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
Claim 8 recites “of convert” in line 2 and is interpreted to be a typographical error. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted to be –to convert--.
Claim 16 recites “sub-strep” in line 2 and is interpreted to be a typographical error. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted to be –sub-step--.
Claims 9-10 and 17 are objected to as being dependent from an objected claim.
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:
“a power conversion assembly” in claim 1.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: the power conversion assembly 120 can include a line filter, referred to as a LCL filter 122 that is comprised of inductors, capacitors, and possibly other electrical devices that are assembled together in a box-like first filter casing 124, as described in paragraph 0021 of the published application
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
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 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recite “wherein the condenser directs refrigerant in a vapor phase to the condenser and the throttle valve receives refrigerant in a liquid phase from the condenser”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the condenser directs refrigerant in a vapor phase to itself or is it the evaporator that directs refrigerant in a vapor phase to the condenser. Clarity is advised.
Claim 8 recite “a L-filter for smoothing the electrical recharging power”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the electrical recharging power is smoothed by the L-filter. Clarity is advised.
Claims 4-5 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitinger et al (US 20240324149 A1, hereinafter Reitinger) in view of Zhao et al (EP 4197850 A1, hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 1, Reitinger teaches an electric charger system (figure 3) configured for field operation comprising: an exterior charger housing (power electronics housing 100) including a power inlet connector (charge port 118) adapted for electrically connecting with a power source (paragraph 0018) for receiving electrical power and a power outlet connector (AC charging input 162) adapted for electrically connecting with electrical equipment to discharge the electrical (paragraph 0018); a power conversion assembly (inverter 120) for modifying the electrical power directed between the power inlet connector and the power outlet connector (paragraphs 0017-0018); and a charger cooling system (paragraph 0019) including: a liquid coolant circuit (liquid coolant circuit, paragraph 0019) having a coolant pump (coolant pump 168) directing a liquid coolant to the power conversion assembly (paragraph 0023).
Reitinger teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach a refrigerant circuit having a compressor for directing a refrigerant to a condenser and a throttle valve receiving refrigerant from the condenser; and a heat exchanger transferring thermal energy between the liquid coolant and the refrigerant.
However, Zhao teaches a refrigerant circuit (refrigerant circulation circuit, abstract) having a compressor (compressor, figure 2) for directing a refrigerant to a condenser (condenser, figure 2) and a throttle valve (expansion valve, figure 2) receiving refrigerant from the condenser (as shown on figure 2); and a heat exchanger (evaporator, figure 2) transferring thermal energy between the liquid coolant and the refrigerant (as shown on figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Reitinger to include a refrigerant circuit having a compressor for directing a refrigerant to a condenser and a throttle valve receiving refrigerant from the condenser; and a heat exchanger transferring thermal energy between the liquid coolant and the refrigerant in view of the teachings of Zhao in order to yield the predictable result of causing the coolant carrying heat to exchange heat with the evaporator.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the heat exchanger (evaporator, figure 2 of Zhao) is a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (causing the coolant carrying heat to exchange heat with the evaporator, col 8 paragraph 0045 of Zhao).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach, in view of indefiniteness, wherein the condenser (evaporator, figure 2 of Zhao) directs refrigerant in a vapor phase to the condenser (via the compressor, as shown on figure 2 of Zhao) and the throttle valve (expansion valve, figure 2 of Zhao) receives refrigerant in a liquid phase from the condenser (as shown on figure 2 of Zhao).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (evaporator, figure 2 of Zhao) functions as an evaporator (evaporator, figure 2 of Zhao) in which the refrigerant transitions between the liquid phase and the vapor phase (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that an evaporator absorbs heat, boiling and turning completely into a low-pressure gas before being discharged).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the condenser functions as a radiator releasing thermal energy to an ambient environment (radiator 166 having an exposed area of finned coolant channels to radiate coolant heat out to the environment, paragraph 0019 of Reitinger) associated with the exterior charger housing (as shown on figure 3 of Reitinger).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach a heat management process (paragraph 0003 of Reitinger) for a field operable electric charger system (charger circuit, abstract of Reitinger) comprising: a liquid cooling step directing a liquid to a power conversion assembly (as described in paragraph 0003 of Reitinger) for converting electrical power to recharge one or more rechargeable electrical storage batteries (charging electronics for managing charging power from the charge port to the battery pack, paragraph 0003 of Reitinger) to absorb and remove thermal energy from the power conversion assembly (cooling channel has a first portion positioned along the inverter to draw heat from the inverter, paragraph 0003 of Reitinger); a heat exchange step transferring the thermal energy from the liquid coolant to a refrigerant (causing the coolant carrying heat to exchange heat with the evaporator, paragraph 41 of Zhao); and a heat discharging step discharging step releasing the thermal energy from the refrigerant to an ambient environment (a radiator 166 having an exposed area of finned coolant channels to radiate coolant heat out to the environment, paragraph 0019 of Reitinger).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the heat exchange step (causing the coolant carrying heat to exchange heat with the evaporator, paragraph 41 of Zhao) occurs in a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (evaporator of Zhao).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the refrigerant (refrigerant, abstract of Zhao) transitions between a liquid phase and a vapor phase during the heat exchange step (via the evaporator, figure 2 of Zhao).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the refrigerant condenses (via radiator 166, paragraph 0019 of Reitinger) from the vapor phase to the liquid phase during the heat discharge step (as further described in paragraph 0019 of Reitinger).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach a charger cooling system (paragraph 0004 of Reitinger) for a field operable electric charger system (figure 3 of Reitinger) comprising: a liquid coolant circuit (liquid coolant circuit, paragraph 0019 of Reitinger) for circulating a liquid coolant (as described in paragraph 0019 of Reitinger), the liquid coolant circuit including a coolant pump (coolant pump 168 of Reitinger), an inlet manifold (first coolant inlet 170, figure 7 of Reitinger) directing the liquid coolant to a power conversion assembly (inverter 120 of Reitinger), and an outlet manifold (cooling channel 178 of Reitinger) receiving the liquid coolant from the power conversion assembly (inverter 120 of Reitinger); and a refrigerant circuit (refrigerant circulation circuit, abstract of Zhao) for circulating a refrigerant (abstract of Zhao), the refrigerant circuit including an heat exchanger (evaporator, figure 2 of Zhao) for transferring thermal energy to the refrigerant from the liquid coolant (as shown on figure 2 of Zhao) and a radiator (radiator 166 of Reitinger) for discharging the thermal energy from the refrigerant to an ambient environment (paragraph 0019 of Reitinger).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the heat exchanger is an evaporator (evaporator, figure 2 of Zhao) in which the refrigerant transitions from a liquid phase to a vapor phase (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that an evaporator absorbs heat, boiling and turning completely into a low-pressure gas before being discharged), and the radiator (radiator 166 of Reitinger) is a condenser in which the refrigerant condenses from the vapor phase condenses to the liquid phase (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that a radiator is a condenser in which condenses the refrigerant in order to dissipate heat to an exterior environment for cooling purposes).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitinger, as modified by Zhao, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Ahmad (US 11990598 B1, hereinafter Ahmad).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger is a microplate heat exchanger having a plurality of metal plates arranged in parallel and separated to form a plurality of fluid channels.
However, Ahmad teaches wherein the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (evaporator, col 6 line 5) is a microplate heat exchanger (figure 2) having a plurality of metal plates (plates 316 and 319, figure 2) arranged in parallel and separated to form a plurality of fluid channels (evaporator has top and bottom plates 316 and 319 with channels and/or ridges stamped therein for holding the working fluid, col 6 lines 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the combined teachings to include wherein the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger is a microplate heat exchanger having a plurality of metal plates arranged in parallel and separated to form a plurality of fluid channels in view of the teachings of Ahmad in order to yield the predictable result of maximizing surface area for heat transfer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitinger, as modified by Zhao, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Robinet et al (US 20080295535 A1, hereinafter Robinet).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the liquid coolant is a glycol-water mixture and the refrigerant is one of R12, R123, and R132.
However, Robinet teaches wherein the liquid coolant is a glycol-water mixture (liquid coolant can be any suitable coolant such as a glycol-based coolant, paragraph 0011) and the refrigerant is one of R12, R123, and R132 (refrigerant such as R12, paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the combined teachings to include wherein the liquid coolant is a glycol-water mixture and the refrigerant is one of R12, R123, and R132 in view of the teachings of Robinet in order to yield the predictable result of transferring heat from the coolant to the refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit.
Claims 8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitinger, as modified by Zhao, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Koivula et al (US 20170271974 A1, hereinafter Koivula).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the power conversion assembly includes an LCL filter of convert the electrical recharging power from alternating current to pulse width modulated current, a PEM to convert the electrical recharging power from pulse width modified current to direct current, and a L-filter for smoothing the electrical recharging power.
However, Koivula teaches wherein the power conversion assembly (power conversion system, PCM) includes an LCL filter (filter device 2 is a three-phase LCL filter, paragraph 0018) to convert the electrical recharging power from alternating current to pulse width modulated current (power conversion means PCM is adapted to convert electric energy from one form to another, paragraph 0021), a PEM to convert the electrical recharging power from pulse width modified current to direct current (photovoltaic cell means PV comprises a photovoltaic cell adapted to convert solar energy into direct current, paragraph 0021), and a L-filter for smoothing the electrical recharging power (L-filter filtering current harmonics, paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the combined teachings to include wherein the power conversion assembly includes an LCL filter of convert the electrical recharging power from alternating current to pulse width modulated current, a PEM to convert the electrical recharging power from pulse width modified current to direct current, and a L-filter for smoothing the electrical recharging power in view of the teachings of Koivula in order to yield the predictable result of improving the quality of electricity.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach further comprising a coolant (in-station air conditioning system forming the fourth liquid cooling unit, paragraph 0028 of Zhao) splitting sub-step (as shown on figure 3 of Zhao) in which the liquid coolant is directed in parallel to each of the LCL filter, the PEM, and the L-filter (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that the one or more charging terminals would comprise of an LCL filter, PEM and an L filter).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the coolant (in-station air conditioning system forming the fourth liquid cooling unit, paragraph 0028 of Zhao) splitting sub-step (as shown on figure 3 of Zhao) directs 50% or more of the liquid coolant to the PEM (allocating the coolant to the charging terminal, paragraph 0105 of Zhao).
Claims 9-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitinger, as modified by Zhao and Koivula, as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Kesti et al (US 20230100546 A1, hereinafter Kesti).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the liquid coolant system includes an inlet manifold directing the liquid coolant in parallel to the LCL filter, the PEM, and the L-filter.
However, Kesti teaches wherein the liquid coolant system (cooling system 1) includes an inlet manifold (via the cooling fluid being pumped, paragraph 0007) directing the liquid coolant in parallel to the LCL filter, the PEM, and the L-filter (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that one or more vehicle components 4 such as a combined inverter and DC/DC converter 4a or an electric motor 4b would comprise of an LCL filter, PEM and an L filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the combined teachings to include wherein the liquid coolant system includes an inlet manifold directing the liquid coolant in parallel to the LCL filter, the PEM, and the L-filter in view of the teachings of Kesti in order to yield the predictable result of providing heat exchange between the cooling fluid and the airflow, thereby increasing the cooling of the vehicle component.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, the combined teachings teach wherein the inlet manifold (via the cooling fluid being pumped, paragraph 0007 of Kesti) directs 50% or more of the liquid coolant to the PEM (the cooling system radiator 2 is thermodynamically connected to an on-board charger 3 and one or more vehicle components 4 such as a combined inverter and DC/DC converter 4a or an electric motor 4b, paragraph 0054 of Kesti).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach in which the power conversion assembly (a combined inverter and DC/DC converter 4a of Kesti) includes a LCL filter, a PEM, and a L-filter (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that one or more vehicle components 4 such as a combined inverter and DC/DC converter 4a or an electric motor 4b would comprise of an LCL filter, PEM and an L filter), and the inlet manifold (via the cooling fluid being pumped, paragraph 0007 of Kesti) directs liquid coolant in parallel to each of the LCL filter, the PEM, and the L-filter (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that one or more vehicle components 4 such as a combined inverter and DC/DC converter 4a or an electric motor 4b would comprise of an LCL filter, PEM and an L filter).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights