimates a heat generation amount of Joule heat generated in the rechargeable battery and a heat generation amount of chemical reaction heat generated in the rechargeable battery, and calculates a battery temperature of the rechargeable battery using a total heat amount of the Joule heat generation amount and the chemical reaction heat generation amount ([0022]-[0030]). Reckels et al. (US 2007/0272173) discloses in Figs 1-5, a p redictive a uxiliary l oad m anagement c ontrol a pparatus a nd m ethod for a vehicle cooling system (Abstract). F uture engine heating and cooling requirements can be predicted based, for example, in part on knowledge about elevation changes in the upcoming terrain that the vehicle will encounter. As a result, vehicle heating and cooling components can be operated in a manner that anticipates future variations in engine heating and cooling arising from changes in the terrain ([0005] -[ 0006]). Boss et al. (US 2010/00114437) discloses in Figs 1-6, systems, methods, and program products enabled to sense vehicle load parameters and responsively and directly select an appropriate vehicle system configuration, providing an improved technique for optimizing vehicle performance characteristics for vehicle cargo and towing loads ([0028] -[ 0030]). Kempton et al. (US 2011/0202418) discloses in Figs 1-13, an electric power system (ref 100) including an electric vehicle ([0025]) and vehicle equipment (ref 102). The power system including a processor computer that keeps track of the driver's prior trips, needs or stated desires for operation of grid-integrated vehicle and predicts a schedule of likely next trips (next trips predictions may include, for one or more future trips, the likely start time, the likely distance and required charge and the destination) ([0082] -[ 0084]). Simonini et al. (US 2012/0316712) discloses in Figs 1-6, a n electric vehicle (ref 100) including a plurality of battery pack cells ([0021]). A control system includes a memory processor (ref 154) that acquires data including ambient temperature, geographic location from a navigation system and formulates temperature profiles that the battery pack cells in the vehicle will be exposed to ([0054] -[ 0056]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1212 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Basia Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1453 . 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. /KENNETH J DOUYETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725