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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “rapidly” and “rapid” in claims 1-5 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “rapidly” and “rapid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 1-5 are rendered indefinite because “rapidly” and “rapid” render the battery charging indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kinoshita (US-20200243924-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita discloses a vehicle battery cooling device (see e.g., Kinoshita; [0004]-[0006], regarding the cooling device in vehicles) that cools a battery by circulating a refrigerant by a compressor (see e.g., Kinoshita; [0030], [0032], [0035], fig. 1, regarding compressor 42 which compresses a heat exchange medium) and cools air blown into a vehicle compartment (see e.g., Kinoshita; [0030], [0032], regarding cooling the interior of the host vehicle), wherein when the battery is being rapidly charged, a rotation speed of the compressor is increased (see e.g., Kinoshita; [0041], regarding when the in-vehicle battery 32 is fast charged, the rotation speed of the compressor 42 is set to maximum such as to 8600 rpm).
Regarding claim 2, Kinoshita discloses the vehicle battery cooling device according to claim 1, wherein when the battery is being rapidly charged, an upper limit rotation speed of the compressor is increased (see e.g., Kinoshita; [0041], regarding when the in-vehicle battery 32 is fast charged, the rotation speed of the compressor 42 is set to maximum such as to 8600 rpm).
Regarding claim 4, Kinoshita discloses the vehicle battery cooling device according to claim 2, wherein the increase in the upper limit rotation speed is determined based on a maximum allowable noise level during rapid charging of the battery (see e.g., Kinoshita; [0042]-[0044], fig. 3, regarding the upper limit rotation speed of the compressor based on the noise generated; wherein the upper limit rotation speed of the compressor is based on whether the volume of the background noise is equal to or greater than a predetermined value).
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(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US-20200243924-A1), and in further view of Miyakoshi (JP-2020001609-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 3, Kinoshita discloses the vehicle battery cooling device according to claim 2. Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose wherein when the battery is rapidly charged and cooled air is supplied into the vehicle compartment, a target supply temperature for the cooled air blown into the vehicle compartment is increased. However, Miyakoshi discloses a vehicle air conditioning and battery cooling step that occurs during rapid battery charging (see e.g., Miyakoshi; [0052]) wherein by a priority control means, battery cooling operations are prioritized over air conditioning inside the vehicle (see e.g., Miyakoshi; [0055]), which corresponds with a target supply temperature for the cooled air blown into the vehicle compartment is increased; because the air cabin air conditioning is deprioritized, the target supply temperature for the cooled air blown into the vehicle is necessarily increased. Miyakoshi further describes the valves and sensors of the system to perform the prioritization function in [0055]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle battery cooling device of Kinoshita to provide the valves and sensors as disclosed by Miyakoshi such that when the battery is rapidly charged and cooled air is supplied into the vehicle compartment, a target supply temperature for the cooled air blown into the vehicle compartment is increased. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent battery malfunctions caused by high temperatures (see e.g., Miyakoshi; [0007]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kinoshita teaches the vehicle battery cooling device according to claim 3, wherein the increase in the upper limit rotation speed is determined based on a maximum allowable noise level during rapid charging of the battery (see e.g., Kinoshita; [0042]-[0044], fig. 3, regarding the upper limit rotation speed of the compressor based on the noise generated; wherein the upper limit rotation speed of the compressor is based on whether the volume of the background noise is equal to or greater than a predetermined value).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights