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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "water thank takes up 1/3 to 1/2 of the air outlet" of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that the water tank is located upstream of the outlet and it is therefore unclear how it can “take up” the air outlet.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the term “water tank” is used throughout the specification and claims and is described in the specification as being used for cooling a motor (Applicant’s specification paragraph [0035]) and therefore is being interpreted as a radiator.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "an airflow adjusting member" in claims 1 and 11. Examiner notes that claims 2 and 12 have recited further structure of the airflow adjusting member and are not being interpreted under 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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) 1-3, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feltham (US 2022/0402352 A1).
Regarding claim 1¸Feltham discloses a heat exchange control device (Feltham 100) for an electric vehicle, comprising:
An airflow guide cover having an inlet (Feltham 116), an air outlet (downstream of outlet fan 195), and an airflow channel (Feltham 110) between the inlet and the outlet (see Feltham figure 1), wherein the air inlet is communicatively connected with an air intake (Feltham 714) at a front portion of a vehicle body (see Feltham figure 7), and a water tank (Feltham 140, referred to by Feltham as a radiator) and a condenser (Feltham 160) are disposed in the airflow channel adjacent to the air outlet (see Feltham figure 1); and
An airflow adjusting member (Feltham 130) disposed inside the air inlet of the airflow guide cover (see Feltham figure 1), and the airflow adjusting member is configured to adjust an air intake flow rate and an airflow direction (Feltham [0024]) of an airflow passing through the air inlet.
Regarding claim 2, Feltham as applied to claim 1 further discloses the airflow adjusting member includes a plurality of guide vanes (Feltham [0039] and figures 4A-4F) that are spaced apart from each other (see Feltham figures 4A-4F), and the plurality of guide vanes are configured to perform a rotation and swing operation relative to the air inlet, so as to control an opening degree of the air inlet.
Regarding claim 3, Feltham as applied to claim 2 further discloses a motor (Feltham 134), wherein the plurality of guide vanes are operatively connected to the motor (Feltham [0024]), and the motor is configured to drive the plurality of guide vanes to perform the rotation and swing operation according to a control command (Feltham [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Feltham discloses a control method for a heat exchange control device for an electric vehicle, comprising:
Detecting at least one environmental parameter (Feltham [0055]-[0056], external temperature from sensor 853) of an electric vehicle by at least one detector (Feltham 853) and communicatively transmitting the at least one environmental parameter (external temperature from sensor 853) to a main controller of the electric vehicle (Feltham [0055]);
Determining a preset heat exchange mode (prioritization of drive system cooling in Feltham figure 5 and paragraphs [0047]-[0048] & [0059]) according to the at least one environmental parameter (external temperature from sensor 853) by the main controller (Feltham [0059]), wherein the preset heat exchange mode is suitable for the current state of the electric vehicle; and
Adjusting an airflow adjusting member (Feltham 130) of a heat exchange control device by the main controller according to the preset heat exchange mode (Feltham [0057]), so as to assist in regulating the cooling of a water tank (Feltham 140, referred to by Feltham as a radiator) and a condenser (Feltham 160) of the electric vehicle;
Wherein the heat exchange control device includes:
An airflow guide cover having an inlet (Feltham 116), an air outlet (downstream of outlet fan 195), and an airflow channel (Feltham 110) between the inlet and the outlet (see Feltham figure 1), wherein the air inlet is communicatively connected with an air intake (Feltham 714) at a front portion of a vehicle body (see Feltham figure 7), and a water tank (Feltham 140, referred to by Feltham as a radiator) and a condenser (Feltham 160) are disposed in the airflow channel adjacent to the air outlet (see Feltham figure 1); and
An airflow adjusting member (Feltham 130) disposed inside the air inlet of the airflow guide cover (see Feltham figure 1), and the airflow adjusting member is configured to adjust an air intake flow rate and an airflow direction (Feltham [0024]) of an airflow passing through the air inlet.
Regarding claim 12, Feltham as applied to claim 11 further discloses the airflow adjusting member includes a plurality of guide vanes (Feltham [0039] and figures 4A-4F) that are spaced apart from each other (see Feltham figures 4A-4F), and the plurality of guide vanes are configured to perform a rotation and swing operation relative to the air inlet, so as to control an opening degree of the air inlet and the step of adjusting the airflow adjusting member of the heat exchange control device by the main controller according to the preset heat exchange mode, the main controller sends a control command to a motor (Feltham [0057], Examiner notes Feltham’s airflow controller 130 includes actuator 134) and the motor drives the plurality of guide vanes to perform the rotation and swing operation according to the control command.
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) 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feltham (US 2022/0402352 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ajisaka (US 2014/0138077 A1).
Regarding claim 4¸Feltham as applied to claim 1 teaches the cross-sectional area of the airflow channel is gradually increased from the air inlet to the air outlet (see Feltham figure 1).
Feltham is silent regarding the air outlet being obliquely arranged relative to the air inlet.
However, Ajisaka teaches a heat exchange arrangement for a vehicle (see Ajisaka figure 2) comprising a flowpath (Ajisaka 60) between an inlet (Ajisaka 38A)and an outlet (downstream end of flowpath after fan 70) with a condenser (Ajisaka 40C) located adjacent the outlet. The outlet and condenser are positioned oblique to the intake (see Ajisaka figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Feltham’s heat exchange control device to utilize Ajisaka’s teachings of an oblique outlet and oblique condenser at the outlet to produce a predictable result of allowing a larger condenser to fit within the flow path for increased cooling capacity and shortening the flowpath to be more efficient in the use of available space within the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Feltham and Ajisaka as applied to claim 4 teach the airflow guide cover includes an upper guide plate (see annotated figure) and a lower guide plate (see annotated figure), and the upper guide plate and the lower guide plate are combined and matched to form the air inlet, the airflow channel, and the air outlet; wherein the upper guide plate as an airflow guide surface (see annotated figure), the lower guide plate has an inner surface opposite to the airflow guide surface, and the airflow guide surface and the inner surface extend from the air inlet to the air outlet in directions away from each other (see annotated figure); wherein an extension distance of the airflow guide surface is greater than an extension distance of the inner surface (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ajisaka figure 2 (annotated)
Regarding claim 7, Feltham and Ajisaka as applied to claim 6 teach the condenser (Ajisaka 40C) is disposed at the air outlet (see Ajisaka figure 2) and occupies the air outlet (see Ajisaka figure 2); wherein the water tank is located between the condenser and the air inlet (see Feltham figure 1) and have a given size (see Feltham figures 2A-2D) that produce three different air streams (Feltham 205-207), one that flows directly through the condenser (Feltham 207, see figure 2A), one that flows around the water tank and into the condenser (Feltham 206, see figure 2A) and one that flows through both the water tank and the condenser (Feltham 205, see figure 2A).
Feltham and Ajisaka are silent regarding the exact relative sizing of the water tank.
However, The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (PA teaches certain dimensions of water tank and condenser), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa)
Feltham further teaches the size of the water tank and the condenser affect the cooling performance and space required and can be different sizes (Feltham [0030]). Increasing the size of the water tank will decrease the amount of dedicated cooling airflow to the condenser while also increasing the cooling airflow that flows through the water tank to improve cooling for components cooled by the water tank. While increasing the size of the condenser would increase the cooling surface area of the condenser thereby increasing the cooling capacity of the air conditioning system.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the sizing of both the water tank and the condenser are results effective variables wherein increasing the size of the water tank increases the available cooling surface area of the water tank thereby increasing the cooling capacity for components cooled by the water tank while also decreasing the amount of airflow provided directly to the condenser thereby decreasing the cooling capacity of the air condition system and increasing the size of the condenser will increase the surface area of the condenser thereby increasing the cooling capacity of the condenser thereby improving the amount of cooling provided by the air conditioning system and would have optimized the sizing of the water tank by selecting a size between 1/3 to ½ of the air outlet size to provide the appropriate amount of cooling performance while minimizing the amount of airflow passing through both the water tank and the condenser to improve the cooling performance of the condenser.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feltham (US 2022/0402352 A1) and Ajisaka (US 2014/0138077 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (CN 107328065 A).
Regarding claim 5, Feltham and Ajisaka as applied to claim 4 are silent regarding the relative cross sectional areas of the air inlet and the air outlet.
However, Dong teaches an air supply duct (see Dong figure 1) for an air conditioner comprising an air inlet (Dong 1) with a cross-sectional area (Dong S1) and an air outlet (Dong 2) with a second cross-sectional area (Dong S2) and the cross sectional area increases along the flow path from the inlet to the outlet to limit pressure loss and enhance the supply air volume (Dong translation page 2 paragraph 7) and preferably has a ratio of S1/S2 that is greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 0.8 (Dong translation page 2 paragraph 8). Examiner notes that these ratios of S1/S2 overlap at the end point (0.5), and therefore is evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Feltham’s heat exchange control device to have a ratio of cross-sectional area of 1:2 which falls within applicant’s claimed range to produce a predictable result of limiting pressure loss and increasing the supply air volume to improve cooling performance.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feltham (US 2022/0402352 A1) and Ajisaka (US 2014/0138077 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (US 2005/0023057 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Feltham and Ajisaka as applied to claim 6 are silent regarding the exact inclination angle between the air inlet and the air outlet.
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa)
Maeda teaches a heat exchange control device (see Maeda figure 7) where a radiator (Maeda 1) and a condenser (Maeda 3) are situated at the outlet of an airflow channel (Maeda 4) that is inclined at an angle theta (see Maeda figure 7) and teach that increasing the angle of inclination results in an increase in space required for mounting the radiator and condenser with respect to the front and rear direction (Maeda [0096]) while decreasing the amount of space required in a vertical direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize the inclination angle is a results effective variable that reduces the mounting space required in the vertical direction when the inclination angle is increased and increases the amount of mounting space required in a front-back direction as the angle is increased and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Feltham’s heat exchange control device by selecting an inclination angle between 45 degrees and 60 degrees to optimize for the space available within Feltham’s vehicle. (see MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding claim 9, Feltham, Ajisaka, and Maeda as applied to claim 8 teach the airflow guide surface extends upward at a non-specific angle (see Ajisaka figure 2). The angle is a results effective variable where a steeper angle increases the height of the condenser and water tank within the vehicle creating additional lower space for other components and a shallower angle lowers the condenser and water tank allowing for a lower hood.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood the airflow guide surface angle is a results effective variable that can be optimized by selecting an angle greater than 60 degrees to provide additional space for other components within the compartment. (see MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding claim 10, Feltham, Ajisaka, and Maeda as applied to claim 8 are silent regarding an exhaust portion disposed on a lower fender.
However, Ajisaka further teaches an exhaust portion (Maeda 44) disposed on a lower fender (see Ajisaka figure 2) located below the front portion of a vehicle body; wherein the at least one exhaust portion includes an exhaust outlet (Ajisaka44B) facing the airflow guide cover, and a rectifier channel (see Ajisaka figure 2), the rectifier channel is recessed toward inside of the vehicle body (see Ajisaka figure 2), and the rectifier channel is gradually widened toward one end of the airflow guide cover (see Ajisaka 44B) to form the exhaust outlet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Feltham’s heat exchange control device to incorporate Ajisaka’s teachings of an exhaust portion at the lower fender to produce a predictable result of discharging the air with the waste heat from the vehicle to prevent overheating.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feltham (US 2022/0402352 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Klop (US 10,730,384 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Feltham as applied to claim 12 teaches the control method includes a first operating mode with the vanes in a first position where the opening degree is 100% (see Feltham figure 4A) and a second operating mode where the vanes are in a second position where the opening degree of the air inlet is 0% (see Feltham figure 4B) and that further operating positions are possible (Feltham [0045]).
Feltham is silent regarding a third operating mode where the opening degree is between 0% and 30%, a fourth operating mode where the opening degree is between 30% and 60%, and a fifth operating mode where the opening degree is between 60% and 90%.
However, Klop teaches an adjustable shutter for a vehicle (see Klop figure 1) comprising a flow control module (Klopp 60) configured to control the opening and closing of the adjustable shutter to maximize fuel efficiency by reducing aerodynamic drag at higher speeds (Klop column 6 lines 30-40) and can be adjusted to any position between fully open and fully closed (see Klop figure 10) including the claimed operating modes of a first position where the opening degree is 100%, a second operating mode where the vanes are in a second position where the opening degree of the air inlet is 0%, a third operating mode where the opening degree is between 0% and 30%, a third operating mode where the opening degree is between 0% and 30%, a fourth operating mode where the opening degree is between 30% and 60%, and a fifth operating mode where the opening degree is between 60% and 90%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Feltham’s method to incorporate Klopp’s teachings of a plurality of positions covering all positions between fully closed and fully open to produce a predictable result of optimizing the vehicle’s aerodynamic efficiency. Examiner notes that Klopp’s plurality of positions that encompass the claimed positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights