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 .
The claims received 6/15/2026 have been entered.
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.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“compression device” includes the generic/nonce term “device” coupled with the function of “compression”. A return to the specification provides a compressor. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
The following limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Although the phrase “expansion device” combines the nonce term “device” with the function of “expansion” the phrase is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) as it is considered to have sufficiently definite meaning in the art corresponding to a structure. MPEP 2181
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano et al (US 11,833,887).
Regarding claim 1, Kawano discloses (references made to figure 4 unless otherwise noted) a thermal conditioning system for an electric or hybrid motor vehicle, comprising:
a refrigerant circuit (10) comprising a main circulation loop comprising in succession, in a direction of circulation of the refrigerant:
a compression device (11),
a first two-fluid exchanger (12), arranged both on the main refrigerant loop (10) and on a heat transfer liquid circuit (20) so as to allow a heat exchange between the refrigerant and the heat transfer liquid,
a first expansion device (14a),
a second two-fluid exchanger (15),
a dielectric heat transfer fluid circuit (40 and 50; water or ethylene glycol are listed as the fluids therein which both exhibit a dielectric property), comprising:
a primary circulation loop (40) comprising in succession, in a direction of circulation of the dielectric heat transfer fluid:
the second two-fluid exchanger (15), arranged both on the main refrigerant loop (10) and on the primary dielectric heat transfer fluid loop (40) so as to allow a heat exchange between the refrigerant and the dielectric heat transfer fluid,
a third heat exchanger (51) configured to be thermally coupled to a first element of an electric drive train of the vehicle (12:28-34),
a first bypass branch (branch including 42 and 43) connected to the primary loop (40) in parallel with the third heat exchanger (51), the first bypass branch comprising a fourth heat exchanger (42) configured to be thermally coupled to a second element of the electric drive train of the vehicle (“battery”) and a fifth heat exchanger (43) configured to be thermally coupled to a third element of the electric drive train of the vehicle (“charger”),
a second bypass branch (branch including 35b and 54) connected to the primary loop (40) in parallel with the second two-fluid exchanger (15), the second bypass branch comprising a sixth heat exchanger (35b) configured to exchange heat with an air stream (OA) outside a passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Kawano discloses the heat transfer liquid circuit (20) comprises a primary circulation loop comprising in succession, in a direction of circulation of the heat transfer liquid:
the first two-fluid exchanger (12), arranged both on the main refrigerant loop (10) and on the primary heat transfer liquid circulation loop (20) so as to allow a heat exchange between the refrigerant and the heat transfer liquid,
a seventh heat exchanger (22) configured to exchange heat with an air stream (W) inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Kawano discloses the heat transfer liquid circuit (20) comprises:
a bypass branch (branch including 35a) connected to the primary loop in parallel with the first two-fluid exchanger (12), the bypass branch comprising an eighth heat exchanger (35a) configured to exchange heat with an air stream (OA) outside the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Kawano discloses the refrigerant circuit (10) comprises:
a bypass branch (branch including 16) positioned in parallel with the first expansion device (14a) and the second two-fluid exchanger (15),
the bypass branch comprises in succession a second expansion device (14b) and a ninth heat exchanger (16) configured to exchange heat with an air stream (W) inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Kawano discloses the primary loop (40) of the dielectric heat transfer fluid circuit comprises a first circulation pump (41).
Regarding claim 6, Kawano discloses the primary loop of the heat transfer liquid circuit (20) comprises a second circulation pump (27).
Regarding claim 7, Kawano discloses the primary loop (40) of the dielectric heat transfer fluid circuit comprises a third circulation pump (52) configured to take the dielectric heat transfer fluid from the third heat exchanger (51) to the sixth heat exchanger (35b) without passing through the second two-fluid exchanger (15).
Regarding claim 9, Kawano discloses the dielectric heat transfer fluid circuit (40 and 50) comprises:
a first three-way valve (44) positioned both on the primary loop and on the first bypass branch (branch having 42 and 43), and
a second three-way valve (53) positioned both on the primary loop (40) and on the second bypass branch (branch including 35b and 54), and
wherein the heat transfer liquid circuit (20) comprises a third three-way valve (30; valve 30 controls a three-way junction 24 and thus is a 3-way valve) positioned both on the primary loop and on the bypass branch (branch including 35a).
Regarding claim 10, Kawano discloses a method of operation of a thermal conditioning system as claimed in claim 2 in a passenger compartment heating mode (columns 20-22), wherein:
the refrigerant circulates in the compression device (11) where it becomes high- pressure refrigerant, and circulates in succession in the first two-fluid exchanger (12) where it gives up heat to the heat transfer liquid, in the first expansion device (14a) where it becomes low-pressure refrigerant, and in the second two-fluid exchanger (15) where it absorbs heat from the dielectric heat transfer fluid, and returns to the compression device (11),
the dielectric heat transfer fluid circulates in the second two-fluid exchanger (15) where it gives up heat to the refrigerant, and splits (by way of valve 44) into:
a first flow circulating in the primary loop, and
a second flow circulating in the second bypass branch (branch including 35b), the second flow circulating in the sixth heat exchanger (35b) where it absorbs heat from the outside air stream (OA),
the first flow splitting into a third flow (by way of valve 53) circulating in the third heat exchanger (51) where it absorbs heat, and a fourth flow circulating in succession in the fourth heat exchanger (42) where it absorbs heat, and in the fifth heat exchanger (43) where it absorbs heat,
the third flow and the fourth flow coming back together with each other and then coming back together (at unlabeled junction opposite 44) with the second flow,
the heat transfer liquid circulates in the first two-fluid exchanger (12) where it receives heat from the refrigerant, and circulates in the seventh heat exchanger (22) where it gives up heat to the inside air stream (W).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano et al (US 11,833,887) in view of Amaral (US 6,895,773).
Regarding claim 8, Kawano discloses the thermal conditioning system as claimed in claim 1, but lacks an internal heat exchanger.
Amaral discloses (references made to figure 7) wherein the main refrigerant loop (12) comprises:
an internal heat exchanger (“I”) comprises:
a first heat exchange section positioned downstream of a first two-fluid exchanger (18) and upstream of a second two-fluid exchanger (16), and
a second heat exchange section positioned downstream of the second two fluid exchanger (16) and upstream of a compression device (20),
the internal heat exchanger (“I”) being configured to allow a heat exchange between the refrigerant in the first heat exchange section and the refrigerant in the second heat exchange section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an internal heat exchanger to Kawano as taught by Amaral in order to increase heat pump performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discusses the feature of the second two-fluid exchanger and the third heat exchanger being in succession of claim 1. In response, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art.
Applicant provides at page 11 the cooling mode, heating mode, and defrosting mode overlaid onto figure 4 of Kawano. However as discussed above the apparatus claim is directed to what a device is and not what a device does. Below is a mapping of a capable operation of Kawano, such as could be achieved during a switching between the modes:
PNG
media_image1.png
979
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding pages 15-16, Amaral is not relied on for claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Durrani et al (US 12,319,127) - heat pump arrangement for vehicle battery conditioning.
Brown et al (US 11,560,042) – heat pump arrangement.
Yano et al (US 11,413,931) – heat pump for vehicle battery.
Kim et al (US 10,717,337) – heat pump system for vehicle with 3-way valve arrangement.
Cagliero et al (US 2022/0332163) heat pump for vehicle battery.
Kinoshita et al (US 2021/0291628) heat pump arrangement.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights