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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0163132A1) in view of Maeda et al. (Translation of WO2020246421A1) and in further view of Enomoto et al. (USP 9649909B2), hereinafter referred to as Jeong, Maeda and Enomoto, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong discloses a thermal management system in which a heat medium circulates, the thermal management system comprising:
a first radiator (206);
a second radiator (107) that is different from the first radiator (shown in figure 1);
a switching device (shown in figure 5) configured to switch a flow path of the heat medium (shown in figures 10-16);
a power storage device (213); and
a drive device (212) capable of generating a drive force (101-105, shown in figure 9), wherein
the switching device switches between
a first heat medium circuit in which the first radiator and the second radiator are separated to be independent of each other (shown in figures 10-13, wherein the high temperature radiator (107) is cooling the power electronics (212) and the low temperature radiator (206) is cooling the battery (213)), and
a second heat medium circuit that includes a series circuit in which the first radiator and the second radiator are connected in series with each other (shown in figure 16);
in the first heat medium circuit,
the first radiator (206) is configured to discharge heat supplied from the power storage device (213) to outside air (the radiator exchanges heat with exterior airflow, “That is, when operating in the evaporator mode, the water cooling type heat exchanger 305 recovers a heat source from the external air through the second radiator 206” ¶175), and
the heat medium flowing through the second radiator (107) exchanges the heat with the drive device (212), and
in the second heat medium circuit,
the heat medium flowing through the series circuit exchanges heat with the drive device (shown in figure 16, “the first radiator 107 and the second radiator 206 are coupled in a way that the coolant can flow through the first radiator 107 and the second radiator 206. The PE part 212 is coupled to the first radiator 107, the second radiator 206, and the water cooling type heat exchanger 305 in a way that the coolant can flow therethrough” ¶184). Jeong fails to disclose each of the first radiator and the second radiator is configured to discharge the heat supplied from the power storage device to the outside air.
Enomoto, also drawn to a vehicle thermal management system, teaches in a second heat medium circuit (shown in figure 12),
a heat medium flowing through a series circuit (shown in figure 12 being the circuit formed by the one dot chain line, wherein the working fluid travels through a first radiator (17), a second radiator (22) and a coolant-heating heat exchanger (42)) exchanges heat with a drive device (21) and
each of a first radiator (17) and a second radiator (22) is configured to discharge the heat supplied from the power storage device (39) to the outside air (the heat from the battery is dissipated through the coolant-heating heat exchanger (42)). It is noted that heat is transferred from the battery module (39) to the coolant-refrigerant heat exchanger (40, see figure 1, “A battery module 39 and a coolant-refrigerant heat exchanger 40 are disposed on the flow passage 34E in series”, col. 6 ll. 44-45) prior to being transferred to the coolant-heating heat exchanger (42). Figure 12 shows the coolant-heating heat exchanger (42) being fluidly connected to the first and second radiators for heat dissipation, therefore said first and second radiators cool the battery (39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the second heat medium circuit of Jeong with each of the first radiator and the second radiator being configured to discharge the heat supplied from the power storage device to the outside air, as taught by Enomoto, the motivation being to continuously cool the battery despite a pump failure (see col. 16 ll. 7-10 and ll. 27-30).
Jeong fails to disclose a control device configured to control the switching device.
Maeda, also drawn to a thermal management device for an electric vehicle, teaches a control device (ECU) that controls the switching device (“The sensor group 31 includes a temperature sensor that detects the temperature of the battery 21 and the PCU system 20. The ECU 30 controls the operations of the first pump 11, the flow path switching valve 40, the flow control valve 15, the second pump 16, and the on-off valve 17 based on various state quantities detected by the sensor group 31. The cooling system 10 is operated in a plurality of operation modes”, wherein the control device controls the switching device to perform a plurality of modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Jeong with a control device that controls the switching device, as taught by Maeda, the motivation being to continuously monitor the temperature of heat generating components of the system and automatically perform valve switching that maintains a desired level of cooling for said heat generating components thereby mitigating failure or degradation of said components.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0163132A1) in view of Maeda et al. (Translation of WO2020246421A1) in view of Enomoto et al. (USP 9649909B2) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Matsutani (Translation of JP2022042435A), hereinafter referred to as Matsutani.
Regarding Claim 3, although a modified Jeong teaches the control device (ECU, as previously taught by Maeda in the rejection of Claim 1) is configured to control the switching device, a modified Jeong fails to teach switching the thermal management system to the second heat medium circuit in a case where the power storage device is externally charged.
Matsutani, also drawn to a thermal management system for an electric vehicle, teaches switching the thermal management system to a second heat medium circuit (shown in figure 3, wherein a first radiator (62) is fluidly connected to a second radiator (42) during external charging) in a case where the power storage device (PCU, 30) is externally charged (“during the external charging, the cooling fluid for cooling the PCU 30 and the battery 32 is cooled by an HV radiator 62 of the HV cooling circuit 28 and the engine radiator 42 of the engine cooling circuit 26 and the cooling fluid efficiently cools the PCU 30 and the battery 32 to inhibit temperature rise”, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the thermal management system of Jeong with switching the thermal management system to the second heat medium circuit in a case where the power storage device is externally charged, as taught by Matsutani, the motivation being “To cool charging related components (a battery and a PCU etc.) efficiently during external charging” (see abstract) in order to reduce degradation or failure of said components due to excessive temperatures.
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Jeong in view of Matsutani further teaches the control device is configured to control the switching device (see rejection of Claim 3 above, wherein the second heat medium circuit of Matsutani is formed by fluidly connecting a first radiator (62) and a second radiator (42) during external charging) to switch the thermal management system to a second heat medium circuit in a case where the power storage device is externally charged through rapid charging (“the distribution switching valve may be connected so that the cooling fluid can be circulated through the first-passage and the second-passage only during rapid charging in which heat generation of cooling-related parts tends to be a problem”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0163132A1) in view of Maeda et al. (Translation of WO2020246421A1) in view of Enomoto et al. (USP 9649909B2) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Lin (US PG Pub. 2024/0116326A1), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
Regarding Claim 5, although a modified Jeong teaches the switching device includes a nine-way valve (double six way valve shown in figure 6) and a bypass valve (109) and the control device (ECU, previously taught by Maeda in the rejection of Claim 1) switches between the first heat medium circuit (shown in figures 10 and 13 of Jeong) and the second heat medium circuit (shown in figure 16 of Jeong) by controlling (the controller is taught by Maeda in the rejection of Claim 1) each of the nine-way valve and the bypass valve, Jeong fails to disclose the switching device includes a nine-way valve and a five-way valve.
Lin, also drawn to a thermal management system for an electric vehicle, teaches a switching device includes a nine-way valve (2) and a five-way valve (3); and a control device (“The temperature control of devices such as the battery 92 and the motor 91 is automatically carried out by an electronic control part according to the temperatures of the devices”, ¶31).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a twelve way valve and bypass valve with a nine way valve and a five way valve; further the prior art to Lin teaches a nine way valve and a five way valve are known for controlling the fluid distribution within a thermal management system of an electric vehicle. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Jeong with having a nine way valve and a five way valve for controlling fluid distribution, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Lin there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Jeong by having a nine way valve and a five way valve to produce the desired fluid distribution.
Alternately, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the fluid distribution of Jeong with a nine way valve and a five way valve as taught by Lin as this is a well-known and suitable arrangement for distributing fluid in different modes within a cooling system of an electric vehicle. Further, it is a matter of engineering design to arrange fluid distribution in different ways, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Finally, one would have a reasonable expectation of success by changing the arrangement of the fluid distribution to include a nine way valve and a five way valve as Lin teaches this arrangement is a known and suitable arrangement in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
