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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Backer (‘540) does not disclose the newly amended claim 1 limitation “wherein the ribs and/or the ridges extend between side surfaces of adjacent ones of the fluid lines of the fluid line network to space apart the fluid lines.” Examiner disagrees.
As is evident from the embodiment depicted in FIGs. 32-36, especially when viewing FIGs. 32 and 33, Backer meets the limitation in question. Additionally, note the embodiment depicted in FIGs. 37-39, and that depicted in FIGs. 41-42, which also meet the limitation in question, and unsubstantiate Applicant’s position with respect to the embodiment depicted in FIGs. 32-36.
For at least these reasons, the art rejections have been maintained.
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) 14-19, 21-22, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Backer (US 2019/0290540).
As to claim 14 and with reference to the following annotated figure, Backer discloses a fluid line connection arrangement which is adapted for use in a temperature control system of a battery electric driven vehicle, wherein the fluid line connection arrangement comprises a plurality of fluid ports connected to one another via a fluid line network of fluidically communicating and/or fluidically not communicating fluid lines and to which fluid channels of the temperature control system can be connected for providing flow paths for a fluid, wherein each of the fluid lines of the fluid line network are held spaced apart by a holding structure integrally formed with the fluid lines stabilizing the fluid lines and such that an air gap is formed outside of the holding structure between adjacently arranged ones of the fluid lines, wherein the holding structure is formed from ribs and/or ridges, and wherein the ribs and/or the ridges extend between side surfaces of adjacent ones of the fluid lines of the fluid line network to space apart the fluid lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 15, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 14, further comprising at least one fluidic interface (refer to foregoing annotated figure and Fig. 2) for fluidic connection of at least one further component of the temperature control system to at least one of the fluid lines of the fluid line network, wherein the at least one further component is a valve, a volute of a pump and/or a fluid reservoir.
As to claim 16, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 15, wherein the at least one further component is the fluid reservoir held by the holding structure and arranged such that the air gap is formed outside of the holding structure between the fluid reservoir and the fluid lines of the fluid line network which are not directly fluidically connected to the fluid reservoir. Refer to foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 17 and with reference to the following annotated figure, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 14, wherein the fluid line network has a plenum in which several of the fluid lines end, wherein the plenum has a fluidic interface for fluidic connection to a volute of a pump.
PNG
media_image2.png
658
1002
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 17, wherein the plenum is formed as an integral structure of the holding structure. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 19, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 14, wherein the fluid line network and the holding structure are formed from a plastic (see [0347]).
As to claim 21, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 15, wherein the at least one further component is the fluid reservoir and wherein the holding structure, the fluid reservoir and the fluid line network with the fluid lines are produced as an integral injection-molded part. Refer to [0347].
Note that the method of forming the device (i.e., injection molding) is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself and does not serve to patentably distinguish the claims.
As to claim 23, discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 15, wherein the at least one further component is the fluid reservoir and wherein the holding structure, the fluid reservoir and the fluid line network with the fluid lines are formed by injection-molded parts produced, joined or plugged together in an injection-molding process. Refer to [0347].
Note that the method of forming the device (i.e., injection molding) is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself and does not serve to patentably distinguish the claims.
As to claim 24, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 14, wherein the fluid lines which are provided for guiding fluid flows at substantially a same temperature are arranged spatially combined by means of the holding structure.
As to claim 25, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 14, wherein the fluid lines which carry fluid flows with substantially different temperatures are arranged spatially separated by means of the holding structure. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
The fluids in the various lines will be at different temperatures.
As to claim 26, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 14, wherein on a first side or a first outer wall of a fluid reservoir, the fluid lines are arranged spaced apart with the holding structure and which guide a fluid with a comparative higher temperature, wherein the fluid lines which guide a fluid with a comparative lower temperature are arranged on a second side or a second outer wall of the fluid reservoir opposite to the first side or the first outer wall of the fluid reservoir held spaced apart by the holding structure. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
The fluids in the various lines will be at different temperatures.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backer in view of Frohlich et al (US 6,003,904).
As to claim 20, Backer discloses the fluid line connection arrangement according to claim 19, except that the plastic has a glass fiber content in a range from 10% to 30%.
However, Frohlich et al teaches a fluid connection component made of polyacetate, which has a uniformly high strength at high and low temperatures if the percentage of glass fibers in the polyacetate is between 10 and 30% (see col. 2, ll. 15-22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Backer, as taught by Frohlich et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strengthened plastic that operates reliably and uniformly at various temperatures.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm.
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 Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679