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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I, readable on claims 1 through 9, in the reply filed on February 10, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims” in a single application. This is not found persuasive because applicant failed to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies that the requirement is in error and also because applicant failed to provide any evidence that examining plural distinct inventions in a single application fails to be an undue burden on the examiner given that the amount of time allocated for examining applications by the examiner is limited.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant’s election with traverse of the second species or the embodiment of Figure 2, also readable on claims 1 through 9, in the reply filed on September 15, 2025, as supplemented via the reply filed on September 24, 2025, was previously addressed by the examiner in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on December 18, 2025 and has similarly not been found persuasive.
Claims 10 through 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention of Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 10, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed on December 16, 2023 are objected to because the drawings are not in black ink as required (at least some elements in each of the drawings are shown in grayscale). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “on one hand”; “on the other hand”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive and contains grammatical informalities. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “A Cooling System for a Motor Vehicle and a Method for Operating the Cooling System”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: each of paragraphs [00022] and [00023] refers to the content of claim 2 and specifically references claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 through 9 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.
Base claim 1 recites the limitations “a multi-way valve, the battery sub-circuit and/or the heating sub-circuit, and/or the chiller sub-circuit being optionally connectable to each other in a coolant-conducting manner via the multi-way valve” in the last three lines of the claim. These limitations as written impart indefiniteness to the claim and to all claims depending therefrom for a couple of reasons. First of all, it appears that the aforementioned limitations recite that the multi-way valve is connectable to itself via itself due to an improper double recitation of the multi-way valve by these limitations. Second of all, it is not entirely clear what is intended to be encompassed by the phrase “optionally connectable” and whether or how this phrase is different in scope from the stand-alone term “connectable” (i.e., given that the term “connectable” already implies that the connection is optional), thus resulting in additional indefiniteness with regard to the intended scope of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. Lastly, the aforementioned limitations recite plural alternatives (i.e., via the multiple instances of the phrase ”and/or”), whereas dependent claim 6 (and claims 7 through 9 depending therefrom) recites additional plural alternatives (i.e., also via the multiple instances of the phrase “and/or”), thus rendering the intended scope of the claims indeterminate in the same manner that plural improperly dependent claims are rendered indefinite.
With regard to claim 2 as written, it is not clear which particular configurations of the chiller are intended to be necessarily encompassed by the limitation “wherein the chiller is simultaneously configured as a component of the heat pump”, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim.
Claims 5 and 9 each recite the limitations "only in the direction of the third port of the five-way valve and the input of the second coolant pump" in the last two lines of each of the aforementioned claims; however, there is no previously recited direction of the five-way vale and of the input of the second coolant pump and ports and inputs typically do not have directions associated therewith either. So not only there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the direction” in the claims but it is also not clear what is intended to be encompassed thereby with or without proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is written in a generally run-on manner such that it is not at all entirely clear which particular interrelationships between the various elements of the cooling system are intended to be encompassed, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. First of all, it is not clear whether the limitations “wherein the cooling system additionally includes a drive train sub-circuit, which has a third coolant pump, power electronics, an electric motor, and a cooling air radiator for cooling the coolant flowing within the drive train sub-circuit, the drive train sub-circuit comprising a bypass line to the cooling air radiator, and the battery sub-circuit and/or the heating sub-circuit, and/or the chiller sub-circuit, and/or the drive train sub-circuit being optionally connectable to each other in a coolant-conducting manner with the aid of the aforementioned multi-way valve and a further multi-way valve of the cooling system” are intended to recite that the cooling system additionally includes a drive train sub-circuit, where the drive train sub-circuit has all of a third cooling pump, power electronics, an electric motor, and a cooling air radiator for cooling the coolant flowing within the drive-train sub-circuit” or whether these limitations are intended to recite that the cooling system additionally includes a drive train sub-circuit with a third coolant pump, and that the cooling system also additionally includes power electronics, an electric motor, and a cooling air radiator for cooling the coolant flowing within the drive-train sub-circuit, thud further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. Secondly, as similarly recited in base claim 1, it is not entirely clear what is intended to be encompassed by the phrase “optionally connectable” and whether or how this phrase is different in scope from the stand-alone term “connectable” (i.e., given that the term “connectable” already implies that the connection is optional), thus resulting in additional indefiniteness with regard to the intended scope of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. Lastly with regard to the aforementioned limitations in claim 6, it is not entirely clear which structural interrelationships between the various elements are intended to be encompassed and which ones are intended to be excluded by the limitations “in a coolant-conducting manner with the aid of the aforementioned multi-way valve and a further multi-way valve of the cooling system” (emphasis added by the examiner), thus even further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
Similarly, with regard to claim 9 as written, it is not entirely clear which structural interrelationships between the various elements are intended to be encompassed and which ones are intended to be excluded by the limitation “with the aid of a check valve” (emphasis added), thus even further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected at least for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
(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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 through 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0258875 A1).
With regard to base claim 1 of the instant application, Enomoto et al. discloses a cooling or thermal management system 10 for a motor vehicle (i.e., at least title and abstract) to circulate a coolant, the cooling system 10 comprising: a battery sub-circuit that includes a first coolant pump 24 and a battery 37 (i.e., see at least Figures 1, 11, and 12); a heating sub-circuit to heat a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle via heater core 36 disposed in the HVAC duct (i.e., see at least Figures 1, 11, and 12), the heating sub-circuit comprises a second coolant pump 23, a heating air radiator 26, and a coolant heater or condenser 35 which acts as a coolant heater (i.e., see at least paragraph [0076]) to heat the coolant flowing in the heating sub-circuit; a chiller sub-circuit having a chiller 33 (i.e., see at least paragraph [0074]); and a multi-way valve or one of first switching valve 21 and second switching valve 22, the battery sub-circuit and/or the heating sub-circuit, and/or the chiller sub-circuit being optionally connectable to each other in a coolant-conducting manner via the multi-way valve 21 or 22 (i.e., see various flow arrows in at least Figure 1).
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application, Enomoto et al. discloses the cooling system 10 according to claim 1, wherein the cooling system 10 further comprises a heat pump (i.e., the HVAC system including the refrigeration cycle 40 and the various components including blower 44, evaporator 34, and heater 36 in the duct to the passenger compartment as shown in at least Figure 1) for air-conditioning the passenger compartment, and wherein the chiller 33 is simultaneously configured as a component of the heat pump.
With regard to claims 3 through 5 of the instant application, Enomoto et al. (i.e., Figure 11 and Figure 12) discloses multi-way valves 21 and 22 as specifically being five-way valves (i.e., as shown in Figure 11 and in Figure 12). Furthermore, with regard to claims 3 through 5, Enomoto et al. additionally discloses that all of the various elements (i.e., including a battery sub-circuit, a heating sub-circuit, and a chiller sub-circuit along with all of the components associated therewith) are interconnected to each other via the various corresponding ports within the interconnected sub-circuits as recited by the instant claims, at least as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims.
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application, Enomoto et al. further discloses a uni-directional valve 29 (i.e., see arrow) associated with the heating air radiator 26 for directing coolant therethrough, the valve 29 being at least broadly readable on the check valve as recited in claim 5.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 6 through 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0258875 A1).
With regard to claim 6 of the instant application, Enomoto et al. discloses the cooling system 10 of claim 1 as noted in greater detail above, wherein the cooling system 10 further includes a drive train sub-circuit including power electronics (i.e., readable on inverter 31), an electric motor 32, and a bypass line 28 to the cooling air radiator 26, along with a further multi-way valve (i.e., the other one of valves 21 and 22) of the cooling system 10.
Enomoto et al., however, does not disclose a third coolant pump associated with the drive train sub-circuit as recited by claim 6 of the instant application. Nevertheless, the examiner contends that duplication of parts (i.e., pumps in this case) is a matter of obvious design choice, absent a showing of criticality or similar. As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of designing cooling/thermal systems at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to add a third pump within the drive-train sub-circuit of Enomoto et al., either for added robustness of the system (i.e., just in case one of the other two pumps fails or similar) or in order to better overcome flow resistance within the coolant circuit so as to ensure proper cooling of the critical drive-train sub-circuit components.
With regard to claims 7 and 8 of the instant application, Enomoto et al. discloses the cooling system of claim 6 as noted in greater detail above, and further discloses multi-way valves 21 and 22 as specifically being five-way valves (i.e., as shown in Figure 11 and in Figure 12). Furthermore, with regard to claims 7 and 8, Enomoto et al. additionally discloses that all of the various elements (i.e., including a battery sub-circuit, a heating sub-circuit, and a chiller sub-circuit along with all of the components associated therewith) are interconnected to each other via the various corresponding ports within the interconnected sub-circuits as recited by the instant claims, at least as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims.
With regard to claim 9 of the instant application, Enomoto et al. further discloses the cooling system 10 of claim 8 as also including a uni-directional valve 29 (i.e., see arrow) associated with the heating air radiator 26 for directing coolant therethrough, the valve 29 being at least broadly readable on the check valve as recited in claim 9.
Conclusion
The additional and/or related prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights