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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a fluid transfer device” in claim 1;
“a control unit” in claim 1;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
After reviewing the specification, the fluid transfer device appears to be drawn to a heater/PTC heater, or known equivalents, per paragraph [0074], and the control unit appears to be drawn to a controller, or known equivalents, per paragraphs [0049] and [0057].
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)(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 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FOR1 (KR1020230146382).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, FOR1 teaches a vehicle thermal management system (see Title, claim 1) comprising:
a fluid transfer device configured to perform a cooling or heating function for interior air conditioning of a vehicle with electric power (see the air conditioning system noted in the Description, “The vehicle's air conditioning control system includes components such as a compressor, condenser, expansion valve, and evaporator. Additionally, a cooling fan that moves air around the condenser, a blower that moves air around the evaporator, and an inside and outside device that introduces outside air. A airway door, a heater (for example, a PTC heater) that warms the air passing through the evaporator, and a temp door that controls the air flow rate toward the electric heater may be further included”); and
a control unit configured to control the fluid transfer device based on an optimal control value obtained by reflecting air conditioning target tracking performance and energy consumption for air conditioning target tracking (see Abstract, “a controller which receives target temperature and sensor values and determines optimal control variables based on a cost function that reflects tracking performance and energy consumption for tracking the input target temperature using a control model; and a plant which receives control variables determined by the controller and operates to cool or heat the interior of a vehicle based on the received control variables”),
wherein proportions of the air conditioning target tracking performance and the energy consumption for the air conditioning target tracking reflected in the optimal control value vary based on an input optimal control setting value (“The controller 100 according to the present invention is a model-based predictive optimal control (MPC), which is a current control that minimizes the cost function reflecting energy consumption and followability in a time window consisting of a distant future from the present time. Output the variable (u0) and repeat the calculation in a new time window at the next time point to set the optimal control variable”).
Regarding claim 16, FOR1 teaches the vehicle thermal management system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine a control value that minimizes a cost function for a preset prediction range as the optimal control value (see Abstract, MPC noted in the Description), and the cost function reflects a state cost having a first weight for the air conditioning target tracking performance and a control input cost having a second weight for the energy consumption for the air conditioning target tracking (see Description, “The plant 200 is a compressor that compresses and discharges the introduced refrigerant, and in the step (S20) of determining the optimal control variable, constraints on the flow rate of the refrigerant according to the highest or lowest rotational speed of the compressor are satisfied. It can be determined by the control variable. The plant 200 is a cooling fan that flows air around a compressor or condenser that compresses and discharges the introduced refrigerant, and in the step of determining the optimal control variable (S20), the cost function is the power consumption of the compressor or cooling. It can reflect the power consumption of the fan”).
Regarding claim 17, FOR1 teaches the vehicle thermal management system of claim 16, wherein the first weight and the second weight vary based on the optimal control setting value, and as the first weight increases, the proportion of the air conditioning target tracking performance reflected in the optimal control value increases, and as the second weight increases, the proportion of the air conditioning target tracking reflected in the optimal control value increases (see Description, “The plant 200 is a compressor that compresses and discharges the introduced refrigerant, and in the step (S20) of determining the optimal control variable, constraints on the flow rate of the refrigerant according to the highest or lowest rotational speed of the compressor are satisfied. It can be determined by the control variable. The plant 200 is a cooling fan that flows air around a compressor or condenser that compresses and discharges the introduced refrigerant, and in the step of determining the optimal control variable (S20), the cost function is the power consumption of the compressor or cooling. It can reflect the power consumption of the fan”).
Regarding claim 18, FOR1 teaches the vehicle thermal management system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to derive the optimal control value using a control model for a predictive state value according to a current state value (see Description, “The controller 100 according to the present invention is a model-based predictive optimal control (MPC), which is a current control that minimizes the cost function reflecting energy consumption and followability in a time window consisting of a distant future from the present time. Output the variable (u0) and repeat the calculation in a new time window at the next time point to set the optimal control variable”).
Regarding claim 19, FOR1 teaches the vehicle thermal management system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to store the optimal control setting value and derive the optimal control value based on the stored optimal control setting value (see Description, “Controller 100 according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention includes a non-volatile memory (not shown) configured to store data regarding algorithms configured to control the operation of various components of the vehicle or software instructions that reproduce the algorithms, and It may be implemented through a processor (not shown) configured to perform the operations described below using data stored in the corresponding memory”).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Hadano (US 2022/0234421).
Regarding claim 20, FOR1 teaches the vehicle thermal management system of claim 1, but does not teach an interface unit configured to receive the optimal control setting value from a user, and to transmit the received optimal control setting value to the control unit.
Hadano teaches a vehicle air conditioning system which features a user interface for setting temperature (Hadano, paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with an interface unit for setting values from a user, as taught by Hadano, in order to provide greater user interactivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights