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 § 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizeki (US 2022/0258570 A1) in view of Sekito et al. (US 2017/0096050 A1).
As per claim 1, Ishizeki discloses a heat exchange system for a battery electric vehicle, comprising: an air conditioning system (Figs 1 and 3-9) comprising an air conditioning pipe 13B and an evaporator 9, the evaporator being connected to the air conditioning pipe; a drive source (motor 65) cooling system comprising a drive source cooling pipe 68F and a radiator (heater core 23), the radiator being connected to the drive source cooling pipe (Figs. 1 and 3-9); and a duct 3 extending from both an inside air inlet port and an outside air inlet port (at 25; para. 0049; etc.) to an air conditioning outlet port 29, the duct being branched into a cooling passage (lower passage of duct 3) and a heating passage (upper passage of duct 3); wherein the evaporator is disposed upstream from a branch point of the duct (Figs. 1 and 3-9); the radiator is disposed in the heating passage (Figs. 1 and 3-9); a first air mix door 28 is disposed in the cooling passage (i.e., when tilted down covers cooling passage); and a second air mix door 31 is disposed downstream of the radiator in the heating passage (i.e., when tilted up, blocks flow from heating passage).
Ishizeki does not teach wherein the radiator is disposed in an inclined position relative to a longitudinal axis of the heating passage. Sekito et al. teach the basic concept of providing heat exchangers at an inclined angle within an airflow passage (see heat exchangers 16 (evaporator) and 18 (heater core) inclined within the flow passage in Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly incline the radiator of Ishizeki for the same basic purpose of achieving the same amount of heat exchange while reducing the vertical space requirements of the duct system (para. 0059; etc.).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizeki (US 2022/0258570 A1) in view of Sekito et al. (US 2017/0096050 A1), and further in view of Agathocleous et al. (US 2019/0366794 A1).
As per claim 2, Ishizeki do not teach wherein an exhaust passage is connected to the heating passage at a position located downstream from the radiator and upstream from the second air mix door; an exhaust port is provided to a downstream end of the exhaust passage; and 20 the exhaust port is open to the outside of the battery electric vehicle. Agathocleous et al. teach a similar air flow arrangement wherein an exhaust passage 85 is connected to the heating passage 72e at a position located downstream from the radiator (24, 78) and upstream from air mix door 80; an exhaust port is provided to a downstream end of the exhaust passage and the exhaust port is open to the outside of the battery electric vehicle (purge path discussed at para. 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide an exhaust passage within the system of Ishizeki for the same purpose removing unwanted warm air during cooling operation (paras. 0047-0048; etc.)
As per claim 3, Ishizeki does not teach further comprising an exhaust door disposed in the exhaust passage and configured to adjust an amount of exhaust air. Agathocleous et al. teach an exhaust door 87 disposed in the exhaust passage and configured to adjust an amount of exhaust air (para. 0042; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide an exhaust door in the system of Ishizeki for the same purpose of optimizing heat exchange controlling the amount of hot air that is purged (para 0051; etc.).
As per claim 4, Ishizeki disclose the system further comprising: a door controller (controller 32 controls dampers 26 and 31 (Fig. 2; etc.) configured to adjust openings of the first air mix door 26, the second air mix door 21. Ishizeki does not teach controlling an exhaust door; or wherein when the air conditioning system is in a cooling operation and the drive source cooling system is in a cooling operation, the door controller outputs a close signal to an opening/closing motor for the second air mix door, and outputs an open signal to an opening/closing motor for the exhaust door. Agathocleous et al. teach controlling an exhaust door 87; or wherein when the air conditioning system is in a cooling operation (Fig. 3; etc.) and the drive source cooling system is in a cooling operation, a door controller outputs a close signal to an opening/closing motor for the second air mix door (damper 80 blocks outflow of heating passage 72), and outputs an open signal to an opening/closing motor for the exhaust door (opens damper 85 to allow hot air to be purged). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide such controls to the system if Ishizeki for the same purpose of optimizing cooling by purging excess heat (and especially when the radiator (heater core 23) is being used extract heat from motor 35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Uemura et al. (US 6311763 B1), Umebayahi et al. (US 6265692 B1), and Saida et al. (US 6019163) teach further examples of vehicle air conditioning systems wherein the radiator is disposed at an incline relative to the longitudinal direction of the airflow duct.
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 MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763