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 with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are not independent from each other, or they recite a linking claim. This is found persuasive and the requirement for restriction/election is withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2, 7-12 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.
Claim 2 recites wherein at least one temperature sensor is arranged in front of and behind but it is unclear how a single sensor can be both in front and behind the component. Claim 2 is interpreted such that the sensor is in front or behind the component.
Claims 7-12 recites a second pump but does not refer to a first pump.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 13-16, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 20200303791).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Fig. 1, Choi teaches a thermal circuit (not labeled) having a main conveying direction (e.g. the direction through heat exchanger 240) for a thermal management system of an electrified vehicle (see abstract), the thermal circuit comprising: a main circuit 200 comprising a main circuit first conduit portion 220 having a first pump 230 and a heat exchanger 240 provided behind the first pump (wherein the recitation ‘behind’ is interpreted to refer to a flow direction) and a main circuit second conduit portion (e.g. the conduit connecting valve 410 to pump 230); a partial circuit 300 comprising a partial circuit first conduit portion 320 having a second pump 330 and a component arranged to be temperature-controlled (e.g. a battery 310) behind the second pump and a partial circuit second conduit portion (e.g. the conduit connecting valve 420 to conduit 320); a connecting valve 410 connected to the main circuit first conduit portion or the partial circuit first conduit portion and the main circuit second conduit portion or the partial circuit second conduit portion for controlling a volume flow (please note that as both the main circuit and partial circuits are fluidly connected in a circuit, all elements are “connected” to each other); a first fluid connection (e.g. a connection point between tank 250 and valve 410) connected to the connecting valve; and a second fluid connection (e.g. a connection at an outlet of valve 410), wherein the first and second fluid connections are respectively connected to the main circuit first conduit portion, the partial circuit first conduit portion, the main circuit second conduit portion, and the partial circuit second conduit portion.
Regarding claim 3,
Choi teaches wherein the partial circuit second conduit portion comprises a throttle 420 (wherein said throttle can block, or throttle, flow as necessary).
Regarding claim 4,
Choi teaches wherein the heat exchanger 240 comprises a radiator and/or a heater.
Regarding claims 6, 13-16, 17-20,
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi.
Regarding claim 2,
Choi does not teach wherein, in the partial circuit, at least one temperature sensor is arranged in front of and behind the component to be temperature-controlled but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, temperature sensors would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Choi with the motivation of obtaining useful information regarding the component or the fluid in the thermal circuit.
Regarding claim 5,
The subject matter of claim 5 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 2 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Choi does not teach the specific method steps of claims 7-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763