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
Claims 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I/Species A in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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 12-21, 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 line 2 recites the limitation of “a drive system”, wherein it is unclear what “a drive system” is referring to since the exact term “a drive system” has already been recited in the claim. Is the term “a drive system” requiring that there are multiple “a drive system” or is the term referring back to the previously recited term? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the drive system -- for clarity.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the cooling applied to cool the second component ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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) 12-21, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeno et al. US 10,960,752 B2.
Re claim 12, Takeno et al. teach a method for cooling a drive system, the method comprising: providing a drive system having a first component (14, “PCU” col 2 lines 5-10, col 4) with a first threshold temperature and a first maximum temperature (col 6 line 52), wherein the first threshold temperature is lower than the first maximum temperature; providing a second component (16) having a second maximum temperature (col 7);
providing a common cooling circuit (col 7 lines 15-25) suitable for cooling the first component (col 7),wherein the first component has a first maximum temperature that is lower than the second maximum temperature (cols 6-7);
determining that the first threshold temperature has been reached (col 7 lines 45-50, col 9, not that the “the first threshold temperature” is a temperature and the step “determining that the first threshold temperature has been reached” can be met that this species threshold value has been reached in a structure or fluid); and reducing performance of the cooling applied to cool the second component (col 9 lines 20-45).
Re claim 13, Takeno et al. teach wherein the drive system is an electric drive system, wherein the first component comprises an inverter (see the rejection of claim 12), and wherein the second component comprises an electric motor (col 5).
Re claim 14, Takeno et al. teach wherein the first threshold temperature is lower than the first maximum temperature by at least 5% (col 6 line 52).
Re claim 15, Takeno et al. teach wherein the first threshold temperature is lower than the first maximum temperature by at least 10% (col 6 line 52).
Re claim 16, Takeno et al. teach wherein the first threshold temperature is lower than the first maximum temperature by at least 15% (col 6 line 52).
Re claim 17, Takeno et al. teach wherein the common cooling circuit is configured to cool the first component directly and to cool the second component indirectly (noting radiator 20 in after 16 in loop and meant to dispose of larger amount of heat by being after 16, additionally noting the loop directly and indirectly cools both components, fig 1).
Re claim 18, Takeno et al. teach wherein the common cooling circuit comprises a water-glycol cooling circuit.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “water-glycol” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 19, Takeno et al. teach wherein the second component is cooled directly by an air-oil-mixture cooling circuit (figs), and the air-oil- mixture cooling circuit is coupled with the common cooling circuit by way of a heat exchanger (20).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “air-oil-mixture” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 20, Takeno et al. teach wherein the heat exchanger is configured as an oil-water heat exchanger.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “oil-water” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 21, Takeno et al. teach wherein reducing the cooling performance of the second component is performed by reducing a pump rotation speed of the heat exchanger (col 6 lines 25-40).
Re claim 25, Takeno et al. teach a computer-readable medium containing executable code which, when executed by a computer or a control unit, performs the method (8) according to Claim 12 (col 5 last para).
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno et al. in view of SUGIMURA US 20180251011 A1.
Re claim 22, Takeno et al. fail to explicitly teach an outside temperature threshold.
SUGIMURA teach determining that an outside temperature threshold value has been reached; and reducing the cooling performance for the second component (claim 1) to change pump speed variant on outside temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an outside temperature threshold as taught by SUGIMURA in the Takeno et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for advanced pump controls related to heat removal ability of outside air temperature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220352788 A1, US 20220134866 A1, US 12409731 B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights