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 .
Examiner’s Note
The previous rejection mailed 06/11/2025 is withdrawn and a new rejection is provided below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims make reference to “supercharged intake air” where it is understood from the disclosure and art that this air is compressed intake air from devices such as a turbocharger, blower, and/or supercharger, not specifically only a supercharger.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshijima (US 2023/0043087).
Regarding claim 1, Koshijima discloses a cooling system for a hybrid vehicle where a high-power unit 32 is mounted Fig. 2 and ¶ [0022], the cooler 32 being for an inverter and motor generator), the cooling system comprising:
a first cooling system structured to cool the high-power unit with a first coolant (Fig. 2, shown cooling system which sends coolant to the unit at 32 which is part of a “high-power unit”);
wherein the first cooling system includes: a main passage structured to allow the first coolant to circulate through the main passage (Fig. 2, shown coolant loop);
a radiator 25 structured to perform heat exchange with the first coolant (Fig.2, shown);
a cooler 34 structured to cool supercharged intake air supplied to an internal combustion engine mounted on the hybrid vehicle (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0022], the intercooler 34 being for compressed intake air));
a bypass passage 26 connected to the main passage so as to bypass the radiator (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0050], the radiator can be bypassed); and
a bypass valve 26 structured to control a flow rate of the first coolant flowing through the bypass passage (¶ [0021], a bypass valve is included);
wherein the cooler is located downstream of the high-power unit and upstream of the radiator in a direction of flow of the first coolant (Fig. 2, coolant exits pumps 23 24, goes through the main circuit before reaching the high power unit 32 and then intercooler 34); and
wherein the bypass valve is structured to be controlled to prevent the first coolant from flowing to the radiator, in response to a condition that the first coolant has a temperature lower than a first predetermined value (¶ [0021], when the temperature is too low the valve 26 bypasses radiator 25).
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.
Claim(s ) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshijima.
Regarding claim 7, Koshijima discloses cooling system as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the internal combustion engine is structured such that a part of exhaust gas is supplied to an upstream side of the cooler.
The usage of exhaust gas recirculation within a turbocharged or supercharged system is sufficiently old and well-known in the art that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Koshijima to include an EGR system such that exhaust gas would pass through a CAC/Intercooler before reaching an engine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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: The closest prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a hybrid vehicle cooling system, particularly one that routes through the high-power unit (e.g. inverter, generator, motors) as well as an engine intercooler, which includes the temperature sensors in the specified system layout at a location upstream from the radiator, but downstream from the intercooler, wherein the a diagnostic according to claim 2 is performed to diagnose if flow is passing through the radiator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koshijima (US 2023/0043087).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A LATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/KEVIN A LATHERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747