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.
Claim(s) 1-13, are 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. Regarding Claim 1; “one housing part” in line 3 is not applicable to the claim construction; whereas i.e. line 6 asserts “the housing parts”. Accordingly, “a plurality of housing parts” in line 3 is already constructively elected as rejected in the previous action, and “one housing part” in line 3 is a non-elected feature which is not a part of the examined claim construction. Note: as previously suggested, any claim construction presented without the constructively elected features including only the examined OR conditions thereof is subject to an election by original presentation. Regarding Claim 10; “a housing” is unclear; whereas claim 1 already asserts a housing, and thus it cannot be readily ascertain if the assertion is deemed to refer back to the same housing or a different/ second housing coupled thereto etc.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 8, and 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by (Moreno 2022/0225546).
Regarding Claim 1; Moreno discloses a housing (105—Fig.’s 1-3 and 7A or whereas 105a, 105b, 105c and/or 105d-Fig. 12 constitutes a housing—as set forth by para. 0068) for an electrical assembly (as constituted by a power electronics module-125 and electrical connections—as set forth by para.’s 0052 and 0068) with a metallic housing body (whereas para. 0059 discloses 105 is a metal housing), which is suitable for surrounding a component inside the housing body (as depicted by Fig. 2 and 4A—whereas the housing surrounds component(s) including molding 120 and/or the power electronics module-125) and which is formed as a plurality of housing parts and at least one coolant connection integrated within the housing body, wherein the coolant connection is formed as a nozzle protruding from the housing body and the coolant connection is formed as one part with one of the housing parts (as depicted by Fig.’s 2-3, and 7A—whereas 115b constitutes a nozzle as a coolant connection at 140/140b of a part of the housing; wherein the nozzle may act as an outlet for fluid—para. 0052, wherein the fluid is water or a battery coolant—as set forth by para. 0062 OR as depicted by Fig. 12—whereas a housing part defined by 105A includes 115b which constitutes a nozzle and may act as a fluid inlet or fluid outlet—as set forth by para. 0068), wherein the nozzle the nozzle has a hollow cylindrical basic shape and external surface structures, that are formed to facilitate a connection of a coolant feed at the coolant connection, wherein a retaining means, which is located on the outside of the coolant connection, is provided for the coolant feed (as further depicted by Fig.’s 7A or 7B—whereas 115b and 145 defines the nozzle comprising a cylindrical hollow shape in fluid communication with the housing at coolant connection 104b, and external surfaces features defined by grooves 145, and further where retaining means is constituted by a flange portion which covers an outside of 140b and comprises securing holes aligned with corresponding securing holes on the housing). NOTE: the rejected claim construction is herein deemed as constructively elected, and thus any OR condition etc are nonelected and shall be removed from the claim.
Regarding Claim 2; Moreno discloses the housing according to Claim 1, in which at least one coolant channel extends in the housing body, which is coupled with the coolant connection so that a coolant can flow through the coolant connection into or out of the cooling channel (as already set forth).
Regarding Claim 5; Moreno discloses the housing according to Claim 1, wherein the coolant connection is operated mechanically (whereas para. 0058 discloses a mechanical seal interlocking grooves 145-Fig. 7B through the thickness of the housing).
Regarding Claim 6; Moreno discloses the housing according to Claim 1, wherein the coolant connection is positioned such that it has tool clearance (as depicted by Fig. 7A-7B—where respective nozzles 115a, and 115b are disposed on separate housing parts, via a separate base, and separately interlocks via grooves at corresponding openings 140a, 140b with space therebetween each nozzle to constitutes tool clearance).
Regarding Claim 8; Moreno discloses the housing according to Claim 6, which has a plurality of integrated coolant connections which are placed on the housing body such that they each have tool clearance for the formation of the coolant connection as a mechanically operated coolant connection (as depicted by Fig. 7A-7B—where respective nozzles 115a, and 115b are disposed on separate housing parts, via a separate base, and separately interlocks via grooves 145 at corresponding openings 140a, 140b through a thickness of the housing —para. 0058, and with space therebetween each nozzle to constitutes tool clearance).
Regarding Claim 10; Moreno discloses an electric motor (whereas para. 0003 discloses an electric vehicle and para. 0055 further discloses a motor of the vehicle) comprising a housing according to Claim 1.
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.
Claim 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Moreno 2022/0225546).
Regarding Claim 7; Moreno discloses the housing according to Claim 6, wherein the tool clearance is dimensioned for the formation of the coolant connection (as already set forth by the interlocking grooves 145 of the coolant connection, as depicted by Fig. 7B through the thickness of the housing), except, explicitly disclosing the coolant connection as milled. However, ‘**milled**’ constitutes a method of manufacture and is not structurally distinguished from the prior art. (In re Johnson, 157 USPQ 670, 1968; In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985; See MPEP 2113—Product by Process Claims). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made that the disclosed structure of the prior art is a fully functional equivalent to the claimed structure as evidenced by meeting all of the claimed structural limitations thereof.
Claim(s) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Moreno 2022/0225546) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of (Scholz 2023/0264734).
Regarding Claim 9; Moreno discloses the housing according to Claim 1, suggested as formed for an air conditioning system (para. 0056 discloses the electrical connections extending from the housing connects to an air conditioning system), except explicitly forming an axial flow machine housing. However, Scholz discloses an radial flow machine housing (as depicted by Fig. 2a), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the housing as coupling an radial flow machine housing since it was known in the art that cooling efficiency may be optimized. Going further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 11; Moreno discloses an electric motor (as depicted by Fig.’s 1, 3, 5 or 7A, 100--para. 0055 comprises the housing), except explicitly disclosing an actuation device comprising the housing according to Claim 1. However, Scholz discloses an actuation device comprising the housing (para. 0134 discloses a power inverter powering an electric motor, a shaft, and a power steering system OR where the motor drives or provides traction for the wheels of the vehicle—para. 0022); and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the housing as integrated with an actuation device since it was known in the art that Moreno already discloses the power electronics coupled to the motor and is suggested for traction drive of the hybrid vehicle, and Scholz also discloses improved output signals for driving/traction, as well as enhanced torque, power steering, and control of the vehicle in conditions where high power levels is needed. Going further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Moreno 2022/0225546) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of (Yen 11,224,147).
Regarding Claim 13; discloses motor vehicles comprising the housing according to Claim 1, except explicitly disclosing an electric coolant heater. However, Yen discloses an electric coolant heater (whereas col. 11, lines 20-39 discloses a coolant control module may turn on a heater for a cold start of a vehicle, and for cooling a battery and inverter switches may otherwise turn off the heater), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the controller that is disposed in the housing and includes the power inverter and control electronics as controlling a heater as since it was known in the art that turn on the heater will reliably allow for a cold start for the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot; whereas modified rejections are herein presented to read on the amended claim language.
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 COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
.
Prosecution Insights