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 .
Specification
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 contains the legal phraseology “comprising”. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0007] improperly refers to the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “reduce an overall pressure drop” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the claimed reduction is in reference to, i.e. it is not clear what degree of pressure drop would be considered to be “reduced” or not. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes any prior art teaching that does not explicitly teach increase of a pressure drop will be considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in regards to claim 9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haussmann (DE 10 2020 213 093, see attached English translation).
As to claim 1, Haussmann discloses a temperature control device for controlling a temperature of an electric drive axle comprising:
an inlet and return (Figs. 1-6); and
at least one valve 42/46 configured to alter a temperature control path between the inlet and the return (Figs. 2-5);
wherein the valve 42/46 is configured to alter a sequence in which a temperature control medium flows through at least two components 120 in the temperature control path (Figs. 1-6 and 8).
It is noted that components 120 are electrical components and thus the temperature control device of Haussmann is capable of altering a flow through a control unit and an electric machine as claimed.
As to claim 2, Haussmann discloses the valve as being configured to alter the sequence in which the temperature control medium flows through the components 120 based on a performance requirement (page 3, paragraphs 4-7).
As to claims 3-4, Haussmann discloses selecting the flow direction based on a peak performance requirement and based on a long-term performance requirement (page 3, paragraph 6).
As to claim 5, Haussmann discloses selecting a flow direction based on the thermal capacity of components (pages 2-3).
As to claim 10, Haussmann discloses a motor vehicle comprising the temperature control device of claim 1 (page 1).
As to claims 11-15, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of Haussmann.
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.
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haussmann as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Chopard (US 2018/0291798).
As to claims 6-8, Haussmann does not explicitly teach a bypass, bypass valve, and providing parallel flow through the components 120 in the manner as claimed. However, Chopard teaches that it is known to provide a bypass line 22 and associated valve 14’ for controlling flow through components 8 and 10 in both series and a parallel configurations based on temperature requirements for each component (Figs. 4-8). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Haussmann to utilize a bypass line with a bypass valve such that the temperature control medium flows through the components 120 in parallel as claimed and taught by Chopard because it would provide greater flexibility to cool the components in a manner as desired.
As to claim 9, Haussmann does not disclose any components in the circuit that increase a pressure drop (e.g. an expansion valve) and thus is considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
As to claims 16-19, if a modified prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious in view of the modified device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the methods as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Haussmann.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights