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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 A diagnostic method for a vehicle cooling system for a vehicle where a high-power unit is mounted, wherein the vehicle cooling system includes a first cooling system structured to cool the high-power unit with a first coolant, and wherein the first cooling system includes: a main passage structured to allow the first coolant to circulate through the main passage; a radiator structured to perform heat exchange with the first coolant; a bypass passage connected to the main passage so as to bypass the radiator; and a bypass valve structured to control a flow rate of the first coolant flowing through the bypass passage, the diagnostic method comprising:
diagnosing, based on a first temperature and a second temperature, whether the bypass valve is in a state allowing the first coolant to flow to the radiator, or in a state preventing the first coolant from flowing to the radiator, wherein the first temperature is a temperature of the first coolant at a first location of the main passage downstream of the radiator and upstream of a downstream end of the bypass passage in a direction of flow of the first coolant, and wherein the second temperature is a temperature of the first coolant at a second location of the main passage downstream of the downstream end of the bypass passage and upstream of the high-power unit in the direction of flow of the first coolant.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “diagnosing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at first temperature and second temperature data and performing an evaluation. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
Similar rationale is applied to independent claim 8.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, there at no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional steps of diagnosing conditions or performing calculations which can be performed as mental evaluations. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Double Patenting
Claim 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3-6 of copending Application No. 18/852,198 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope than the copending claims. Additionally, while different phrasing is used in the claim language the overlapping subject matter is the same.
Instant claim
Copending Claim
1, 9
3
2
4
5
5
6
6
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art is regarded to be CN 118934210 A which is similarly directed towards using temperature differences to determine whether the cooling system thermostat is faulty but is silent regarding the combination of limitations of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM 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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619