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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “to change connection states of the first valve and the second valve in accordance with an outside air temperature to change a heat radiation unit of heat generated by the electric heater in the electricity waste control”. It cannot be understood how adjusting the valves in accordance with an outside air temperature would change a heat radiation unit of heat generated by the heater. Applicant has failed to provide sufficient direction for one having ordinary skill in the art to understand how the radiation unit of the heater would change according to external parameters since “radiation unit” would appear to be a physical property of the heater. It appears this term may be a mistranslation. A certified translation providing a different translation of “heat radiation unit” may resolve the issue. Claims 2-4 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples of terms that are not idiomatic include “electricity waste control” and “heat radiation unit of heat generated by the electric heater”.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2018/0072130).
Regarding claim 1, Kim shows a vehicle, comprising:
a battery (see at least battery #B);
a drive device including a motor (see at least electronic components #16 including motor #15);
a drive device cooling circuit configured to allow a first coolant to flow and adjust a temperature of the drive device (see at least circuit #10/#11);
a battery cooling circuit configured to allow the first coolant to flow and adjust a temperature of the battery (see at least circuit #101);
a refrigeration cycle for air conditioning (see at least air conditioner #20) including an electric compressor (see at least compressor #31), a condenser (see at least internal condenser #23), an outdoor heat exchanger (see at least external condenser #35), and an evaporator (see at least evaporator #27), and configured to allow a second coolant to flow (i.e. refrigerant);
a control device (see at least paragraph [0073]: controller);
a first valve configured to switch between a communication state in which the drive device cooling circuit and the battery cooling circuit communicate with each other and a non-communication state in which the drive device cooling circuit and the battery cooling circuit discommunicate with each other (see at least valve #V1: compare, for example Figure 2 and Figure 4);
a second valve configured to switch between a bypass state in which the drive device cooling circuit is configured to allow the first coolant to flow through a bypass flow path bypassing a radiator provided in the drive device cooling circuit and a non-bypass state in which the drive device cooling circuit is configured to allow the first coolant to flow through the radiator (see at least valve #V3: compare, for example Figures 2 and 3 and Figure 4);
a chiller configured to exchange heat between the first coolant flowing through the battery cooling circuit and the second coolant flowing through the refrigeration cycle (see at least chiller #110); and
an electric heater provided in the battery cooling circuit (see at least heater #105), wherein
the control device is configured to operate the electric heater (see at least paragraphs [0092]-[0094]; [0154]: control device is required to operate the heater #105 in the context of vehicle/vehicle heat pump system) to perform an electricity waste control when an electricity storage amount in the battery is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount (Examiner notes that the heater will be operated regardless of the electricity storage amount and thus Kim is deemed capable of meeting the limitation; Examiner also reminds Applicant of MPEP 2114 II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.): in view that the structures correspond to those claimed, Kim is considered to meet the claim), and
the control device is configured to change connection states of the first valve and the second valve (see at least paragraph [0083]: control device is required to operate valves #V1 and/or V3 to allow for selective communication between the circuits #10/#11 and #111) in accordance with an outside air temperature to change a heat radiation unit of heat generated by the electric heater in the electricity waste control (Examiner notes that the valves will be adjusted to maintain coolant/air conditioning temperatures which are dependent on outside air temperature and thus Kim is deemed capable of meeting the limitation; Examiner also reminds Applicant of MPEP 2114 II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.): in view that the structures correspond to those claimed, Kim is considered to meet the claim).
Regarding claim 2, Kim further shows wherein the control device is configured, in the electricity waste control, to force the heat to be radiated from the radiator when the outside air temperature is equal to or lower than a first temperature (Examiner notes if connected to the radiator and if the heater is operated, the radiator #12 will dissipate the heat regardless of temperature and thus Kim is deemed capable of meeting the limitation; Examiner also reminds Applicant of MPEP 2114 II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.): in view that the structures correspond to those claimed, Kim is considered to meet the claim), and to operate the electric compressor and force the heat to be radiated from the outdoor heat exchanger when the outside air temperature is higher than the first temperature (Examiner notes if connected to the refrigeration circuit and if the heater is operated, the external condenser #35 will dissipate the heat regardless of temperature when conditioning is desired and the compressor #31 is run and thus Kim is deemed capable of meeting the limitation; Examiner also reminds Applicant of MPEP 2114 II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.): in view that the structures correspond to those claimed, Kim is considered to meet the claim).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further shows wherein the control device is configured, in the electricity waste control, to set the first valve to the communication state and set the second valve to the non-bypass state to force the heat to be radiated from the radiator when the outside air temperature is equal to or lower than the first temperature, and to set the first valve to the non-communication state and operate the electric compressor to force the heat to be radiated from the outdoor heat exchanger when the outside air temperature is higher than the first temperature.
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.
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2021/0296964).
Kim does not disclose further comprising:
a heater core circuit including a heater core and a second electric heater, and configured to allow a third coolant to flow, wherein
the condenser is configured to allow a heat exchange between the second coolant flowing through the refrigeration cycle and the third coolant flowing through the heater core circuit, and
the control device is configured, in the electricity waste control, to operate the second electric heater when an occupant uses air conditioning.
Sakamoto et al. teaches another vehicle/vehicle heat pump system comprising a heater core circuit (see at least #30) including a heater core (see at least heater core #74) and a second electric heater (see at least electric heater #71), and configured to allow a third coolant to flow (see at least paragraph [0045]), wherein
the condenser (see ate least condenser #67) is configured to allow a heat exchange between the second coolant flowing through the refrigeration cycle and the third coolant flowing through the heater core circuit (see at least paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Kim with further comprising: a heater core circuit including a heater core and a second electric heater, and configured to allow a third coolant to flow, wherein the condenser is configured to allow a heat exchange between the second coolant flowing through the refrigeration cycle and the third coolant flowing through the heater core circuit, as taught by Sakamoto et al., to improve the system of Kim by allowing for more efficient and effective cabin heating.
The combination of Kim and Sakamoto et al. meets the control device is configured, in the electricity waste control, to operate the second electric heater when an occupant uses air conditioning (Examiner notes if heating is desired, the heater will be run during air conditioning (which can include heating) regardless of battery status and thus Kim in view of Sakamoto et al. is deemed capable of meeting the limitation; Examiner also reminds Applicant of MPEP 2114 II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.): in view that the structures correspond to those claimed, Kim in view of Sakamoto et al. is considered to meet the claim).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the claimed invention and would be applicable in additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights