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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 12/10/2025.
Claims 10-27 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Further recognition:
The objections to the drawings have been reconsidered and arguments to the drawings have been found persuasive.
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in in light of the amendments.
The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in in light of the amendments.
The rejections pursuant to 112(b) have been found persuasive any restated rejection has been found not persuasive and is maintained.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/10/2025 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:
“regulating a cooling performance of the first radiator using an air-flap controller and a fan associated with the first radiator” in lines 1-2 of claim 27.
. In the originally filed specification in paragraph 0036 the description recites “An air flap controller 19 and a fan 20 are associated in a known manner with the first radiator 8 and the second radiator 13.”
Further, in paragraph 0036 the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed, because, “regulating a cooling performance of the first radiator using an air-flap controller and a fan associated with the first radiator” is not describe as such in the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-27 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “… a drive battery and/or a battery bypass line.” Due to claim 19 being dependent on claim 10.
The claim should be amended to recite - - the drive battery or the battery bypass line- - for clarity.
Claims 20-27 are objected to because of dependency from an objected to claim.
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:
Regarding claim 27, the recitation of claim limitation “air-flap controller” in at least claim 26.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 27, applicant has added the limitation “regulating a cooling performance of the first radiator using an air-flap controller and a fan associated with the first radiator” in lines 1-2 of the claim. In the originally filed specification in paragraph 0036 the description recites “An air flap controller 19 and a fan 20 are associated in a known manner with the first radiator 8 and the second radiator 13.”
An “air flap controller” is understood to be under its broadest meaning a controller for air flaps, also referred to as a louver. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
Claim 27 further recites the limitation “regulating a cooling performance of the first radiator using an air-flap controller and a fan associated with the first radiator” in at least claim 27. The term “air-flap controller” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation.
However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique corresponding to the air-flap controller. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is an air-flap controller.
When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
Therefore, the claims fail the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “… and/or” renders the claim unclear. And/or is not concise so one skilled in the art would not be able ascertain whether or not the claim limitations before and after the recited and/or take place together or a drive battery or battery bypass line are used..
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - or - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of “… the switching point” renders the claim unclear. There is no reference to a switching point in claim 13 or a claim in which claim 13 depends from.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - a switching point - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.the claim recites “… a conveying direction of the battery circuit pump is temporarily reversed until a coolant which was located at the switching point in time between the first radiator and the switching device is conveyed through the first radiator,” clarity is advised.
The examiner is unsure what is meant by “a conveying direction of the battery circuit pump is temporarily reversed until a coolant which was located at the switching point in time between the first radiator and the switching device is conveyed through the first radiator.” The claim is interpreted below in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 19, the recitation of “… and/or” renders the claim unclear. And/or is not concise so one skilled in the art would not be able ascertain whether or not the claim limitations before and after the recited and/or take place together or a drive battery or battery bypass line are used. Please see detailed description of the drawings paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0039 where it is expressed that the coolant may pass through the battery bypass [17] and the drive battery [3] in a separate way. See also figs. 2-3 where valve 16 clearly shows that the coolant passages are either through [17] and separately through [3].
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - or - - for clarity. For further clarity in claim 19 and/or is being determined as “or” meaning wherein in the battery cooling circuit coolant circulates through a drive battery or a battery bypass line parallel to the drive battery, meaning the coolant does not flow through both at the same time.
Regarding Claim 27, limitation “air-flap controller, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function “regulating a cooling performance of the first radiator using an air-flap controller and a fan associated with the first radiator.”
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 11-12 and 14-18 and 20-26 are rejected to because of dependency from an objected to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10, 14, 17-19 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneman et al. (US2021/0080027A1) in view of Miyoshi (US20200353790A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Schoeneman teaches a method for controlling [0074] a cooling system [54; 0057] comprising:
providing a motor cooling circuit [64; 0058], in which flow occurs in a circuit through [0058] a drive motor [72; 0058] and a motor circuit pump [74; 0058], and
providing a battery cooling circuit [68; 0058], in which flow occurs in a circuit [0058] through a battery circuit pump [86; 0061] and a drive battery [82; 0061],
wherein in a first operating state [valve state 9; 0072; fig. 14], a first radiator [70] is incorporated via a switching device [60; 0072] into the motor cooling circuit [64],
in the first operating state [fig. 14], coolant flows through the motor cooling circuit [64] and the battery cooling circuit [68] fluidically separated from one another [0072].
Schoeneman does not explicitly teach a battery cooling circuit, in which flow occurs in a circuit through a drive battery or a battery bypass line a battery bypass line parallel to the drive battery and a switch is made to a second operating state by actuating the switching device, in which a change is made from the incorporation of the first radiator into the motor cooling circuit to an incorporation of the first radiator into the battery cooling circuit, and in which coolant flows through the battery cooling circuit, fluidically separated from the motor cooling circuit, and together with the actuation of the switching device, a conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump is reduced and the coolant is guided past the drive battery through the battery bypass line.
However Miyoshi teaches a battery cooling circuit [at least 3a and c corresponding to 68 of Schoeneman], in which flow occurs in a circuit [3a & 3c corresponding to 68 of Schoeneman] through a drive battery [37 corresponding to 82 of Schoeneman] or a battery bypass line [3c] a battery bypass line [3c; fig. 13; see also 0078; where it is clear in fig. 13 and 12 that flow occurs through a drive battery and in fig. 12 where flow occurs through a battery bypass line, where the figures make it clear that flow occurs in a drive battery or a bypass line] parallel to the drive battery [fig. 13 clearly showing a battery bypass line parallel to the drive battery, where 37 corresponds to 82 of Schoeneman]; and
a switch is made to a second operating state by actuating the switching device [0125 where valves 36 and 35 are switched (set) to a fourth mode corresponding to a second operating state],
in which a change is made from the incorporation of the first radiator [33 corresponding to 70 of Schoeneman] into the motor cooling circuit [ where 3a and 3b correspond to 64 of Schoeneman] to an incorporation of the first radiator [33] into the battery cooling circuit [0132-0154 particularly showing the switch to the fourth mode], and
in which coolant flows through the battery cooling circuit [fig. 14; 3a and 3c], fluidically separated from the motor cooling circuit [fig. 14 clearly showing a fluidic separation], and together with the actuation of the switching device [0125], a conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump [31 corresponding to 86 of Schoeneman] is reduced [0064 where the electric power would be adjusted] and the coolant is guided past the drive battery through the battery bypass line [3c ; fig. 13].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schoeneman to have a battery bypass line parallel to the drive battery and a switch is made to a second operating state by actuating the switching device, in which a change is made from the incorporation of the first radiator into the motor cooling circuit to an incorporation of the first radiator into the battery cooling circuit, and in which coolant flows through the battery cooling circuit, fluidically separated from the motor cooling circuit, and together with the actuation of the switching device, a conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump is reduced and the coolant is guided past the drive battery through the battery bypass line in view of the teachings of Miyoshi where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a cooling system with a battery bypass line parallel to the drive battery a second operating state which changes the incorporation of the first radiator into the motor cooling circuit to the battery cooling circuit, fluidically separated from the motor cooling circuit, a battery circuit pump is reduced and the coolant is guided past the drive battery through the battery bypass line which creates an adaptable cooling system [Miyoshi; 0029-0043].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Schoeneman teaches method according to claim 10 and Schoeneman teaches further comprising:
a chiller [84] that is arranged in the battery circuit [fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Schoeneman teaches the method according to claim 10 and Miyoshi teaches a control device [5; 0094-0095], which is configured to carry out the method according to claim 10 [the combination of Schoeneman and Miyoshi].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Schoeneman teaches a motor vehicle [Schoeneman; 12; 053] having the control device according to claim 17 [modified Schoeneman].
Regarding Claim 19, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 10 and Miyoshi teaches wherein in the battery cooling circuit [3a and 3c] coolant circulates through the drive battery [3] or [where in fig. 12 ] the battery bypass line [3c] parallel to the drive battery [0068 where it is explained other device can be used as long as they adjust the flow rate of coolant flowing to the battery].
Regarding Claim 23, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 19 and Miyoshi teaches wherein a battery valve [34] is actuated during switch to the second operating state [0125 “the first three-way valve 34 is set to the first bypass flow path 3c side”] to direct coolant exclusively through the battery bypass line [fig. 13; 3c].
Regarding Claim 24, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 19 and Miyoshi teaches further comprising determining [0138 “it is determined”], by a temperature sensor [53] arranged at an inlet side of the battery bypass line [at least fig. 13 showing (53) arranged on the inlet side of 3c], whether coolant temperature has fallen below a threshold value [0139-0140 “equal to or less than the reference temperature”] permitting reintroduction of coolant into the drive battery [0141 “set to the second mode such as shown in FIGS. 7 to 9” where in these figures coolant is reintroduced into the drive battery].
Regarding Claim 25, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 19 and Miyoshi teaches wherein the first radiator[33] is an ambient-air radiator [0065 “33 is configured to discharge heat from the cooling water to the outside air”].
Regarding Claim 26, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 19 and Miyoshi teaches wherein the first radiator [33] comprises a single coolant inlet and a single coolant outlet [see at least fig. 1 where it is clear (33) only has one inlet and outlet].
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneman et al. (US2021/0080027A1), Miyoshi (US20200353790A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US2022/0355648A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Schoeneman teaches the method according to claim 10 and Miyoshi teaches the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump [0064].
Modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump is increased again after the reduction with decreasing coolant temperature, or upon falling below a coolant temperature threshold value at an inlet side of the battery bypass line.
However, Kim teaches the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump [26 corresponding to 31 of Miyoshi] is increased again after the reduction upon falling below a coolant temperature threshold value [0112-0120 see also 0111 where the controller controls the operation of water pumps] at an inlet side [120; fig.1 being temperature sensor on the inlet side] of the battery bypass line [90 and 80 corresponding to 3c of Miyoshi].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Kim by combining the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump is increased again after the reduction with decreasing coolant temperature, or upon falling below a coolant temperature threshold value at an inlet side of the battery bypass line where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a cooling system where the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump is increased after the reduction upon falling below a coolant temperature threshold at an inlet side of the battery bypass line with improved cooling performance and reduced power consumption [Kim; 0039].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Schoeneman teaches method according to claim 10 and Miyoshi teaches the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump [0064], upon falling below a cooling temperature threshold value of the coolant at an inlet side of the battery bypass line, a flow through the drive battery is enabled.
Modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach wherein after the reduction of the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump, upon falling below a cooling temperature threshold value of the coolant at an inlet side of the battery bypass line, a flow through the drive battery is enabled.
However, Kim teaches wherein after the reduction of the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump [0111-0120;where 26 corresponding to 31 of Miyoshi], upon falling below a cooling temperature threshold value [0111-0120] of the coolant at an inlet side [120; fig.1 being temperature sensor on the inlet side] of the battery bypass line [90 and 80 corresponding to 3c of Miyoshi], a flow through the drive battery is enabled [0104 where the valve is controlled to enable flow through the drive battery].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Kim by combining after the reduction of the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump, upon falling below a cooling temperature threshold value of the coolant at an inlet side of the battery bypass line, a flow through the drive battery is enabled where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a cooling system where the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump is increased after the reduction upon falling below a coolant temperature threshold at an inlet side of the battery bypass line with improved cooling performance and reduced power consumption [Kim; 0039].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Schoeneman teaches method according to claim 10.
Modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach a second radiator that is arranged in the motor cooling circuit.However, Kim teaches a second radiator [12; fig. 1] that is arranged in the motor cooling circuit[fig. 1; where 10 corresponds to 64 of Schoeneman].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Kim by combining a second radiator that is arranged in the motor cooling circuit where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a cooling system where a second radiator is arranged in the motor cooling circuit which improves cooling performance and reduced power consumption [Kim; 0039].
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneman et al. (US2021/0080027A1), Miyoshi (US20200353790A1) and in view of Morrow et al. (US2021/0300150A1).
Regarding Claim 13, in view of the indefiniteness, modified Schoeneman teaches method according to claim 10 and Schoeneman teaches the actuation of the switching device [60] and the first radiator [70].
Modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach a conveying direction of the battery circuit pump is temporarily reversed until a coolant which was located at the switching point in time between the first radiator and the switching device is conveyed through the first radiator.
However Morrow teaches wherein a conveying direction of the battery circuit pump [1020 corresponding to 86 of Schoeneman] is temporarily reversed until a coolant which was located at the switching point in time between the first radiator and the switching device is conveyed through the first radiator [0069-0070; see also 0103 and claims 1-20 where the coolant would be temporarily reversed at the switching point until the coolant is conveyed through the first radiator (1006)corresponding to 70 of Schoeneman].
However, Morrow teaches a conveying direction of the battery circuit pump is temporarily reversed until a coolant which was located at the switching point in time between the first radiator and the switching device is conveyed through the first radiator.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Morrow by combining a conveying direction of the battery circuit pump is temporarily reversed until a coolant which was located at the switching point in time between the first radiator and the switching device is conveyed through the first radiator where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a cooling system where after the actuation of the switching device, the flow direction of the battery circuit pump is temporarily reversed until a coolant which is located at the switching point in time between the first radiator and the switching device is conveyed through the first radiator where the battery benefits from the coolant reversing direction to maintain a close average temperature [Morrow; 0053]
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneman et al. (US2021/0080027A1), Miyoshi (US20200353790A1) and in view of Trübenbach et al. (US2024/0288060A1).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Schoeneman teaches method according to claim 10.
Modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach wherein the switching device is a 6/2- way valve.
However, Trübenbach teaches the switching device is a 6/2- way valve [0017].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Trübenbach by combining the switching device is a 6/2- way valve where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a cooling system where the switching device is a 6/2- way valve which allows for a change in through-flow quantity of coolant and thermally decoupling the cooling circuits [Trübenbach; 0010].
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneman et al. (US2021/0080027A1) and Miyoshi (US20200353790A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Gonze et al. (US20160047293A1).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 19 and Miyoshi teaches wherein the reduction [0064 where the electric power would be adjusted reducing conveying capacity] of the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump [31].
Modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach the reduction of the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump comprises a reduction of at least 50%.
However, Gonze teaches the reduction [0056 “coolant control module 190 controls the speed of the coolant pump” corresponding to 0064 of Miyoshi] of the conveying capacity [0056 “the output of the coolant pump”] of the battery circuit pump [132 corresponding to 31 of Miyoshi] comprises a reduction of at least 50% [0068 “predetermined flowrate may be 0.0” where the conveying capacity would be reduced by more than 50%].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Gonze by combining the reduction of the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump comprises a reduction of at least 50% where the elements could have been combined by known methods with and a Simple substitution would give the system the necessary battery circuit pump .The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a cooling system with an adjustable conveying capacity which avoids overcooling to maximize fuel efficiency [Gonze; 0036].
Regarding Claim 21, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 19 and Miyoshi teaches wherein the reduction of the conveying capacity [0064 where the electric power would be adjusted reducing conveying capacity], the battery cooling circuit [3a &3c] and the first radiator [33].
Modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach the reduction of the conveying capacity results in a slower coolant flow velocity in the battery cooling circuit and an increased dwell time of coolant in the first radiator.
However, Gonze teaches the reduction [0056 “coolant control module 190 controls the speed of the coolant pump” corresponding to 0064 of Miyoshi] of the conveying capacity [0056 “the output of the coolant pump”] results in a slower coolant flow velocity [0056 “controls the speed of the coolant pump” which results in a slower coolant flow velocity] in the battery cooling circuit [168 corresponding to3a & 3c of Miyoshi] and an increased dwell time of coolant [0065 “determine the flow period” where the flow period would be configured to increase a dwell time of coolant in the first radiator] in the first radiator [152 corresponding to 33 of Miyoshi].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Gonze by combining the reduction of the conveying capacity results in a slower coolant flow velocity in the battery cooling circuit and an increased dwell time of coolant in the first radiator where the elements could have been combined by known methods with and a Simple substitution would give the system the necessary battery circuit pump and coolant control module. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a cooling system with an adjustable coolant flow velocity which would increase dwell time in the first radiator and would avoid overcooling to maximize fuel efficiency [Gonze; 0036].
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneman et al. (US2021/0080027A1) and Miyoshi (US20200353790A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US20190016230A1).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 19 and Miyoshi teaches wherein the reduction of the conveying capacity [0064 where the electric power would be adjusted reducing conveying capacity] of the battery circuit pump [31].
modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach the reduction of the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump prevents error messages resulting from excessive coolant temperature in the battery cooling circuit.
However, Wang teaches the reduction of the conveying capacity [“adjust the flow rate to maintain a battery temperature range by controlling the convective fluid flow rate with the pumps 290 and valves 270, 275, 285, 287 with TCS 245” 0050 corresponding to 0064 of Miyoshi] of the battery circuit pump [290 corresponding to 31 of Miyoshi] prevents error messages resulting from excessive coolant temperature [0050 “adjust the flow rate to maintain a battery temperature range” which prevents error messages resulting from excessive heat] in the battery cooling circuit [260 corresponding to 3a &3c of Miyoshi].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Wang by combining the reduction of the conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump prevents error messages resulting from excessive coolant temperature in the battery cooling circuit where the elements could have been combined by known methods with and a Simple substitution would give the system the necessary control logic. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded,
i.e. secures a method for controlling a pump speed to prevent error messages resulting from excessive coolant temperatures in a battery cooling circuit which improves performance while reducing energy consumption by generating real-time, smoothed pulse width modulated (PWM) pump speed [Wang; abstract].
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneman et al. (US2021/0080027A1) and Miyoshi (US20200353790A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Orihashi et al. (US20210323381A1).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Schoeneman teaches the method of claim 19 and Miyoshi teaches further comprising regulating a cooling performance the first radiator [33: 0093 “As shown in FIG. 3” where there is a typo in the figure (32) should be (33) as is recited in 0093 of the specification] and a fan [71] associated with the first radiator [0093 “fan 71, it is possible to make air strike the radiators 33” which is indicative of regulating a cooling performance of the first radiator].
modified Schoeneman does not explicitly teach regulating a cooling performance of the first radiator using an air-flap controller.
However, Orihashi teaches regulating a cooling performance [0029 “controlled by adjusting the opening area of the grille shutter 30”] of the first radiator [14 corresponding to 33 of Miyoshi] using an air-flap controller [4].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Schoeneman teaching with Orihashi by combining regulating a cooling performance of the first radiator using an air-flap controller where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method which regulates the cooling performance of the first radiator using an air-flap controller which can reduce electric power consumption [Orihashi; 0012].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025, on page 1-2, in regard to the term “and/or” being interpreted under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to applicant’s argument that the term “and/or” should not be rejected under 112b, the Examiner disagrees.
The term “and/or” renders the claim unclear, and is not concise. The term “and/or” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Upon receiving clarity from the applicant in their remarks it appears the applicant is meaning to use and/or as in “flow occurs in a circuit through a battery circuit pump and a drive battery and simultaneously through a battery bypass line parallel to the drive battery” and “flow occurs in a circuit through a battery circuit pump and a drive battery or alternatively through a battery bypass line parallel to the drive battery” (underlining added for emphasis). In light of this definition the examiner finds that applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, the rejection is maintained as -- or --. Please see detailed description of the drawings paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0039 where it is expressed that the coolant may pass through the battery bypass [17] and the drive battery [3] in a separate way. See also figs. 2-3 where valve 16 clearly shows that the coolant passages are either through [17] and separately through [3].
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025, on page 2-3, in regard to the term “reduced” being interpreted under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument filed on 12/10/2025, on page 5 that “Miyoshi does not disclose or suggest a "switch is made to a second operating state by actuating the switching device."” In other words the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., user-actuated switching device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants argument in regards to “the switching point” there is no previous mention of “a switching point”. Therefore the switching point is indefinite.
Further, in regard to applicants argument “claims are narrative… appear to be a literal translation…” due to the indefiniteness of the switching point and the overall description of claim 13 someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not recognize what the applicant means, by “wherein after the actuation of the switching device, a conveying direction of the battery circuit pump is temporarily reversed until a coolant which was located at the switching point in time between the first radiator and the switching device is conveyed through the first radiator,” clarity is necessary.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument filed on 12/10/2025, on page 5-6 that “Miyoshi does not disclose or suggest a "change is made from incorporation of the first radiator into the motor cooling circuit to incorporation of the first radiator into the battery cooling circuit."” The applicant argues “Radiator 33 never becomes part of a battery-only cooling circuit” among other things.
The Examiner disagrees, in paragraphs 0132-0154 of Miyoshi through a series of steps it is clear that the radiator goes from incorporation in the motor cooling circuit to incorporation into the battery cooling circuit. For example in fig. 12 the radiator 33 is incorporated into the motor cooling circuit and is exchanging heat with 39. In contrast the radiator 33 in fig. 13 is not exchanging heat with the motor heat exchanger and is incorporated into the battery cooling circuit 3a and 3c.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument filed on 12/10/2025, on page 6 that “Miyoshi does not disclose or suggest that "coolant flows through the battery cooling circuit fluidically separated from the motor cooling circuit."” The applicant argues “Applicants' claim requires that during coolant flow, the battery cooling circuit is fluidically separated from the motor circuit” among other things.
The Examiner disagrees, in for example in fig. 12 the radiator 33 is incorporated into the motor cooling circuit and is exchanging heat with 39. In contrast the radiator 33 in fig. 13 is not fluidically connected to the motor heat exchanger therefore the battery cooling circuit 3a and 3c are fluidically separated.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument filed on 12/10/2025, on page 7 that “Miyoshi does not disclose or suggest a "conveying capacity of the battery circuit pump is reduced."” The applicant argues “Miyoshi actually teaches pump 31 is not a "battery circuit pump."” among other things. The Examiner disagrees, as can be seen in at least fig. 13 pump 31 is clearly a battery circuit pump being place on 3a.
Further, the claims were interpreted given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). The definition of past is given by Cambridge dictionary at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/past “in or to a position that is further than a particular point” in other words as written the BRI of the claimed past would be, “the coolant is guided to a position that is further than the drive battery through the battery bypass,” which given the BRI would mean does not go through the battery.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument filed on 12/10/2025, on page 7 that “Miyoshi does not disclose or suggest a “switch is made to a second operating state by actuating the switching device” It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., operator-initiated switching events) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument filed on 12/10/2025, on page 8 that “The proposed modification would fundamentally change the principle of operation of Schoeneman, would render Schoeneman unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and would not have been made by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Schoeneman.”
Further, in response to applicant's argument, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "In many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical 'person having ordinary skill in the art' to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The Examiner disagrees that the proposed modification would materially change Schoeneman’s principle operation. Schoeneman’s principle operation is to thermal management of electrified powertrains by using hydraulic circuit manipulation (0075 of Schoeneman). The modification of incorporating at least one additional switching device, pump-capacity reduction logic tied directly to the radiator-switching event and adding a battery-bypass line of Miyoshi into the body of Schoeneman would not materially change Schoeneman’s principle operation. There is no teaching in Schoeneman or Miyoshi that teaches the combination cannot be done.
Furthermore, Schoeneman has a motor-cooling circuit (64), a first radiator (70) which is movable between circuits see figures 3- 15 showing that the valve of Schoeneman has the radiator movable between circuits, at least figures 6 and 11-15 showing separation of circuits based on switching the radiator.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument filed on 12/10/2025, on page 9-10 that “No person of ordinary skill would have made the proposed modification,” and “These changes require completely redesigning the hydraulic, electrical, control, and thermal logic of the entire system”
The Examiner disagrees, The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art' to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). In Schoeneman the radiator is allocated to different circuits at different times as cited in my previous response, the radiator is able to be relocated into other circuits, a pump capacity is considered by Schoeneman in paragraph 0058 “at least one variable speed motor driven pump” variable speeds corresponds directly with the pump-capacity. It is not beyond the capabilities of someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Schoeneman with at least Miyoshi.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument filed on 12/10/2025, on page 10-11 that “The proposed combination represents impermissible hindsight reconstruction”
The Examiner disagrees, It is noted that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant' s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the TSM test, pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper, and provided in accordance with the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM). As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007). It is not beyond the capabilities of someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Schoeneman with at least Miyoshi, see also the motivation in Miyoshi paragraphs 0029-0043 giving a brief description of the drawing showing an adaptable cooling system.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 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 Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763