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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species C (claims 1, 7-15) in the reply filed on 6/4/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 2018/0281564) in view of Hu (US 2023/0347713).
Regarding claim 1, Baek teahces vehicle refrigeration control method (see Title), comprising:
monitoring a temperature and a change rate of the temperature of a battery in a target vehicle in real time (paragraph [0071]);
determining a refrigeration requirement level of the battery according to the temperature and the change rate (see paragraph [0071]);
determining a refrigeration mode to be entered according to a current refrigeration requirement level of the battery (see paragraph [0071], [0107]).
Baek does not teach that the refrigeration mode comprises:
a single-mode phase and a dual-mode phase;
the single-mode phase is used for refrigerating the passenger compartment or the battery alone,
the dual-mode phase is used for simultaneously refrigerating the passenger compartment and the battery, and the single-mode phase is set to be prior to the dual-mode phase.
Hu teaches a method for cooling a passenger compartment and battery of a vehicle (Hu, Title) wherein both the passenger compartment and the battery can be cooled at the same time (Hu, see pat least paragraph [0048]), and a single mode phase which only cools the battery or the passenger compartment (Hu, paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Baek with a single mode phase and a dual phase mode as taught by Hu, in order to accommodate multiple needs if needed while also prioritizing a dedicated cooling mode thereby allowing for maximum cooling for the passenger or battery if needed.
Regarding the limitation, “when it is detected that a passenger compartment and the battery of the target vehicle both have refrigeration requirements at the same time.” The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020. “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”.Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606–07 (Fed.Cir.2007). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04 II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Baek (US 2018/0281564) in view of Hu (US 2023/0347713), further in view of Li (US 2023/0249522).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
wherein the single-mode phase comprises a battery refrigeration mode, wherein determining the refrigeration mode to be entered according to the current refrigeration requirement level of the battery comprises: entering the battery refrigeration mode and monitoring a cooling liquid temperature at a first position in real time, when the refrigeration requirement level is an emergency state, wherein the first position comprises an entrance of a battery cooling pipeline in a battery cooling circuit, and the battery cooling circuit is comprised in a cooling liquid circulation system; entering the dual-mode phase, when a second temperature difference between the cooling liquid temperature and a second target temperature is less than or equal to a second temperature difference threshold, or a second running time of the battery refrigeration mode is greater than or equal to a second preset time.
Li teaches a method of protecting against low refrigerant charge in an electrified vehicle (Li, Title) which protects against low refrigerant charge (analogous to an emergency state) when the refrigeration system is configured to cool a battery of an electrified vehicle (Li, paragraph [0001]). However, Li does not teach the controls recited in the claim with regard to both the single and dual phase modes. In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering dependent claim 7, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights