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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered. The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s acknowledgement “the set of filed claims of the present application were in need of many reviews and corrections [and] willingness to achieve a set of claims that are free of errors and inconsistencies” (Applicant’s remarks of 4/28/26, p. 2). Applicant’s remarks are in large part just reciting the amendments made to the claims.
Examiner Request
Again, the Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing and correcting any other remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record in the instant action.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner’s position on reference characters in parenthesis within the claims is aligned with the MPEP, which permits reference characters within parenthesis in the claims, but if reference characters are present, these reference characters do not affect the claim scope, and are not considered in determining patentability of the claimed invention(s). MPEP 608.01(m).states that “[r]eference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.”
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Parentheses (except for reference numerals and abbreviations immediately after the full term) should be generally avoided in the claims:
Claim 1, line 14 requires “(hereinafter ‘components of the electric powertrain (50)’),
Claim 1, line 28, “(hereinafter ‘first heat exchanger (42}’)”. Why not just label the element as “a first ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (42)” or “first heat exchanger (42}” throughout the claim set,
Claim 1, line 30, “(hereinafter ‘second heat exchanger (43}’)” Why not just label the element as “a second ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (42)” or “a second heat exchanger (42}” throughout the claim set, and
Claim 5, line 9, “(hereinafter ‘third heat exchanger (41}’”. Why not just label the element as “a third ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41)” or “a third heat exchanger (41}” throughout the claim set;
Claim 1, line 13, “the following components” lacks antecedence basis and should be “components”;
Claim 7, line 27, “(50” should be “(50)”;
Claim 7, lines 5 and 11 appears to require “(T M)” Is this “(T M)” or “(T_M)”?
Claim 7, line 5 appears to require “(T R)” Is this “(T R)” or “(T_R)”?
Claim 7, line 6 appears to require “(T S)” Is this “(T S)” or “(T_S)”?
Claim 7, line 15; and Claim 8, line 4, “an heating” should be “a heating”;
Claim 8, line 5, “said sequence” should be “said time sequence”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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, line 8 requires ”carrier fluid” and line 6 requires “a single carrier fluid.” Since ”carrier fluid” of line 8 does not have antecedence in “a single carrier fluid” of line 6, are these different carrier fluids?
Claim 1, line 11 requires “the carrier fluid.” Does “said carrier fluid” have antecedence in “a single carrier fluid” of line 6, ”carrier fluid” of line 8, both?
Claim 1, line 19 requires “said carrier fluid.” Does “said carrier fluid” have antecedence in “a single carrier fluid” of line 6, ”carrier fluid” of line 8, both?
Claim 1, lines 23-24 requires “with each of the components of the electric powertrain (50) and with the energy source (55)” and lines 13-18 requires “said powertrain (50) comprises the following components (hereinafter "components of the electric powertrain (50)") an inverter (51), an electric motor (52), a speed reducer (53), an energy source (55);”. The “energy source” in line 24 is being double included because the “energy source” is being claimed as part of “each of the components” of line 23 [based on lines 13 and 18], and then claimed again in line 24;
Claim 1, 27-28 requires “a first ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (42) (hereinafter “first heat exchanger (42)” and lines 7-8 requires “at least one ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41,42,43), which is a heat exchanger.” Is “a first ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (42)” included or in addition to “at least one ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41,42,43)”? Likewise is “first heat exchanger (42)” included or in addition to “a heat exchanger”?
Claim 1, lines 29-30 requires “a second ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (43) (hereinafter “second heat exchanger (43)” and lines 7-8 requires “at least one ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41,42,43), which is a heat exchanger.” Is “a second ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (43)” included or in addition to “at least one ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41,42,43)”? Likewise is “second heat exchanger (43)” included or in addition to “a heat exchanger”?
Claim 2, line 2 requires “a first heat exchanger (42)” and Claim 1, line 28 requires “first heat exchanger (42).” Should “first heat exchanger (42)” of claim 2 have antecedence in “first heat exchanger (42)” of claim 1?
Claim 2, line 2 requires “a second heat exchanger (43)” and Claim 1, line 28 requires “second heat exchanger (43).” Should “second heat exchanger (43)” of claim 2 have antecedence in “second heat exchanger (43)” of claim 1?
Claim 5, lines 9-10 requires “a third ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41) (hereinafter “third heat exchanger (41)” and Claim 1, lines 7-8 requires “at least one ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41,42,43), which is a heat exchanger.” Is “a third ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41)” included or in addition to “at least one ambient air/carrier fluid radiator (41,42,43)”? Likewise is “third heat exchanger (41)” included or in addition to “a heat exchanger”?
Claim 7, line 5, :the inverter (51)/electric motor (52)” lacks antecedent basis;
Claim 7, line 6, “the speed reducer (53)” lacks antecedent basis;
Claim 7, line 6, “the energy source (55)” lacks antecedent basis;
Claim 7, line 11 requires “said temperatures (T M)” [which is plural] lacks antecedent basis. Lines 4-5 require “a temperature (T M) [which is singular]. Should “said temperatures (T M)” be “said temperature (T M)”?
Claim 7, lines 17-18 and lines 27-28 each require “a corresponding temperature (T_M, T_R, T_S)” and lines 4-6 requires “a temperature (T_M)” [relating to the inverter (51)/electric motor (52)], “a temperature (T_R)” [relating to the speed reducer (53)] and “a temperature (T_S)” [relating to the energy source (55)]. Does “a corresponding temperature have antecedence in “a temperature (T_M)”, “a temperature (T_R)” and/or “a temperature (T_S)”? If so, “a corresponding at least one of the temperature (T_M) the inverter (51)/electric motor (52), the temperature (T_R) of the speed reducer (53) and/or the temperature (T_S) of the energy source (55)”
Claim 7, lines 19-20, 22, and 26; and Claim 8, lines 4, 8. “the components”/”said components” [relating to the electric powertrain] lack antecedent basis;
Claim 8, line 4 and Claim 7, line 15 each require “a[] heating.” Should “heating” of claim 8 have antecedence in “a[] heat” of claim 7, and be “the heating”?
Claim 8, line 4 and Claim 7, line 22 each require “a cooling.” Should “cooling” of claim 8 have antecedence in “a cooling” of claim 7, and be “the cooling”?
Claim 8, lines 7 and 14 require “all components” and Claim 7, lines 19-20 (and thereafter) require “the components”. Does “all components” have antecedence in “the components”? If so, should be “all of the components”;
Claim 8, lines 10 and 12 require “some components” and Claim 7, lines 19-20 (and thereafter) require “the components”. Does “some components” have antecedence in “the components”? If so, should be “some of the components”; and
Claim 8, line 11 requires “other components” and Claim 7, lines 19-20 (and thereafter) require “the components”. Does “other components” have antecedence in “the components”? If so, should be “others of the components”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HOFFBERG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2761. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
RJH 6/27/2026
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights