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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s comments regarding the drawing objections are appreciated. After further consideration of the portions of the specification and the broad nature of the component associations claimed by Applicant without requiring exact placement of each component in the vehicle, the drawing objections from the nonfinal Office action mailed on 01/26/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims to remove the ambiguities created with the previous “and/or” language of the claims in combination with the comments regarding the drawings, obviate all previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Examiner appreciates Applicant’s amendments to the claims to remove the previous written description/clarity issues. All previous rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a/b) in the nonfinal Office action mailed in 01/26/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments related to the prior art (specifically, U.S. PG Pub. 2017/0274727 to Tasioploulos et al. and U.S. Pat. 9,242,527 to Graaf et al.) are not considered to be persuasive. Applicant asserts that Applicant’s recited “drive train cooling unit for cooling a drive train of the vehicle” is not disclosed by Tasiopoulos and Graaf, alone, or in combination as claimed in amended claim 1 (See remarks filed on 03/11/2026 – Page 2 of “Remarks”).
Applicant Argument # 1 – Graaf does not teach a cooling unit for a drive train.
Applicant first argues the combination of Tasiopoulos and Graaf stating that, “even if Graaf discloses a cooling system for use with an electric car, Graaf does not disclose that the cooling unit is for the drive train, as claimed in amended claim 1.” (See page 2 of “Remarks”).
In response to the preliminary assertion that “Graaf does not disclose that the disclosed cooling unit is for the drive train,” it is noted that Graaf the summary of Graaf expressly states that,
Graff (Col. 3, Lines 15-20) “The invention aims at providing an HVAC system for the interior of a vehicle, particularly an electric or hybrid vehicle, with the additional possibility to condition components of the electric drive train.”
This portion of the Background/Summary of the invention (along with many other portions of Graaf) shows that Graaf is using the same HVAC system for the cabin and the drive train.
Applicant goes on to further state that, “the refrigerant circuit in Graaf is for the HVAC of the interior of the vehicle (e.g., the vehicle cabin) (see col 3, lines 17-40). As such, Graaf does not disclose that the cooling system is for a drive train of a vehicle, as claimed in amended claim 1. (See remarks filed on 03/11/2026 - Page 2-3 of “Remarks”).
Examiner notes that Applicant has shown a relevant portion of Graaf that does indeed disclose use of a cooling unit to cool an interior of a vehicle; however, the Column/Lines cited by Applicant do not show that Graaf is not directed to drive train cooling as well.
It is unclear from the citations provided by Applicant how Graaf does not disclose an HVAC system arranged to serve both the interior cabin and drive train for heat exchange purposes since the Examiner relies on at least portion of the same portion of Graaf provided by Applicant in the remarks dated 03/11/2026 (Applicant provides Col. 3, Lines 17-40, Examiner provides Col. 3, Lines 15-20 above) which expressly discusses the cooling unit being used to cool a drive train.
Nevertheless, the Examiner goes on to cite further portions of the summary of Graaf below to establish that Graaf does indeed disclose heat exchange with both a cabin and drive train components.
Graff (Col. 4, Lines 7-13) “With the positioning of the heat exchanger for heat transmission between a component of the drive train and the refrigerant, the refrigerant circuit is preferentially configured for an additional combined cooling operation and heating operation of the component of the drive train of the vehicle.”
Graff (Col. 4, Lines 40-54) “The heat exchanger, established preferentially passable bidirectionally, for heat transmission of a component of the drive train over the refrigerant is dependent on the operational mode of the refrigerant circuit provided as a condenser or an evaporator for heating or for cooling of the battery of the vehicle. An additional heat exchanger, switched parallel to this heat exchanger established preferably passable bidirectionally, is provided as an evaporator for cooling of further components of the electric drive train of the vehicle. Alternatively, the heat exchangers of the primary circuit established for heat transmission over components of the drive train, can also be integrated into coolant circuits so that the heat transmission between the refrigerant and a coolant takes place in intermediate circuits or, dependent on the configuration, in a common intermediate circuit.”
Graff (Col. 5, Lines 42-46) “Advantageously, the refrigerant circuit is operated such that the fresh air to be conditioned for the vehicle interior, the ambient air, the battery, and components of the drive train such as the electric motor and the power electronics are optionally or simultaneously used as heat sources.”
In reconsidering the specification of Graaf, the Examiner finds clear support that Graaf discloses an HVAC system that is intended “for cooling a drive train of the vehicle” as recited by Applicant.
Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for an interview if further clarifications would be considered helpful to advance prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2017/0274727 to Tasiopoulos et al. in view of U.S. Pat. 9,242,527 to Graaf et al.
Regarding claim 1, Tasiopoulos discloses a cooling unit (10) for a partially electrically or fully electrically driven vehicle, the drive train cooling unit comprising:
a fan (blower, 72),
a condenser (24) for a refrigerant circuit (first circuit, 14) of the vehicle, and
a radiator (38) for a coolant circuit (second circuit, 16) of the vehicle, the fan, the condenser, and the radiator being connected together sequentially in series in a direction of air flow which can be caused by the fan to form the drive train cooling unit for cooling a drive train of the vehicle (At least shown in Fig. 1),
wherein apart from the radiator as a main component of the coolant circuit, a further main component (electronic devices, 100) of the coolant circuit of the vehicle is integrated into the cooling unit.
Tasiopoulos discloses a motor vehicle but does not appear to expressly disclose that the vehicle is partially or fully electric or that the cooling unit is for a drive train.
Nevertheless, Graaf discloses a drive train cooling unit for an electric vehicle (At least at the Background/Summary; solution geared toward cooling of a drive train for an electric vehicle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the vehicular cooling unit of Tasiopoulos to be within an electric vehicle/drive train circuit, as taught by Graaf, since the arrangement of Tasiopoulos expressly discusses that its arrangement is beneficial to vehicles having high thermal management demands and electric cooling circuits are commonly employed within electric vehicles to ensure the longevity of electrical components.
Further, it is noted that the partially/fully electric vehicle is not positively recited in a manner that ascribes patentable weight to the limitation. Since cooling circuits are commonly used across electric and non-electric vehicles, the interchangeability of vehicle types to use the cooling system of Tasiopoulos would be well within a PHOSITA’s knowledge. Because Tasiopoulos contemplates use of its invention within a high thermal load environment, it is likely that the motor vehicle described in Tasiopoulos is a partially or fully electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the drive train cooling unit is configured as a single functional and structurally closed assembly for cooling the drive train of the vehicle, which assembly can be installed on/in the vehicle (At least in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the further main component: is integrated into the drive train cooling unit, shielded from a cooling air flow of the fan through the drive train cooling unit (At least shown in Fig. 1; electronic devices are outside of the enclosure, 12), is integrated into the drive train cooling unit, away from a primary cooling air flow of the fan through the drive train cooling unit, is integrated into the primary cooling air flow of the fan through the drive train cooling unit, into the drive train cooling unit, and/or is integrated into a separate cooling air flow of the fan away from the primary cooling air flow through the drive train cooling unit (At least shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that fluid communication of the further main component with the radiator is provided in the drive train cooling unit (At least at Par. [0043]; where a flow of second heat transfer fluid is received from the electronic devices and passed through the radiator), a fluid communication of a first further main component with a second further main component is provided in the drive train cooling unit, the drive train cooling unit has a fluid connection of the further main component (At least shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the drive train cooling unit has an electrical power connection and/or an electrical communication connection for the further main component or the drive train cooling unit has a single electrical power connection or a single electrical communication connection for all of its main components, and/or an electrical power connection and an electrical communication connection of the drive train cooling unit are combined into a single electrical connection (100 via thermal/fluid communication and related temperature/pressure sensors).
Even though the singular/individual power connections/electrical communications are not explicitly discussed, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that electrical power connections/communications would be necessary to properly operate the invention as disclosed by Tasiopoulos. Specifically, in order to use the electrical devices appropriately, a power connection would be needed, and in order to leverage the cooling system appropriately, communication of the thermal properties of the devices would also be necessary, which can be done individually or in a single connection since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that singular/individual electrical connections are well-known in the vehicle architecture arts. Since Applicant has not challenged or adequately traversed the Examiner’s previous assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE made in the previous Office action, the Examiner treats the asserted fact as admitted prior art under MPEP §2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 6, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that in the drive train cooling unit a second further main component receives its electric current via a first further main component or separately therefrom, and/or in the drive train cooling unit an electrical communication of a first main component can take place through a second further main component (At least via control interface module, 20/sensors, 74/76).
Even though the power connections/electrical communications are not explicitly discussed, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that electrical communications between components would be necessary to properly operate the invention as disclosed by Tasiopoulos. Specifically, in order to operate the cooling apparatus as intended, communication between multiple main components (the control interface module, 20/sensors, 74/76) would be necessary for proper cooling instructions to be delivered to the system.
Regarding claim 8, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the drive train cooling unit comprises as a further main component at least one drive train coolant pump (42), wherein the drive train coolant pump and/or electronics of the drive train coolant pump (20/76/74) is/are configured in the drive train cooling unit in such a way to be supplied with a cooling air flow from the fan (At least shown in Fig. 1; by virtue of inclusion within the enclosure, 12).
Regarding claim 10, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the fan, the condenser, the radiator, and at least one further main component or the further main components (sensor, 76) are provided in a single frame of the drive train cooling unit (At least shown in Fig. 1; within enclosure, 12).
Regarding claim 11, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses a vehicle, but does not expressly discuss an electric traction motor.
Nevertheless, Graaf teaches an electric traction motor and a drive train cooling unit (At least where Graaf discloses, “Because of possibly different temperature levels of the electric drive components, such as the electric motor, power electronics, and battery, two or more different, possibly independent coolant circuits can be provided, which then are integrated into the refrigerant circuit 1 either by means of a common or by means of two or several, respectively, single chillers 4, 13.”), wherein the drive train cooling unit is configured according to claim 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to have modified the vehicular cooling unit of Tasiopoulos/Graaf to leverage an electric drive motor within an electric vehicle/drive train circuit, as taught by Graaf, since the arrangement of Tasiopoulos expressly discusses that its arrangement is beneficial to vehicles having high thermal management demands and electric cooling circuits are commonly employed within electric vehicles to ensure the longevity of electrical components.
Regarding claim 14, Tasiopoulos discloses the claimed invention except for the fluid connection.
Nevertheless, Graaf teaches that the drive train cooling unit has only one direct fluid connection for the radiator.
(At least where Graaf discloses that the heat exchangers of the primary circuit established for heat transmission over components of the drive train, can also be integrated into coolant circuits so that the heat transmission between the refrigerant and a coolant takes place in intermediate circuits or, dependent on the configuration, in a common intermediate circuit).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Tasiopoulos to have a common circuit for heat exchange, as taught by Graaf, for the purpose of reducing parts for weight reduction, cost reduction, and reduction of required battery capacity, as discussed by Graaf.
Claims 7, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2017/0274727 to Tasiopoulos et al. in view of U.S. Pat. 9,242,527 to Graaf et al. in further view of U.S. Pat. 9,849,753 to Martinchick et al.
Regarding claim 7, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the further main component of the coolant circuit: has a coolant valve (36/46), a drive train coolant pump (42), and/or a sensor (74/76).
However, Tasiopoulos does not expressly discuss an expansion tank.
Nevertheless, Martinchick discloses an expansion tank (80).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Tasiopoulos/Graaf to have an expansion tank, as taught by Martinchick, in order to provide additional cooling capacity by managing system pressure for expansion and contraction to prevent coolant loss.
Regarding claim 9, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the radiator of the drive train cooling unit can be bypassed by the bypass functionality of the coolant valve (At least at Par. [0027-0029, 0032, 0040, 0044, 0048]; elements 36/46) and/or the drive train cooling unit has an electronic system for its main components (At least elements 20/76/74) of the coolant circuit.
Regarding claim 12, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the coolant valve (36/46) comprises a bypass functionality (At least at Par. [0027-0029, 0032, 0040, 0044, 0048]).
Regarding claim 13, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that the electronic system is a single, centralized electronic system for the main components of the coolant circuit (At least shown in Fig. 1; wherein the controls interface module, 20 and associated electronic components are provided in an enclosure, 12).
Regarding claim 14, the primary reference, Tasiopoulos, discloses that fluid communication of the further main component with the radiator is provided in the drive train cooling unit (At least at Par. [0043]; where a flow of second heat transfer fluid is received from the electronic devices and passed through the radiator), a fluid communication of a first further main component with a second further main component is provided in the drive train cooling unit, the drive train cooling unit has a fluid connection of the further main component (At least shown in Fig. 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights