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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“housing for the reservoir” in claims 1 and 8, appears to be an error for “housing of the reservoir”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by TANG (US20190291570A1).
Regarding claim 1, TANG teaches a cooling system for a drive assembly in a hybrid or electric vehicle (see Figure 1 and ¶ [0028]), comprising: a reservoir (reservoir of 130 : Examiner notes that under the Broadest reasonable interpretation, TANG’s fluid to fluid heat exchanger is also reservoir since it contains and supplies fluid) that contains and supplies fluid (i.e. oil) for a first coolant circuit (170), which is conveyed by a pump (160) from a sump (165) into an interior of a housing for the reservoir (housing of 130: see 130 in Figures 1 and 2), wherein there is at least one coolant line for a second coolant circuit on and/or in the housing with which coolant is conveyed from power electronics to a heat exchanger ( radiator of 122: see in Figure 1 where there is at least one coolant line for a second coolant circuit (145) on and/or in the housing of 130 which coolant is conveyed from power electronics (155 and/or 180) to a heat exchanger (i.e. radiator of 122: see Figure 1)).
Regarding claim 2, TANG further teaches further comprising: an access line for the first coolant circuit on the reservoir, with which the fluid can be exchanged between the interior of the housing and the pump (see in Figure 1 where an access line of 170 is on the reservoir of 130 for the fluid to travel from the pump 160 into the interior of the housing of 130).
Regarding claim 8, TANG further teaches wherein the at least one coolant line forms an opening, hole, and/or cut-out in the housing for the reservoir (see in Figure 1 where there is at least one coolant line of the second coolant circuit (145) forms an opening, hole, and/or cut-out in the housing of 130).
Regarding claim 9, TANG further teaches wherein the housing is a cast housing (Examiner notes that the recitation of " the housing is a cast housing " is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113)).
Regarding claim 10, TANG further teaches a drive assembly for a hybrid or electric vehicle (See Figure 1 and ¶ [0028]), comprising: the cooling system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
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.
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANG (US20190291570A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PLOW (US 20200318788 A1).
Regarding claim 5, TANG does not teach wherein the at least one coolant line is tube-shaped, wherein at least part of the at least one coolant line passes through the interior of the housing, and wherein the at least one coolant line is at least partially surrounded by the fluid for the first coolant circuit in the interior of the housing.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to have tube-shaped coolant line partially surrounded by the fluid in a reservoir, as evidenced by PLOW, see PLOW’s Figure 5B where a reservoir (112: see Figure 5B) with tube-shaped coolant line (120d), wherein the coolant line is at least partially submerged by a fluid (see ¶ [0030]] and cf. Figure 5B).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of TANG’s heat exchanger of to have the at least one coolant line is tube-shaped, wherein at least part of the at least one coolant line passes through the interior of the housing, and wherein the at least one coolant line is at least partially surrounded by the fluid for the first coolant circuit in the interior of the housing, since as evidenced by PLOW, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of simplifying the manufacturing process of TANG’s heat exchanger while increasing its durability.
Regarding claim 6, TANG as modified above further teaches comprising: an access line for the first coolant circuit on the reservoir, with which the fluid can be exchanged between the interior of the housing and the pump (see in Figure 1 where an access line of 170 is on the reservoir of 130 for the fluid to travel from the pump 160 into the interior of the housing of 130), wherein the access line is positioned and oriented in relation to the at least one coolant line such that the fluid in the first coolant circuit flows toward the at least one coolant line (see 130 in Figure 1 where the access line of 170 positioned and oriented such that the fluid in the first coolant circuit (170) flows toward the at least one coolant line of 145).
Regarding claim 7, TANG does not teach wherein the at least one coolant line comprises ridges, recesses, projections, and/or grooves on a side exposed to the fluid in the first coolant circuit, and which are configured to increase a surface area that comes in contact with the fluid in the first coolant circuit in the interior of the housing.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to have a coolant line comprises ridges, recesses, projections, and/or grooves on its side partially surrounded by a fluid in a reservoir, as evidenced by PLOW, see PLOW’s Figures 3A-3C where a coolant line (120b) comprises ridges, recesses, projections, and/or grooves on its side (140b) partially surrounded by a fluid in a reservoir (112: see ¶ [0035]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of TANG’s heat exchanger of to have the at least one coolant line comprises ridges, recesses, projections, and/or grooves on a side exposed to the fluid in the first coolant circuit, and which are configured to increase a surface area that comes in contact with the fluid in the first coolant circuit in the interior of the housing, since as evidenced by PLOW, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of simplifying the manufacturing process of TANG’s heat exchanger while increasing its durability and heat exchange performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 3 and 4 containing allowable subject matter since TANG in view of PLOW fails to teach wherein the access line is configured to accommodate at least a segment of the at least one coolant line, wherein an inner diameter of the access line is greater than an outer diameter of the at least one coolant line, at least at the segment of the at least one coolant line where it is accommodated in the access line. Accordingly, the prior art taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious the above limitations, in combination with the other limitations recited as specified in the independent claim(s). There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to incorporate the above claimed features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights