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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 Sept 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The amendment filed 13 Sept 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/KR2022/010911 and of the Korean patent application No. 10-2022-0032277 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 25 July 2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 13 Sept 2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p). Applicant is advised to remove the phrase “of which are incorporated herein by reference” from the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 8 “the slow space” should likely read “the flow space”.
In Claim 15, line 6 “a predetermined angle” should likely read “the predetermined angle”.
In Claim 17, line 8 “the flow direction” should likely read “a flow direction”.
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 3-5 and 15-17 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 recites the limitation "the remaining portholes" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the first valve and the second valve each comprise four first portholes and four second portholes”. This limitation is unclear because the claim reads where first valve has four first portholes and four second portholes and the second valve has four first portholes and four second portholes. However, in ¶ 58 the first valve has four first portholes and the second valve has four second portholes. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the center axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the outer surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the coolant" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
(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) 1-2 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bugeja et al (US 20200248836).
Regarding Claim 1, Bugeja et al disclose a multi-port valve apparatus (Figures 1 and 2A). The apparatus comprising:
a housing (12) including a plurality of flow paths (119a, 119a’, 119b, 119b’, 119c and 119c’ in Figure 1) and through which a cooling medium circulates (¶ 29), and an interior including a valve space (Figure 2A; where the valves 22 and 32 are positioned) and a flow space (the space exterior to the valves, but within chambers 13 and 14 as seen in Figure 2A);
a first valve (32) rotatably provided in the valve space of the housing (Figure 2A) and configured to selectively circulate the cooling medium through the plurality of flow paths and the flow space (¶ 40);
a second valve (22) rotatably provided in the valve space of the housing (Figure 2A) to be rotated in conjunction with the first valve (via 34 as seen in Figures 2A and 2B) and configured to selectively circulate the cooling medium through the plurality of flow paths and the slow space (¶ 40); and
an actuator (60) provided in the housing (Figure 1) and connected to the first valve (via 33 in Figure 2A) to control positions of the first valve and the second valve (Figure 2A).
Regarding Claim 2, Bugeja et al disclose where the plurality of flow paths and the flow space are arranged separately in the housing (Figure 2A with flow paths at 18 generally shown in Figures 1 and 2A).
Regarding Claim 6, Bugeja et al disclose where the first valve (32) and the second valve (22) are coaxially aligned (Figure 2A), the first valve (32) comprising a first gear (24) formed on an outer surface thereof (Figure 2A), the second valve (22) comprising a second gear (34) formed on an outer surface thereof (Figure 2A), the first and second gears meshing together via a connecting gear (via 50).
Regarding Claim 7, Bugeja et al disclose where the connecting gear (50) is rotatably provided in the flow space of the housing (Figure 2A).
Regarding Claim 8, Bugeja et al disclose where the first gear (24) is formed along a part of the outer surface of the first valve (Figures 2A and 2B), and the second gear (34) is formed along an entire outer surface of the second valve (Figure 2A), the first gear meshing with the connecting gear based on the first valve rotating within a predetermined angle range (Figure 2A where the predetermined angle range is the entire angle range), causing the second gear to rotate together with the connecting gear (Figure 2B).
Regarding Claim 9, Bugeja et al disclose where the first valve (32) and the second valve (22) are formed with facing end portions that overlap in a rotatable manner (Figures 2A and 2B at least at 24 and 34).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Bugeja et al (US 20200248836).
Regarding Claim 3, Bugeja et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first valve comprises a plurality of first portholes formed on an outer surface thereof, and the second valve comprises a plurality of second portholes, one of the plurality of first portholes and second portholes matching with the flow space depending on rotational positions of the first valve and the second valve, the remaining portholes configured to match to different ports.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of portholes of the first and second valves to include a plurality of portholes since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to increase capacity of the system.
Regarding Claim 4, Bugeja et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first valve and the second valve each comprise four first portholes and four second portholes, and one of the first portholes and one of the second portholes are connected through the flow space, forming six ports with the first valve and the second valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of portholes of the first and second valves to include four portholes since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to increase capacity of the system.
Regarding Claim 5, Bugeja et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first portholes of the first valve are spaced at 90 degree intervals, the second portholes of the second valve are spaced at 90° intervals, and the actuator rotates the first valve by 90° increments, causing the first valve and the second valve to be linked at a predetermined rotation angle and to rotate together by the rotation angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the portholes to be at 90 degree intervals since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the flow paths to connect to the system in a space efficient way.
Regarding Claim 10, Bugeja et al disclose the first valve (32) comprising a first gear (24) formed along part of an outer surface thereof (Figure 2A and 2B), the second valve (22) comprising a second gear formed along part of an outer surface (34) thereof to mesh with the first gear (Figure 2B via 50) but fails to expressly disclose where the first valve and the second valve are arranged with center axes thereof aligned horizontally.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orientation of the valves to be where the first valve and the second valve are arranged with center axes thereof aligned horizontally since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the flow paths to connect to the system in a space efficient way.
Regarding Claim 13, Bugeja et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first valve and the second valve are arranged with the center axes thereof aligned horizontally and the outer surface thereof are offset, not facing each other, but allowing the first gear and the second gear to mesh.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orientation of the valves to be where the first valve and the second valve are arranged with the center axes thereof aligned horizontally and the outer surface thereof are offset, not facing each other, but allowing the first gear and the second gear to mesh since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the flow paths to connect to the system in a space efficient way.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugeja et al (US 20200248836) in view of Lin et al (US 12467546).
Regarding Claim 14, Bugeja et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first valve and the second valve are coaxially aligned, the first valve comprising a driving groove having a predetermined area on one end portion thereof facing the second valve, the second valve comprising a corresponding driving protrusion inserted into the driving groove on one end portion6facing the first valve.
Lin et al teach a multi-port valve (Figure 1) with a first valve (10) and a second valve (20) where the first valve and the second valve are coaxially aligned (Figure 1), the first valve comprising a driving groove (114) having a predetermined area on one end portion thereof facing the second valve (Figure 2), the second valve (20) comprising a corresponding driving protrusion (214) inserted into the driving groove on one end portion6facing the first valve (Col 6, lines 28-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second valve of Bugeja et al with the driving groove and protrusion of Lin et al as taught by Lin et al for the advantage of providing rotational stability, as taught by Lin et al (Col 6, lines 28-36).
Regarding Claim 15, Lin et al teach where the first valve (10) is formed with the driving groove (114) extending from the center axis by a predetermined angle (Figure 2), the second valve (20), while the first valve is rotating, configured not to rotate when the driving protrusion moves within the driving groove and configured to rotate in conjunction with the first valve to cause the driving protrusion to contact and to be pushed by either side of the driving groove when the first valve rotates more than a predetermined angle (Col 7, lines 5-16).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al (US 9657861) in view of Bugeja et al (US 20200248836).
Regarding Claim 17, Enomoto et al disclose a thermal management system (Figure 39) including the multi-port valve apparatus (100). The system comprising:
a first coolant line (to the right in Figure 39) configured to circulate a cooling medium to a first pump (104), a battery (111), and a first heat exchanger (110); and
a second coolant line (to the left in Figure 39) configured to circulate the cooling medium to a second pump (103), a power electronics module (107), a second heat exchanger (108), and a radiator (105),
wherein the coolant from the first coolant line and the second coolant line is selectively shared through the multi-port valve apparatus to switch the flow direction of the cooling medium by the multi-port valve apparatus (via at least 100 in Figure 39),
but fails to expressly disclose where the multi-port apparatus is according to Claim 1.
Bugeja et al teach a multi-port valve apparatus (Figures 1 and 2A) according to Claim 1 (as discussed above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Enomoto et al with the valve apparatus as taught by Bugeja et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a valve within a system to distribute fluid) to yield predictable results (to control the flow of fluid through the system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753