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
Applicants’ election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden because the claims directed to the apparatus, method of using the apparatus, and method of manufacturing the apparatus can be searched together. This is not found persuasive. Although the claimed inventions are related to the same general subject matter, the inventions are distinct because they are directed to different statutory categories and recite different subject matter. The apparatus claims (Invention I) are directed to the structural features and arrangement of the apparatus. The method of using claims (Invention II) are directed to steps performed using the apparatus. The method of manufacturing claims (Invention III) are directed to processes and steps for producing the apparatus. The different claimed subject matter requires different search strategies. In particular, searching the apparatus claims requires searching for the claimed structural arrangement and associated apparatus features, whereas searching the method of using claims requires searching for the claimed acts and operations performed with the apparatus. Likewise, searching the method of manufacturing claims requires searching for processes and manufacturing steps used to produce the apparatus. Thus, a search reasonably directed to one invention would not necessarily identify the pertinent prior art for either of the other inventions.
Accordingly, the fact that the inventions are related and that some prior art may be relevant to more than one claim group does not establish that the inventions can be searched without a serious search burden. The separate claim groups would require materially different search strategies and consideration of different areas of the prior art. Inventions I-III are therefore distinct, and examination of all three inventions in a single application would result in a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/7/2026.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 7/7/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-11 are being examined.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson (US2023/0012558A1).
Re Claim 1. Richardson teaches a system (12) for cooling an autonomy computing system of a vehicle (34, 36 are onboard electronic devices that receive cooling. The autonomy computing system is another electronic device that is not structurally distinct from other electronics requiring cooling. Thus, the recitation of the autonomy computing system is intended use of the cooling system), the system comprising:
a fluid line (32) in thermal communication with the autonomy computing system (34, 36) of the vehicle, the fluid line defining a fluid passageway for fluid to receive heat generated by the autonomy computing system (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-29, 32-34);
a heat exchanger (54) coupled to the fluid line and configured to facilitate heat transfer from the fluid in the fluid passageway to an ambient environment when the fluid is directed to the heat exchanger (Figures 1-2; Paragraph 33-34);
a chiller (50) coupled to the fluid line and configured to remove heat from the fluid in the fluid passageway when the fluid is directed to the chiller (Figure 2; Paragraphs 32-33, 38-41);
a bypass (line below 46) connected to the fluid line and extending downstream of the chiller (Figure 2; Paragraphs 32-33);
a valve (46) coupled to the fluid line and to the bypass and configured to selectively direct the fluid in the fluid passageway to the chiller or to the bypass (Figure 2; Paragraphs 32-33); and
a controller (16) communicatively coupled to the valve, the chiller, and the heat exchanger, wherein the controller is configured to receive information relating to an operating parameter of the vehicle and based on the received information operate the valve to direct the fluid in the fluid passageway to the chiller or to the bypass (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 26-27 discloses that the controller monitors vehicle properties and paragraphs 44-46 discloses that the controller monitors the refrigerant properties. The presence of process limitations (i.e. process of controlling the valve) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. In this instance, Richardson teaches a controller that inputs vehicle and refrigerant data, and can output a control signal to control the valve. Thus, Richardson is capable of performing the recited process of controlling the valve).
Re Claim 2. Richardson teaches the operating parameter of the vehicle includes a temperature of the ambient environment around the vehicle or a temperature of the fluid in the fluid passageway, wherein the controller is configured to operate the heat exchanger to remove heat from the fluid in the fluid passageway when the temperature is at or above a first threshold value (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 26-27, 44-46; The presence of process limitations (i.e. process of controlling the valve) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. In this instance, Richardson teaches a controller that inputs vehicle and refrigerant data, and can output a control signal to control the valve. Thus, Richardson is capable of performing the recited process of controlling the valve. Additionally, the vehicle inherently operates at a given ambient temperature, wherein said ambient temperature will affect the fluid properties of the coolant and refrigerant in the system. Thus, when the valve 46 is actuated to direct fluid to or away from the chiller, the valve is being operated based on an ambient temperature operating parameter).
Re Claim 3. Richardson teaches a heat exchanger bypass (via 60) configured for the fluid in the fluid passageway to flow past the heat exchanger without flowing through the heat exchanger, and a heater (60) coupled to the fluid line, wherein the fluid is heated by the heater and directed through the heat exchanger bypass when the temperature is below the first threshold value (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 32-37. The presence of process limitations (i.e. process of controlling the valve) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. In this instance, Richardson teaches a controller that inputs vehicle and refrigerant data, and can output a control signal to control the valve. Thus, Richardson is capable of performing the recited process of controlling the valve at a threshold valve).
Re Claim 4. Richardson teaches the controller is configured to operate the valve to direct the fluid to the chiller when the temperature is at or above a second threshold value (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 32-39. The presence of process limitations (i.e. process of controlling the valve) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. In this instance, Richardson teaches a controller that inputs vehicle and refrigerant data, and can output a control signal to control the valve. Thus, Richardson is capable of performing the recited process of controlling the valve at a threshold valve).
Re Claim 5. Richardson teaches the controller is configured to operate the chiller to remove heat from the fluid in the fluid passageway when the fluid is directed to the chiller, wherein the chiller is in an Off state when the temperature is below the second threshold value (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 32-33, 38-41. The presence of process limitations (i.e. process of controlling the chiller) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. In this instance, Richardson teaches a controller that inputs vehicle and refrigerant data, and can output a control signal to control the chiller. Thus, Richardson is capable of performing the recited process of controlling the chiller at a threshold valve).
Re Claim 6. Richardson teaches the valve comprises a three-way valve (46 is a three way valve) (Figure 2; Paragraph 32).
Re Claim 7. Richardson teaches the chiller includes a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (50) and a compressor (80) (Figure 2; Paragraphs 32, 38).
Re Claim 8. Richardson teaches the compressor is connected to an air conditioning system (78) of the vehicle (Figure 2; Paragraphs 39-41).
Re Claim 9. Richardson teaches at least one pump (26) coupled to the fluid line and configured to direct the fluid toward the heat exchanger or the chiller (Figure 2; Paragraph 28).
Re Claim 11. Richardson teaches the valve and the chiller are coupled to the fluid line downstream of the heat exchanger such that fluid flows from the heat exchanger toward the chiller when the valve is positioned to direct the fluid toward the chiller (Figure 2; Paragraphs 32-41).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US2023/0012558A1) in view of Suzuki (US2023/0091458A1).
Re Claim 10. Richardson teaches an upstream and downstream conduit around the autonomy computing system (Figure 2) but fails to specifically teach a first temperature sensor configured to measure an inlet temperature of the fluid upstream of the autonomy computing system, and a second temperature sensor configured to measure an outlet temperature of the fluid downstream of the autonomy computing system.
However, Suzuki teaches an inlet a first temperature sensor (67a) configured to measure an inlet temperature of the fluid upstream of the electronics device (52, 80), and a second temperature sensor (67b) configured to measure an outlet temperature of the fluid downstream of the electronics device (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 83, 105-106, 113, 117, 238).
Therefore, in view of Suzuki's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add inlet and outlet temperature sensors to Richardson in order to better monitor and control the temperature of the fluid directed towards the autonomy computing system of Richardson. The use of inlet and outlet temperature sensors for fluid control are well-known and understood in the art, and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights