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 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: At claim 2, line 6 and claim 3, line 6, the space between “subsystem” and the comma that follows should be removed. 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: “high-pressure cooling subsystem,” “battery self-heating subsystem,” “air heating subsystem,” and “control subsystem” used throughout the claims.
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.
For the record:
“High-pressure cooling subsystem” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0029 of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
“Battery self-heating subsystem” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0055 of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
“Air heating subsystem” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0029 of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
No corresponding structure for “control subsystem” has been described in the specification. See corresponding rejections below under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b).
“Heat pump subsystem” has been NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since “heat pump” imparts implicit structure itself.
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
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.
Claims 1-12 care 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. The limitation “control subsystem” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above. However, since the specification fails to describe the corresponding structure as required under that statute, Applicant has failed to demonstrate full possession of the metes and bounds of the invention at the effective filing date of the application.
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 1-12 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 limitation “control subsystem” 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
In addition:
The term “high pressure” in claims 1-6 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
At claim 3, line 5, the claim recites “obtain an available heat value and an energy efficiency value.” This renders the claim unclear since the claim previously recites “obtain an available heat value and an energy efficiency value” at lines 3-4 of the claim. Since the first recitation is directed to each subsystem and the second recitation is directed to after collaboration of each subsystem, the Examiner recommends amending the second recitation to “obtain a total available heat value and an energy efficiency value” for purposes of clarity.
At claim 5, lines 21 and 22, the claim recites “the subsystem.” This renders the claim indefinite since multiple subsystems have been recited in the claim. The Examiner believes these recitations should be changed to “”the selected subsystem” for purposes of clarity.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each bridge arm" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inverter circuit" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the three-phase winding" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first battery pack" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second battery pack" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While all of these limitations of claim 8 were previously recited in claim 7, claim 8 depends directly from claim 1 and thus does not incorporate those recitations. The Examiner believes that Applicant intended for claim 8 to instead depend from claim 7. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 8 has been examined based on this interpretation.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lian et al. (US 2023/0373264 A1) in view of CN112706577A, Huang et al. (US 2024/0079984 A1), and Endoh (US 4419901). The applied Lian et al. reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claims 1 and 12, Lian et al. disclose a vehicle integrated heat management system, comprising: a heat pump subsystem (para. 0033, line 14) teaches heat pump system), configured to heat or cool a passenger compartment of a vehicle (paras. 0017-0018, 0020, 0021, 0059-0061; Figs. 5a-5b, 7-8; etc.), and configured to exchange heat with a battery of the vehicle (see battery pack 12 in Fig. 1; paras. 0017-0018, 0039-0044; Figs. 5a & 5b; etc.)); and an air heating subsystem, configured to heat the passenger compartment (para. 0017-0018, 0059-0061; Figs. 5s-5b; etc.). Lian et al. do not disclose a high-pressure cooling subsystem, configured to exchange heat with a high-pressure system of the vehicle and the heat pump subsystem; a battery self-heating subsystem, configured to heat the battery through charging and discharging of the battery; the heat pump subsystem comprising a compressor and a control valve, one end of the control valve being in communication with an exhaust port of the compressor, and another end of the control valve being in communication with an air return port of the compressor or being in communication with the air return port of the compressor through a gas-liquid separator; and a control subsystem, configured to control the control valve to be in communication with the exhaust port of the compressor and the air return port of the compressor, to implement air supplement and enthalpy increase.
CN112706577A teaches a high-pressure cooling subsystem, configured to exchange heat with a high-pressure system 4 of the vehicle and the heat pump subsystem; and a battery self-heating subsystem 3 (Abstract; claim 1; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to add such a high-pressure cooling and battery self-heating systems to the arrangement of Lian et al. for the purposes of further controlling the temperatures of these components.
Huang et al. teach a battery heating arrangement configured to heat the battery through charging and discharging of the battery (Abstract; paras. 0004-0005; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize this heat generating technique for the purpose of effectively heating the battery as required.
Endoh teaches a heat pump subsystem comprising a compressor 1 and a control valve 10, one end of the control valve being in communication with an exhaust port of the compressor (at 1a), and another end of the control valve being in communication with an air return port of the compressor or being in communication with the air return port of the compressor through a gas-liquid separator 20 (at 1b); and a control subsystem, configured to control the control valve to be in communication with the exhaust port of the compressor and the air return port of the compressor (col. 2, lines teach valve 10 being controlled in order to improve efficiency by controlling the amount of refrigerant passing through the heat exchangers), to implement air supplement and enthalpy increase (functional language; controlling refrigerant flow implicitly affects these parameters). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide these features within the heat pump of Lian et al. for the similar purpose of controlling refrigerant flow to improve system efficiency.
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lian et al. (US 2023/0373264 A1) in view of CN112706577A, Huang et al. (US 2024/0079984 A1), and Endoh (US 44419901) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dorman (US 4345442).
As per claim 9, Lian et al. do not teach wherein the control subsystem is further configured to obtain a corresponding required cooling capacity value in response to the passenger compartment has a cooling requirement, and control, according to the required cooling capacity value, the heat pump subsystem to cool the passenger compartment. Dorman teaches the basic concept of matching the cooling capacity of a heat pump system to the cooling requirement of the object/space being cooled (col. 11, lines 26-42; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to control the cooling capacity of the heat pump to meet the cooling requirements of the passenger compartment of Lian et al. as simply a particular application of this basic concept.
As per claim 10, Lian et al. do not teach wherein a control subsystem is further configured to obtain the corresponding required cooling capacity value in response to the battery has a cooling requirement, and control, according to the required cooling capacity value, the heat pump subsystem to perform heat exchange on the battery. Again, Dorman teaches the basic concept of matching the cooling capacity of a heat pump system to the cooling requirement of the object/space being cooled (col. 11, lines 26-42; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to control the cooling capacity of the heat pump to meet the cooling requirements of the battery of Lian et al. as simply a particular application of this basic concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) & (b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As per claims 2-5, the prior art fails to teach or provide motivation to further modify the system of Lian et al. to comprise the combined controls of the heat pump subsystem, high-pressure cooling subsystem, battery self-heating subsystem, and air heating subsystem as recited.
As per claim 6, the prior art fails to teach or provide motivation to further modify the system of Lian et al. wherein the control subsystem is configured to obtain air return port information of the compressor in the heat pump subsystem, and perform air supplement and enthalpy increase on the compressor according to the air return port information, and the control subsystem is further configured to obtain an available heat value and an energy efficiency value of the heat pump subsystem after air supplement and enthalpy increase are performed, wherein the air return port information comprises at least one of an air return pressure and an air return temperature of the air return port of the compressor.
As per claims 7-8, the prior art fails to teach or provide motivation to further modify the system of Lian et al. wherein the battery self-heating subsystem comprises: a battery, the battery comprising a first battery pack and a second battery pack, a negative electrode of the first battery pack being connected to a positive electrode of the second battery pack at a connection point, the connection point being a first node; an inverter circuit, a positive direct current terminal of the inverter circuit being connected to a positive electrode of the first battery pack, and a negative direct current terminal of the inverter circuit being connected to a negative electrode of the second battery pack; a drive motor, a three-phase winding of the drive motor being correspondingly connected to a three-phase alternating current terminal of the inverter circuit, and a neutral point of the three-phase winding being connected to the first node through a controllable switch; and the control subsystem, being configured to: in response to determining to heat the battery by using the battery self-heating subsystem, control the controllable switch to be in a turn-on state, and perform on/off control on the inverter circuit, to perform alternate oscillation heating on the first battery pack and the second battery pack through the three-phase winding.
As per claim 11, he prior art fails to teach or provide motivation to further modify the system of Lian et al. wherein the control subsystem is further configured to: in response to the high-pressure system has a heat dissipation requirement, in response to that the heat pump subsystem has no heat exchange requirement, control to turn off heat exchange between the high-pressure cooling subsystem and the heat pump subsystem, and control the high-pressure cooling subsystem to perform air heat dissipation on the high-pressure system; in response to the heat pump subsystem has a heat exchange requirement control the high-pressure cooling subsystem to perform heat exchange on the heat pump subsystem, to perform heat dissipation on the high-pressure system.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Lian et al. (US 2024/0017589 A1) teach another related vehicle integrated thermal management system and method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763