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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/11/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In particular, Doc. No. AK, publication number “201/04367081” is not a valid number.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claim 12 recites: “a first temperature measuring device of the two temperature measuring devices is arranged upstream of the valve in a coolant flow direction”. This limitation is not disclosed in original disclosure.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abihana US 2015/0066263 (hereinafter Abihana) in view of MOGHIMI et al. US 2017 /0309929 (hereinafter MOGHIMI).
Regarding claim 1, Abihana teaches: a method for operating a heavy-duty component, the method comprising:
determining a first quantity of heat created by the heavy-duty component ([0025] - - engine speed and load represents heat created),
determining a second quantity of heat that is capable of being dissipated by a volume flow of a coolant ([0025] - - differential temperature between coolant inlet temperature and coolant outlet temperature represents heat can be dissipated),
determining a difference between the first quantity of heat and the second quantity of heat ([0025] - - the equation represents a difference between heat generated and heat being dissipated since (-9.52) parameter is negative), and
based on the difference of the first quantity of heat and the second quantity of heat,
at a first operating point at which the second quantity of heat is greater than the first quantity of heat, reducing the volume flow ([0025] - - the equation shows if the load decreases, thus the dissipating heat would be greater than the created heat, the flow decreases),
at a second operating point at which the second quantity of heat is less than the first quantity of heat, increasing the volume flow ([0025] - - the equation shows if the load increases, thus the dissipating heat would be less than the created heat, the flow increases),
But Abihana does not explicitly teach:
at a third operating point at which a third quantity of heat that is capable of being dissipated by a maximum volume flow of the coolant is less than or equal to the first quantity of heat that is created, reducing the first quantity of heat.
However, MOGHIMI teaches:
at a third operating point at which a third quantity of heat that is capable of being dissipated by a maximum volume flow of the coolant is less than or equal to the first quantity of heat that is created, reducing the first quantity of heat ([0041] - - in response to the coolant flow rate reaching a maximum threshold rate, reduce the electrical power output of the fuel cell assembly).
Abihana and MOGHIMI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Abihana, and incorporating reducing heat generated as taught by MOGHIMI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid overheating, as suggested by MOGHIMI ([0040]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Abihana further teaches: the second quantity of heat that is capable of dissipated by the volume flow is determined a difference of two temperatures of the coolant ([0025] - - differential temperature between coolant inlet temperature and coolant outlet temperature represents heat can be dissipated).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Abihana further teaches: the second quantity of heat that is capable of dissipated is determined from at least one temperature of the coolant and the volume flow ([0025] - - the equation shows the relationship between the coolant flow rate, engine speed, load and differential temperature between coolant inlet temperature and coolant outlet temperature; The equation can be arrange to:
48.5+(0.018*EngineSpeed)+(39.6*Load)+(-0.952*ΔT)-Electric Coolant Pump Flow = 0
The latter two terms represents the heat being dissipated, which is determined from the differential temperature and flow).
Regarding claim 6, Abihana teaches: a method for operating a heavy-duty component, the method comprising:
determining a first temperature of a coolant in a direction of flow upstream of the heavy-duty component ([0025] - - coolant inlet temperature),
determining a second temperature of the coolant in the direction of flow downstream of the heavy-duty component ([0025] - - coolant outlet temperature),
determining a difference between the first temperature and the second temperature ([0025] - - differential temperature between coolant inlet temperature and coolant outlet temperature), and
based on the difference between the first temperature and the second temperature, and
at a first operating point at which a volume flow of the coolant is capable of dissipating a first quantity of heat that is greater than a quantity of heat that is created, reducing the volume flow of the coolant ([0025] - - the equation shows if the load decreases, thus the dissipating heat would be greater than the created heat, the flow decreases),
at a second operating point at which a volume flow of the coolant capable of dissipating a second quantity of heat that is less than the quantity of heat that is created, increasing the volume flow ([0025] - - the equation shows if the load increases, thus the dissipating heat would be less than the created heat, the flow increases),
But Abihana does not explicitly teach:
at a third operating point at which a maximum volume flow of the coolant capable of dissipating a third quantity of heat that is less than or equal to the quantity of heat that is created, reducing the quantity of heat that is created.
However, MOGHIMI teaches:
at a third operating point at which a maximum volume flow of the coolant capable of dissipating a third quantity of heat that is less than or equal to the quantity of heat that is created, reducing the quantity of heat that is created ([0041] - - in response to the coolant flow rate reaching a maximum threshold rate, reduce the electrical power output of the fuel cell assembly).
Abihana and MOGHIMI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Abihana, and incorporating reducing heat generated as taught by MOGHIMI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid overheating, as suggested by MOGHIMI ([0040]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
MOGHIMI further teaches: the reducing the first quantity of heat comprises reducing an output power of the heavy-duty component ([0041] - - in response to the coolant flow rate reaching a maximum threshold rate, reduce the electrical power output of the fuel cell assembly).
Claims 4, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abihana US 2015/0066263 (hereinafter Abihana) in view of MOGHIMI et al. US 2017/0309929 (hereinafter MOGHIMI) and further in view of Ohashi et al. US 2012/0028135 (hereinafter Ohashi).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Abihana further teaches: the second quantity of heat that is capable of being dissipated by the volume flow is determined from at least one temperature of the coolant and a position of an inlet valve ([0025] - - the equation shows the relationship between the coolant flow rate, engine speed, load and differential temperature between coolant inlet temperature and coolant outlet temperature; The equation can be arrange to:
48.5+(0.018*EngineSpeed)+(39.6*Load)+(-0.952*ΔT)-Electric Coolant Pump Flow = 0
The latter two terms represents the heat being dissipated, which is determined from the differential temperature and flow).
But the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI does not explicitly teach:
a position of an inlet valve
However, Ohashi teaches:
a position of an inlet valve ([0059] - - a valve for regulating coolant flow)
Abihana, MOGHIMI and Ohashi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI, and incorporating controlling flow by a valve as taught by Ohashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve coolant flow control, as suggested by Ohashi ([0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Abihana teaches: a control device for controlling a volume flow of a coolant for cooling a heavy-duty component, the control device comprising two temperature measuring devices ([0018] - - sensors that measures coolant temperature), wherein the control device controls in such a manner that
at a first operating point at which the volume flow of the coolant is capable of dissipating a first quantity of heat that is greater than a quantity of heat that is created by the heavy-duty component, the volume flow of the coolant is reduced ([0025] - - the equation shows if the load decreases, thus the dissipating heat would be greater than the created heat, the flow decreases),
at a second operating point at which the volume flow of the coolant is capable of dissipating a second quantity of heat that is less than the quantity of heat that is created by the heavy-duty component, the volume flow of the coolant is increased ([0025] - - the equation shows if the load increases, thus the dissipating heat would be less than the created heat, the flow increases),
But Abihana does not explicitly teach:
at a third operating point at which a maximum volume flow of the coolant is capable of dissipating a third quantity of heat that is less than or equal to the quantity of heat that is created, the control device is configured to reduce the quantity of heat created by the heavy-duty component.
However, MOGHIMI teaches:
at a third operating point at which a maximum volume flow of the coolant is capable of dissipating a third quantity of heat that is less than or equal to the quantity of heat that is created, the control device is configured to reduce the quantity of heat created by the heavy-duty component ([0041] - - in response to the coolant flow rate reaching a maximum threshold rate, reduce the electrical power output of the fuel cell assembly).
Abihana and MOGHIMI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above control device, as taught by Abihana, and incorporating reducing heat generated as taught by MOGHIMI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid overheating, as suggested by MOGHIMI ([0040]).
But the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI does not explicitly teach:
a valve that is configured for regulating the volume flow of the coolant and a valve control
However, Ohashi teaches:
a valve that is configured for regulating the volume flow of the coolant and a valve control ([0059] - - a valve for regulating coolant flow)
Abihana, MOGHIMI and Ohashi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI, and incorporating controlling flow by a valve as taught by Ohashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve coolant flow control, as suggested by Ohashi ([0059]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Abihana, MOGHIMI and Ohashi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Abihana further teaches: a first temperature measuring device of the two temperature measuring devices is arranged upstream in a coolant flow direction, and a second temperature measuring device of the two temperature measuring devices is arranged downstream in the coolant flow direction ([0025] - - the sensor which measures coolant inlet temperature is a first temperature measuring device; the sensor which measures coolant outlet temperature is a second temperature measuring device).
Ohashi further teaches: a valve in between two temperature sensors (Fig. 1, [0059] - - a valve for regulating coolant flow; the valve 34 is upstream from sensor temperature 36, downstream from temperature sensor 32)
Abihana, MOGHIMI and Suzuki are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claims 5, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abihana US 2015/0066263 (hereinafter Abihana) in view of MOGHIMI et al. US 2017/0309929 (hereinafter MOGHIMI) and further in view of Hoffmann et al. DE102006018771 (hereinafter Hoffmann).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI does not explicitly teach:
the difference between the first quantity of heat and the second quantity of heat determined from a difference of a temperature of the heavy-duty component and a temperature of the coolant downstream of the heavy-duty component.
However, Hoffmann teaches:
the difference between the first quantity of heat and the second quantity of heat determined from a difference of a temperature of the heavy-duty component and a temperature of the coolant downstream of the heavy-duty component (page 2 - -temperature difference between the at least an actual temperature at the power loss source and the actual temperature at the coolant inlet is determined; the temperature at the power loss source is a temperature of the heavy-duty component)
Abihana, MOGHIMI and Hoffmann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI, and incorporating temperature difference between component and coolant as taught by Hoffmann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide protection in a simple and efficient manner, as suggested by Hoffmann (Page 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI does not explicitly teach:
the reducing the first quantity of heat comprises switching off the heavy-duty component.
However, Hoffmann teaches:
the reducing the first quantity of heat comprises switching off the heavy-duty component (page 2 - - overload protection reaction including a shutdown signal)
Abihana, MOGHIMI and Hoffmann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI, and incorporating shutting off as taught by Hoffmann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide protection in a simple and efficient manner, as suggested by Hoffmann (Page 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
MOGHIMI teaches: upon determining that, at the third operating point at which the third quantity of heat is less than or equal to the first quantity of heat,
But the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI does not explicitly teach:
outputting a warning.
However, Hoffmann teaches:
outputting a warning (page 2 - - overload protection reaction including a warning signal)
Abihana, MOGHIMI and Hoffmann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI, and incorporating outputting warming as taught by Hoffmann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide protection in a simple and efficient manner, as suggested by Hoffmann (Page 1).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abihana US 2015/0066263 (hereinafter Abihana) in view of MOGHIMI et al. US 2017/0309929 (hereinafter MOGHIMI) and further in view of Dorrich et al. US 2006/0225449 (hereinafter Dorrich).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI does not explicitly teach:
determining an air humidity in proximity to the heavy-duty component and upon determining that, due to low temperature of the heavy-duty component and/or of the volume flow of the coolant water is precipitating or is threatening to precipitate out of air in proximity to the heavy-duty component, reducing the volume flow of the coolant in such a manner that no water precipitates out of the air.
However, Dorrich teaches:
determining an air humidity in proximity to the heavy-duty component and upon determining that, due to low temperature of the heavy-duty component and/or of the volume flow of the coolant water is precipitating or is threatening to precipitate out of air in proximity to the heavy-duty component, reducing the volume flow of the coolant in such a manner that no water precipitates out of the air ([0029] - - the outlet temperature is maintained in a range to avoid moisture precipitation; claim 5 - - flow of the cooling medium is controlled based on outlet temperature; thus the flow of the cooling medium is controlled to avoid precipitation)
Abihana, MOGHIMI and Dorrich are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to cooling system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Abihana and MOGHIMI, and incorporating control coolant flow to avoid precipitation as taught by Dorrich.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent damaging electronics, as suggested by Dorrich ([0029]).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abihana US 2015/0066263 (hereinafter Abihana) in view of MOGHIMI et al. US 2017/0309929 (hereinafter MOGHIMI) and further in view of Dorrich et al. US 2006/0225449 (hereinafter Dorrich) and further in view of Raghunathan et al. US 10,750,416 (hereinafter Raghunathan).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Abihana, MOGHIMI and Dorrich teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Abihana, MOGHIMI and Dorrich does not explicitly teach: whether water is precipitating out of the air is determined prior to supplying the heavy-duty component with voltage.
However, Raghunathan teaches: whether water is precipitating out of the air is determined prior to supplying a heavy-duty component with voltage (Abstract - - In response to at least that determination, but before the forecast precipitation occurs, the device will then be reconfigured).
Abihana, MOGHIMI, Dorrich and Raghunathan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to control system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Abihana, MOGHIMI and Dorrich, and incorporating determining precipitation before operating a device as taught by Raghunathan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to minimize precipitation associated issues, as suggested by Raghunathan (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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 supervisor, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights