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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-2 and 4A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Figures 1, 2, and 4A are described as drawings that are “known in the art” (paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0026 of the Specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 3A-3C show the channels 302 as occupying the space of a cross-section of a body, which is indicated by oblique hatching. While it is permitted to use an oblique hatching for a cross-section of a body, it is not permitted to use an oblique hatching to indicate the space of a channel (PCT Rule 11.13.b, MPEP 1825).
Figs. 3A show the wall 208 as occupying the same space as a compartment 215, and the wall 208 is not directed to oblique hatching. Oblique hatching is required for the cross-section of the wall 208 (PCT Rule 11.13.b, MPEP 1825).
Numeral 216 in fig. 2 is not mentioned in the Specification (PCT Rule 11.13.l).
The abbreviation “FC” in fig. 5 is not explained (neither in the Specification nor in fig. 5).
The drawings use either numeral 500 or numeral 10 for the “thermal management control system and method.” For example, fig. 1 uses the numeral “10,” fig. 5 uses the numeral “500,” and fig. 6 uses both numerals “10” and “500.” The same features, when denoted by reference signs, shall, throughout the international application, be denoted by the same signs (PCT Tule 11.13.m).
Fig. 4A uses only the numeral “620.” Meanwhile, figs. 1 and 6 show the numerals “620/621/623” in combination. The same features, when denoted by reference signs, shall, throughout the international application, be denoted by the same signs (PCT Tule 11.13.m).
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
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The amendment filed 17 November 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference in the international patent application PCT/US2022/031760 is ineffective as it was added on the day of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the Instant Application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 1 June 2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 17 November 2023 is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0054 of the Specification refers to the “plumbing 302.” Meanwhile, the channels are consistently described using the numeral 302 throughout the Specification. Recommend amending paragraph 0054 to disclose: “plumbing
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 8-11, 12, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 3-5, 8-11, and 17, recommend amending the claims to recite: “an underside” (only once in claim 17, when first introduced).
In claims 4, 10, and 19 recommend amending the claims to recite: “a body.”
In claim 12, recommend amending the claim to recite: “further comprising a step of considering a plurality of conditions of
In claim 14, recommend amending the claim to recite: “wherein a heating system.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are the following:
“power source controller” in claim 7
The generic placeholder is “controller” and the functional limitation is “managing heat output of one more power sources.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a processor 634 as well as the computer network 616 (fig. 6).
“heating system” in claim 13
The generic placeholder is “system” and the functional limitation is “heating.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes “plumbing.”
“system controller” in claim 17
The generic placeholder is “system controller” and the functional limitation is “controls heat output for the one or more power sources and the resistor grid, and routes heat to the one or more channels.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a processor 634 as well as the computer network 616 (fig. 6).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 1 recites: “communicating the thermal management control method from the processor to a resistor grid.” It is unclear what constitutes a “thermal management control method” that is communicated “from the processor” and then how this method is communicated “to a resistor grid.”
Figure 5 shows a method 500, which is described as the “thermal management control method.” It is not clear how a “thermal management control method” can be information that is communicated. Instead of displaying information, fig. 5 shows a flow chart with a sequence of method steps. Does the claimed “method” require information related to all the steps in fig. 5 or is the claimed “method” just the output of fig. 5?
Referencing fig. 6, the examiner presumes that the “resistor grid” can be an additional component device 622. It is unclear how the method 500 of fig. 5 is communicated through the network 616 to the device 622 from the processor 610 of fig. 6. It is also not clear how this method information, which is communicated, is then received by the resistor grid. Instead of being another processor or computer, the Specification discloses the resistor grid as being as a device that “utilizes the conductive or radiated heat that is generated, exhausted, and/or wasted by the truck 100 or vehicle,” and not as a device that is capable of processing information. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 6 recites: “wherein the resistor grid is added to the location of a former engine exhaust area.” It is unclear how the term “former” affects the scope of this limitation. For example, does this limitation require a method step of removing an engine exhaust from a location and replacing the exhaust with a “resistor grid” in the same location? Although the Specification describes an engine exhaust area 625 in fig. 4A and then shows a retarder grid 304 in this area in fig. 4B, the Specification does not disclose a step for removing an engine exhaust. In view of the Specification, for the purpose of the examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: “wherein the resistor grid is added to the location of an engine exhaust area.”
Claims 7 and 17 recite: “communicating/communicates the thermal management control method.” It is unclear what constitutes a “thermal management control method” that is communicated between processors.
Figure 5 shows a method 500, which is described as the “thermal management control method.” It is not clear how a “thermal management control method” can be information that is communicated. Instead of displaying information, fig. 5 shows a flow chart with a sequence of method steps. Does the claimed “method” require information related to all the steps in fig. 5 or is the claimed “method” just the output of fig. 5?
Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 12 recites: “further comprising the step of considering the conditions of the one or more power sources at start-up of the truck.” The metes and bounds of a “considering” step are unclear. For example, if one of ordinary skill in the art simply considered in their mind “the conditions of the one or more power sources at start-up of the truck,” would this mental consideration infringe on this limitation? How would this mental exercise of “considering” result in a tangible action, where it can be shown that a consideration occurred? Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of a “considering” step, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claims 13-16 are dependent method claims where structural elements are introduced. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structural elements or based on the method for heating a bed of a truck. Recommend associating claims 13-16 with the method steps that are recited in claims 1 and 6. For example, claim 13 could be amended to recite: “wherein the heating the bed of the truck further comprises a heating system.”
Claim 14 recites “one or more channels.” Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1, which recites “channels.” The number of channels in claim 14 is unclear—are multiple channels required, according to claim 1 or is only “one or more” required, according to claim 14? For the purpose of the examination, claim 14 will be interpreted as requiring multiple channels.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one or more power sources.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although normally this would be a Claim objection, because there is no earlier recitation of the “one or more power sources,” claim 15 is unclear. In other words, because claim 15 begins: “The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more power sources are…” and there is no mention of the power sources in claims 1 and 6, it is unclear how claim 15 further limits the scope of claim 6. Recommend attributing the limitations of claim 15 to a method step in claims 1 or 6 and clarifying whether the “one or more power sources” is a new element that is being introduced within the scope of claim 15.
Claim 17 uses the phrase: “…selected from…” It is unclear if this is limitation is a Markush groups of closed alternatives or instead an open-ended list of alternatives (MPEP 2111) between “a fuel cell, a battery, and a combination thereof.” Although the phrase “selected from” is used, the phrase does not include the term “consisting of” (MPEP 2173.05.h). As a result, the claims are indefinite because the metes and bounds (closed or open claim language?) are unclear. For example, can be there be another power source other than a fuel cell or a battery within the scope of the claim (e.g., an engine)? For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as not being a Markush group.
Claim 18-20 recites the limitation "the channels.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Instead, claims 18-20 are dependent on claim 17, which recites “one or more channels.” As a result, the scope of claims 18-20 are unclear. Do claims 18-20 require more than two channels, according to claims 18-20 or just “one or more” channel, according to claim 17? For the purpose of the examination, the limitation in claims 18-20 will be interpreted as: “the one or more channels,” according to claim 17.
Claims 2-5 and 8-11 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites “the one or more channels.” Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “channels.” As a result, claim 14 broadens the number of channels to one or more and does not further limit the scope of claim 1, which requires two or more channels.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (JP-2012201227-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Minoshima et al. (US-20130075170-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kita teaches a method for heating a bed (cargo bed 1, fig. 4) of a truck (“heating mechanism for the cargo bed of a dump truck,” para 0001), the method comprising:
directing heat (warm air 31, fig. 4; para 0051) generated by the resistor (resistor 14, fig. 4) to channels (passages 6, fig. 4) comprised in the bed of the truck (bed 1, fig. 4), and
heating the bed of the truck to a temperature greater than a freezing temperature (“prevent moisture-containing cargo from freezing,” para 0017; keeping the cargo in the bed of the truck from freezing is construed as keeping the temperature of the bed of the truck above a freezing temperature).
Kita, fig. 4
PNG
media_image1.png
844
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kita does not explicitly disclose receiving one or more inputs into a processor, generating a thermal management control method by the processor, communicating the thermal management control method from the processor to a resistor grid.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the thermal control for trucks, Minoshima teaches receiving one or more inputs into a processor (controller 28 receives inputs from sensors 25-27, fig. 4; a “microcomputer” is construed as including a processor, para 0052), generating a thermal management control method (the controller 28 executes the method shown in fig. 6, para 0062; fig. 6 executes based on the heating modes shown in fig. 5, para 0056; a method for selection of different heating modes is construed as being a “thermal management control method”) by the processor (“performed by a controller in FIG. 4,” para 0025), communicating the thermal management control method from the processor to a resistor grid (mode selection determined from fig. 6 is communicated to the resistor 21 in grid box 22, fig. 4; the box 22 is shown in fig. 2).
Minoshima, fig. 4
PNG
media_image2.png
1208
858
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kita, in view of the teachings of Minoshima, by using grid box 22 and the controller 28, as taught by Minoshima, to house and control the resistor 14, as taught by Kita, in order to use a box-shaped grid with a tubular shape that allows for air to pass through the grid box in the vicinity of the resistor so as to generate heated air, and in order to control the operation of the resistor based on an outside condition of the air, e.g., during a snowstorm or heavy rains, where the heater is operated but the blower is not so as to avoid blowing in precipitation towards the resistor (Minoshima, paras 0018, 0043-0047, and 0068-0070).
Regarding claim 2, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) are located on the underside of the bed of the truck (underside of the bed 1, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) are attached to plates located on the underside of the bed of the truck (annotated in fig. 4 below).
Kita, fig. 4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
844
1050
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) are located on the underside of the body or exterior walls of the bed of the truck (the passages 6 are located under the body or the exterior walls of the bed 1, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) enable heat to be convectively distributed upwards from the underside of the bed of the truck (heat from warm air 31 is distributed to the underside of the bed 1, fig. 4) to materials located within the bed of the truck (“cargo,” para 0040; paras 0040 and 0045).
Regarding claim 6, Kita teaches wherein the resistor grid (resistor 14, fig. 4) is added to the location of an engine exhaust area (resistor 14 is in the same area as the exhaust gas 30 from engine 9, fig. 4), and wherein the method further comprises routing waste heat (exhaust gas 30, fig. 4) to the bed (released at gas outlet 11, fig. 4) by radiated heating (“heat exchange between the
exhaust gas 30 discharged from the engine 9 and warm air 31 guided in the duct 15,” para 0044; construed such that the routing of the gas 30 to outlet 11 is accomplished by an exchange between gas 30 with air 31, which comes from the radiator 14, fig 4).
Regarding claim 12, Kita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising the step of considering the conditions of the one or more power sources at start-up of the truck.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the thermal control for trucks, Minoshima teaches further comprising the step (step 1, fig. 6) of considering the conditions of the one or more power sources (“At this time, the controller 28 executes control processing shown in FIG. 6 to control the bidirectional converter 20, the resistor 21, and the blower 24 in accordance with a driving state of the vehicle body 2. Specifically, at a step 1, the controller 28 judges from an output signal of the speed sensor 25 whether the dump truck 1 is traveling or not,” para 0062; construed such that the controller considers the condition of the engine) at start-up of the truck (“when a driver who has got on the cabin 5 of the dump truck 1 starts the engine 11 depicted in FIG. 4,” para 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kita, in view of the teachings of Minoshima, by using the controller 28 once the dump truck is traveling, as taught by Minoshima, to control the resistor 14, as taught by Kita, in order to control the operation of the resistor based on an outside condition of the air, e.g., during a snowstorm or heavy rains, where the heater is operated but the blower is not so as to avoid blowing in precipitation towards the resistor (Minoshima, paras 0018, 0043-0047, 0054-0055, and 0068-0070).
Regarding claim 13, Kita teaches wherein the truck further comprises a heating system (the warm air through the passages 6 provide heating, fig. 4; the passages 6 have an exterior shell in fig. 4, which is construed as being plumbing for the passages).
Regarding claim 14, Kita teaches wherein the heating system (the warm air through the passages 6 provide heating, fig. 4) comprises plumbing to define the one or more channels (the passages 6 have an exterior shell in fig. 4, which is construed as being plumbing for the passages).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (JP-2012201227-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Minoshima et al. (US-20130075170-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of Audhav et al. (US-20220305918-A1, effective filing date of 26 March 2021).
Regarding claim 15, Kita teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more power sources are one or more fuel cells.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the thermal control for trucks, Audhav teaches wherein the one or more power sources (electric source 104, fig. 2) are one or more fuel cells (“The electric source 104 can be, for example, a vehicle battery or a fuel cell system,” para 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kita, in view of the teachings of Audhav, by using a fuel cell system, as taught by Audhav, to provide power for the dump truck, as taught by Kita, in order to use a vehicle propelled by hydrogen fuel cells, which have become increasingly popular, especially for trucks and other heavy duty vehicles (Audhav, para 0003).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kita in view of Audhav as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 16. Specifically, Audhav teaches wherein the one or more power sources further comprises one or more batteries (“The electric source 104 can be, for example, a vehicle battery or a fuel cell system,” para 0053; “battery,” para 0067).
Claims 7-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (JP-2012201227-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Minoshima et al. (US-20130075170-A1) and Audhav et al. (US-20220305918-A1, effective filing date of 26 March 2021).
Regarding claim 7, Kita teaches a method for heating a bed (cargo bed 1, fig. 4) of a truck (“heating mechanism for the cargo bed of a dump truck,” para 0001), the method comprising:
directing heat generated by the one or more power sources (resistor 14 and engine 9, fig. 4) to channels (passages 6, fig. 4) comprised in the bed of the truck (bed 1, fig. 4), and
heating the bed of the truck to a temperature greater than a freezing temperature (“prevent moisture-containing cargo from freezing,” para 0017; keeping the cargo in the bed of the truck from freezing is construed as keeping the temperature of the bed of the truck above a freezing temperature).
Kita does not explicitly disclose receiving one or more inputs into a processor, generating a thermal management control method by the processor, communicating the thermal management control method from the processor to a power source controller, managing heat output of one or more power sources by the power source controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the thermal control for trucks, Minoshima teaches receiving one or more inputs into a processor (controller 28 receives inputs from sensors 25-27, fig. 4; a “microcomputer” is construed as including a processor, para 0052), generating a thermal management control method (the controller 28 executes the method shown in fig. 6, para 0062; fig. 6 executes based on the heating modes shown in fig. 5, para 0056; a method for selection of different heating modes is construed as being a “thermal management control method”) by the processor (“performed by a controller in FIG. 4,” para 0025), communicating the thermal management control method from the processor to a power source controller (power control unit 15, fig. 4; “This controller 28 is connected to the electric power control unit 15,” para 0052; the network between the controller 28 and power control unit 15 is shown in fig. 4), managing heat output (output between wiring lines 19A and 19B, fig. 4; heat is generated by electric power to the resistor 21, para 0054) of one or more power sources (engine 11 and resistor 21, fig. 4) by the power source controller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kita, in view of the teachings of Minoshima, by using the power control unit 15 and the controller 28, as taught by Minoshima, to control the engine 9 and the resistor 14, as taught by Kita, in order to use an electric power control unit that controls the power distribution of the engine, such that the power consumption of the resistor can be switched on an off by the controller 28, for the advantage of controlling the operation of the resistor based on an outside condition of the air, e.g., during a snowstorm or heavy rains, where the heater is operated but the blower is not so as to avoid blowing in precipitation towards the resistor (Minoshima, paras 0018, 0043-0047, 0054-0055, and 0068-0070).
Kita/ Minoshima do not explicitly disclose a power source controller (a processor for the power control unit 15 is not explicitly disclosed).
However, in the same field of endeavor of the thermal control for trucks, Audhav teaches a power source controller (control unit 114, fig. 2; “microprocessor,” para 0058).
Audhav, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
524
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kita/Minoshima, in view of the teachings of Audhav, by using a microprocessor, as taught by Audhav, in the power control unit 15, as taught by Minoshima, in order to use processing circuitry with a programmable device, enabling communication between a primary vehicle control unit, e.g., a separate controller 28 as taught by Minoshima, and the processing circuitry 114 as taught by Audhav, such that information is transmitted between the two control systems, enabling decentralized decision-making capability by the processing circuitry 114 (Audhav, para 0058).
Regarding claim 8, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) are located on the underside of the bed of the truck (underside of the bed 1, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) are attached to plates located on the underside of the bed of the truck (annotated in fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 10, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) are located on the underside of the body or exterior walls of the bed of the truck (the passages 6 are located under the body or the exterior walls of the bed 1, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) enable heat to be radiantly distributed upwards from the underside of the bed of the truck (heat from warm air 31 is distributed to the underside of the bed 1, fig. 4) to materials located within the bed of the truck (“cargo,” para 0040; paras 0040 and 0045).
Regarding claim 17, Kita teaches a system (fig. 4) for heating a bed of a truck (“heating mechanism for the cargo bed of a dump truck,” para 0001), the system comprising:
a resistor (resistor 14, fig. 4), and
one or more channels (passages 6, fig. 4) located on the underside of the bed (underside of bed 1, fig. 4).
Kita does not explicitly disclose a processor, one or more inputs, a system controller, and one or more power sources, wherein the one or more power sources are selected from a fuel cell, a battery, and a combination thereof, a resistor grid, wherein the processor receives the one or more inputs, uses the one or more inputs to generate a thermal management control method, and communicates the thermal management control method to the system controller, wherein the system controller controls heat output for the one or more power sources and the resistor grid, and routes heat to the one or more channels located on the underside of the bed based on the thermal management control method.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the thermal control for trucks, Minoshima teaches a processor (controller 28, fig. 4; a “microcomputer” is construed as including a processor, para 0052), one or more inputs (inputs from sensors 25-27, fig. 4), a system controller (power control unit 15, fig. 4; the network between the controller 28 and power control unit 15 is shown in fig. 4), a resistor grid (grid box 22, which includes a resistor 21, fig. 4; the box 22 is shown in fig. 2), wherein the processor receives the one or more inputs (controller 28 receives inputs from sensors 25-27, fig. 4), uses the one or more inputs to generate a thermal management control method (the controller 28 executes the method shown in fig. 6, para 0062, based on the inputs from the sensors 26-28, paras 0049-0051, for steps 1 and 2 in fig. 6; fig. 6 executes based on the heating modes shown in fig. 5, para 0056; a method for selection of different heating modes is construed as being a “thermal management control method”), and communicates the thermal management control method to the system controller (mode selection determined from fig. 6 is communicated to the resistor 21 in grid box 22, fig. 4; the box 22 is shown in fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kita, in view of the teachings of Minoshima, by using grid box 22, the control unit 15, and the controller 28, as taught by Minoshima, to house and control the resistor 14, as taught by Kita, in order to use a box-shaped grid with a tubular shape that allows for air to pass through the grid box in the vicinity of the resistor so as to generate heated air, and i in order to use an electric power control unit that controls the power distribution of the engine, such that the power consumption of the resistor can be switched on an off by the controller 28, for the advantage of controlling the operation of the resistor based on an outside condition of the air, e.g., during a snowstorm or heavy rains, where the heater is operated but the blower is not so as to avoid blowing in precipitation towards the resistor (Minoshima, paras 0018, 0043-0047, 0054-0055, and 0068-0070).
Kita/Minoshima do not explicitly disclose a system controller (a processor for the power control unit 15 is not explicitly disclosed); and one or more power sources, wherein the one or more power sources are selected from a fuel cell, a battery, and a combination thereof; wherein the system controller controls heat output for the one or more power sources and the resistor grid, and routes heat to the one or more channels located on the underside of the bed based on the thermal management control method.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the thermal control for trucks, Audhav teaches a system controller (control unit 114, fig. 2; “microprocessor,” para 0058); and one or more power sources (electric source 104, fig. 2), wherein the one or more power sources are selected from a fuel cell, a battery (“The electric source 104 can be, for example, a vehicle battery or a fuel cell system,” para 0053), and a combination thereof (the fuel cell can also include a “battery,” para 0067); wherein the system controller controls heat output for the one or more power sources and the resistor grid (“the control unit 114 is preferably connected to the electric machine 102 and the electrical brake resistor arrangement 108,” para 0057), and routes heat to the one or more channels located on the underside of the bed based on the thermal management control method (heated air 113 is routed by the compressor 106, fig. 4; para 0054; the heated air 113 taught by Audhav is construed as being the air 31 taught by Kita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kita/Minoshima, in view of the teachings of Audhav, by using a control unit 114, as taught by Audhav, as the power control unit 15, as taught by Minoshima, and by using a fuel cell system, as taught by Audhav, to provide power for the dump truck, as taught by Kita, in order to use processing circuitry with a programmable device, enabling communication between a primary vehicle control unit, e.g., a separate controller 28 as taught by Minoshima, and the processing circuitry 114 as taught by Audhav, such that information is transmitted between the two control systems, enabling decentralized decision-making capability by the processing circuitry 114, and in order to use a vehicle propelled by hydrogen fuel cells, which have become increasingly popular, especially for trucks and other heavy duty vehicles (Audhav, para 0058).
Regarding claim 18, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) are attached to plates located on the underside of the bed of the truck (annotated in fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 19, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) are located on the underside of the body or exterior walls of the bed of the truck (the passages 6 are located under the body or the exterior walls of the bed 1, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Kita teaches wherein the channels (passages 6, fig. 4) enable heat to be radiantly distributed upwards from the underside of the bed of the truck (heat from warm air 31 is distributed to the underside of the bed 1, fig. 4) to materials located within the bed of the truck (“cargo,” para 0040; paras 0040 and 0045).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kimura et al. (JP-2019137257-A) teach switching power between a grid box resistor and a heating wire.
Rivera et al. (US-20120169109-A1) teach a heated dump body that includes channels.
Kvist et al. (US-12202394-B2, effective filing date of 8 October 2021) teach heat transfer channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights