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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 8/28/2024 are as follows:
Claims 1-14 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Vehicle Coolant System With Multi-way Valve Control Through Chiller”, or something similarly descriptive.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not adequately describe the structure of the invention. The use of “component” is overly broad and not reflective of the actual invention, wherein the component is actually just the chiller. The abstract should recite chiller to more accurately align with the actual invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 1 recites “cooland”, which appears to be a typo for “coolant”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The submitted drawings are misleading in how the two circuits are interconnected. As currently drawn, it would appear that circuit 4 is isolated from circuit 10. However, circuit 10 actually interconnects with circuit 4 via chiller 22 and condenser 34. Therefore, the drawing of the two circuits being isolated from each other is misleading. Corrected drawings in which circuit 10 connects to circuit 4 via 22 and 34 should be submitted.
The circled box in the figures is unlabeled, thus it is unclear what the element is. The element should have a reference number and the specification should be accordingly updated.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“Component” in claim 1. The limitation of “component” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with the functional language of “through with coolant is adapted to flow”, without reciting sufficient structure for performing the function. Thus, “component” invokes 112(f). Based on the applicants’ disclosure, component is interpreted as “a coolant pump, a battery, a chiller, a coolant heater, a powertrain with an electric motor and power electronics for the electric motor, a cooling air radiator for heat exchange with free surroundings, or a condenser”, and equivalent structure.
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(b)
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 2-10 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 2 recites “the at least two components are at least one subset of the following components of a cooling system: a coolant pump, a battery, a chiller, a coolant heater, a powertrain with an electric motor and power electronics for the electric motor, a cooling air radiator for heat exchange with free surroundings, or a condenser”. The phrase “the at least two components are at least one subset of the following components” is awkward, rendering the claim unclear. It is unclear if the limitation requires that the two components to be the same element from the list so as to form a single subset, or rather that the two elements can be any element from the list. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as a list of alternative elements that either component can be.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the plurality of components" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “at least two components”, but neither claim 1 or claim 2 recites “a plurality of components”.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 recite “wherein the plurality of components has a chiller”. It is unclear if this limitation is requiring that each component is a chiller (i.e. two chillers) or rather that one of the two components must be a chiller or rather that each component is coupled to a chiller (i.e. a first device coupled to a chiller and a second device coupled to a second chiller). Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plurality of components" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “at least two components”, but claim 1 fails to recite “a plurality of components”.
Claim 4 recites “the plurality of components are arranged distributed over at least two coolant circuits of the coolant system, wherein the at least two coolant circuits are interconnectable via the multi-way valve so as to conduct coolant, wherein a first coolant pump and/or a battery and/or a chiller and/or a coolant heater are arranged in a first coolant circuit and/or, wherein, a second coolant pump and/or a powertrain and/or a cooling air radiator and/or a condenser are arranged in a second coolant circuit”. The use of multiple “and/or” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear which combination of elements is actually required of the claim. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by He (US2023/0076418A1).
Re Claim 1. He teaches a coolant system (210) for an electric vehicle (Paragraph 1 teaches electric vehicle) for circulating a liquid coolant, the coolant system comprising:
at least one valve (250), the at least one valve being a single multi-way valve (250) (Figures 18-19, 21-22; Paragraphs 69-71);
at least two components (220, 230, PWT) through which the coolant is adapted to flow, the at least two components being interconnectable via the at least one valve and coolant lines (Figures 18-19, 21-22 illustrates coolant lines that interconnect the components to the valve 250), so as to conduct coolant, at least in at least one subset (Figures 18-19, 21-22; Paragraphs 69-71); and
a component bypass line (one of the lines connected to 250) of the coolant system is arranged with respect to at least one of the components through which the coolant flows such that this component is connectable, via the component bypass line, to the multi-way valve so as to conduct coolant such that, in a first switching state of the multi-way valve, the coolant flows both through the component bypass line in a first flow direction and through this component (Figure 18 or 21), and, in a second switching state of the multi-way valve, the coolant flows through the component bypass line in a second flow direction, opposite to the first flow direction, in the bypass to this component (Figure 19) (Figure 18 or 21 illustrates a clockwise circulation of coolant through the components and Figure 19 illustrates a reverse flow through the ESS. Figures 21 and 22 illustrates the valve forms a bypass line of the HCS; Paragraphs 69-71).
Re Claim 2. He teaches the at least two components are at least one subset of the following components of a cooling system: a coolant pump, a battery (ESS is a battery), a chiller (HCS is a chiller), a coolant heater (HCS contains heat source 222, which can be a heater), a powertrain with an electric motor and power electronics for the electric motor (PWT is a powertrain), a cooling air radiator (PWT contains radiator 244) for heat exchange with free surroundings, or a condenser (HCS contains heat source 222, which can be a condenser) (Figure 9, 15, 17-23; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 66-71).
Re Claim 3. As best understood in view of the indefiniteness, He teaches the plurality of components has a chiller (34), wherein the component bypass line is designed as a chiller bypass line and the chiller is designed as the component that can be flowed around in the bypass in the second switching state of the multi-way valve by means of the component bypass line, and wherein a component outlet designed as a chiller outlet is connectable to the multi-way valve via the component bypass line so as to conduct coolant (Figure 9, 15, 17-23; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 66-71. The HCS comprises the chiller, and thus the bypass line is a chiller bypass line).
Re Claim 4. As best understood in view of the indefiniteness, He teaches the plurality of components are arranged distributed over at least two coolant circuits of the coolant system, wherein the at least two coolant circuits are interconnectable via the multi-way valve so as to conduct coolant, wherein a first coolant pump and/or a battery and/or a chiller and/or a coolant heater are arranged in a first coolant circuit and/or, wherein, a second coolant pump and/or a powertrain and/or a cooling air radiator and/or a condenser are arranged in a second coolant circuit (Figure 9, 15, 17-23; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 66-71; Figures 17-23 illustrate three coolant circuits interconnected via the valve 250).
Re Claim 5. He teaches the first coolant circuit is designed as a battery subcircuit, with the chiller (224), the first coolant pump (226), the battery (232) arranged downstream of the first coolant pump in a direction of flow, with respect to a flow of the coolant through the first coolant pump, and wherein the second coolant circuit is designed as a drivetrain subcircuit (PWM), with the second coolant pump (246) and the powertrain arranged downstream of the second coolant pump in a direction of flow, with respect to a flow of the coolant through the second coolant pump, and cooling air radiator (244) for cooling the coolant flowing in the drivetrain subcircuit with ambient air (Figure 9, 15, 17-23; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 66-71).
Re Claim 6. He teaches the multi-way valve is designed such that the coolant flows through the drivetrain subcircuit without interruption in all possible switching states of the multi-way valve and when the multi-way valve is transferred from one of these switching states to another of these switching states (Figure 9, 15, 17-23; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 66-71; Figures 17-21 illustrates coolant flows continuously through the PWT circuit).
Re Claim 7. He teaches one end of the chiller bypass line is arranged downstream of the chiller outlet and upstream of an inlet of the first coolant pump in the direction of flow, with respect to a flow of coolant through the chiller and the first coolant pump, so as to conduct coolant (Figure 9, 15, 17-23; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 66-71).
Re Claim 9. He teaches the battery subcircuit additionally has a coolant heater (222) for heating the battery as needed, wherein the coolant heater is arranged downstream of the multi-way valve and upstream of the chiller in the direction of flow, with respect to a flow of the coolant through the chiller, wherein the chiller and the coolant heater are arranged in a common coolant line of the battery subcircuit, and wherein the coolant heater is an electric heater (Figure 9, 15, 17-23; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 66-71).
Re Claim 10. He teaches the coolant system is designed such that, depending on the switching state of the multi-way valve, the following coolant-conducting connections are realized at least in one subset via the multi-way valve: a) coolant-conducting connection of the chiller to the battery (Figure 18, 19); b) coolant-conducting connection of the chiller to the power electronics and the electric motor (Figure 22); c) coolant-conducting connection of the chiller to the cooling air radiator, the power electronics, and the electric motor (Figure 22); and d) coolant-conducting connection of the chiller to the battery, the power electronics, and the electric motor (Figure 23); and e) coolant-conducting connection of the chiller to the battery, the cooling air radiator, the power electronics, and the electric motor (Figure 23) (Figure 9, 15, 17-23; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 66-71).
Re Claim 11. He teaches a cooling system for an electric vehicle (Paragraph 1), the cooling system comprising: the coolant system according to claim 1 (see above); and a refrigerant circuit (Figure 9, 15, 18, 19; Paragraph 56, 69-71).
Re Claim 12. He teaches the refrigerant circuit is designed to air-condition a passenger compartment of the electric vehicle and/or to control the temperature of a coolant flowing in the coolant circuit (Figure 9, 15, 18, 19; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 69-71).
Re Claim 13. He teaches the cooling system is designed such that a heat transfer connection between the coolant system on one side and the refrigerant circuit on the other side are established as needed via a chiller (224) (Figure 9, 15, 18, 19; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 69-71).
Re Claim 14. He teaches the cooling system is designed such that a heat transfer connection between the coolant system on one side and the refrigerant circuit on the other side is established as needed via a condenser (222), and wherein the condenser is arranged in a drivetrain subcircuit so as to conduct coolant (Figure 9, 15, 18, 19; Paragraph 2, 41, 56, 69-71).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US2023/0076418A1).
Re Claim 8. He teaches the coolant system (see above) but fails to specifically teach a check valve is additionally arranged in the battery subcircuit downstream of the battery in the direction of flow, with respect to a flow of the coolant through the battery, in such a way that the check valve only enables the coolant to flow from the battery in the direction of the multi-way valve. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice of the ubiquitous and well-known use of check valves in fluid circuits. Check-valves are a common engineering design device to prevent backflow of fluids in an unwanted direction. Thus, it would only require ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add check-valves as desired in a fluid circuit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a check valve is additionally arranged in the battery subcircuit downstream of the battery in the direction of flow, with respect to a flow of the coolant through the battery, in such a way that the check valve only enables the coolant to flow from the battery in the direction of the multi-way valve.
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