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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 13 December 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “heat storage device” 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:
Para. 0034 of the specification states that the heat storage device “may be filled with a phase-change material.” Accordingly, the limitation “heat storage device” has been interpreted as one that either contains a phase-change material, or a functionally equivalent arrangement capable of storing heat.
The limitations “electrical component cooling apparatus” and “vehicle interior heating device” had NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since independent claim 1 recited sufficient corresponding structure to perform the respective functions.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (US 2017/0021698 A1).
As pre claim 1, Hatakeyama et al. disclose a heat pump system for a vehicle, comprising: an electrical component cooling apparatus 3 comprising: a radiator 312, a first water pump 311 connected via a first coolant line (coolant line on right side in Fig. 1) configured to flow a first coolant to cool an electrical component (motor 313, inverter 314), a heat storage device (para. 0066, etc.: battery 322 collects waste heat), and a second water pump 321 connected to a second coolant line (coolant line on left side in Fig. 1), wherein the second coolant line is selectively connected (via valves 35 & 36) to the first coolant line (via the various horizontal coolant lines in Fi. 1) and configured to flow the first coolant; an air conditioner unit 2 comprising: a compressor 20, a first heat-exchanger 21, an expansion valve 29, and a second heat-exchanger 27 connected to a refrigerant line configured to flow a refrigerant; and a vehicle interior heating device 1 comprising a heater core 41 and a third water pump 43 connected to a third coolant line 400 configured to flow a second coolant, wherein the first heat-exchanger is provided on the third coolant line and configured to flow the second coolant and condense the refrigerant through heat-exchange with the second coolant (Fig. 1; etc.), wherein the second heat-exchanger is connected to the second coolant line and configured to flow the first coolant and evaporate the refrigerant through heat-exchange with the first coolant (Fig. 1; etc.), and wherein a flow of the first coolant is controlled (Figs. 3A-3C; etc.) based on at least one mode for storing heat in the heat storage device (para. 0066; etc.) or heating a vehicle interior of the vehicle (paras. 0111, 0161-0162; etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2017/0021698 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 12403749 B2).
As per claim 18, Hatakeyama et al. do not teach wherein the electrical component cooling apparatus further comprises a coolant heater provided on the second coolant line between the second water pump and the second heat-exchanger. Yamada et al. teach a similar arrangement the electrical component cooling apparatus 50 further comprises a coolant heater 54 provided on a second coolant line between the second water pump (51a or 51b) and the second heat-exchanger 20 (Fig. 1; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply the heater of Yamada et al. to the system of Hatakeyama et al. for the purpose of providing the additional functionality a battery warm-up capability under low outside temperature conditions (col. 23, lines 23-28; etc.).
As per claim 19, Hatakeyama et al. do not teach wherein, when storing heat in the heat storage device is required, or when the heat stored in the heat storage device is insufficient in the at least one mode, a coolant heater is operated to heat the first coolant flowing along the second coolant line. Note that this claim is written as functional language, not actual system structure. Thus, in order to readd on the claim, the prior art need simply be capable of performing the function. Again, Yamada et al. teach heater 54 providing heat to the battery (col. 23, lines 23-28; etc.). As such, as combined into the system of Hatakeyama et al. as described in claim 18, the heater 54 would have been capable of performing such a heating function.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2017/0021698 A1) in view of Lei et al. (US 11745562 B1).
As per claim 20, Hatakeyama et al. do not teach wherein the heat storage device is filled with a phase-change material. Lei et al. teach a similar arrangement wherein a heat storage device 15 for heating within an electrical device cooling circuit is filled with a phase-change material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide such a phase change heat storage within the cooling circuit of Hatakeyama et al. as either a supplement or replacement of the battery for the purpose of optimizing the heat storage function already provided within Hatakeyama et al. (again, para. 0066, etc.: battery 322 collects waste heat).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-17 are 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:
As per claim 2, Hatakeyama et al. fails to disclose the full combination wherein the electrical component cooling apparatus further comprises: a branch line connected to the first coolant line between the radiator and the first water pump through a first valve provided on the first coolant line between the radiator and the first water pump; a second valve provided between the first coolant line and the second coolant line to selectively connect the first coolant line and the second coolant line; a first connection line having a first end connected to the second valve and a second end connected to a location where the first coolant line and the second coolant line meet between the electrical component and the second water pump; a third valve provided on the first coolant line at a downstream end of the electrical component; and a second connection line having a first end connected to the third valve, and a second end connected to the second coolant line between the heat storage device and the second heat-exchanger. In particular, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to modify the system of Hatakeyama et al. to further comprise a third valve provided on the first coolant line at a downstream end of the electrical component; and a second connection line having a first end connected to the third valve, and a second end connected to the second coolant line between the heat storage device and the second heat-exchanger.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Miyoshi (US 11760154 B2) teaches a vehicle temperature control system comprising interior heating circuit 1, refrigerant circuit 2, and battery cooling circuit 3.
Shiratori et al. (US 2020/0164719 A1) teach a vehicle temperature control system comprising interior heating circuit 20, refrigerant circuit 10, and battery cooling circuit 30.
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