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:
“drive device”.
“switching device” in claims 1-3 and 5.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
the term “device” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “configured to generate a driving force”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
the term “device” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “switching”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The specification defines drive device, “Each of PCU 450 and the drive unit 460 is an exemplary "drive device". Therefore, the drive device will be construed as a PCU, motor, and/or equivalents thereof.
The specification defines switching device, “Note that each of the nine-way valve 100 and the five-way valve 200 is an example of a "switching device" of the present disclosure”. Therefore, the drive device will be construed as multi-way valve, and/or 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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20230358325A1) in view of MIYOSHI (US20200353790A1: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches a thermal management system (see Figures 13A-14B) in which a heat transfer medium circulates (see ¶ ¶ [0065-0066]), the thermal management system comprising: a radiator (231); a drive device (211) that includes a heat exchanger and that is configured to generate a driving force (see ¶ [0050]: Examiner notes that 211 inherently includes a heat exchanger since the coolant flows through it to absorb heat); a chiller device (261); a switching device (300) that switches a flow path of the heat transfer medium (see ¶ [0065]); and a first heat transfer medium circuit (see Figure 14B) in which the heat exchanger (heat exchanger of 211), the radiator (231), and the chiller device (261) are connected (see Figure 14B where the heat exchanger of 211, 231, and 261 are connected in series), a second heat transfer medium circuit (see Figure 13B) in which the radiator (231) is isolated from the first heat transfer medium circuit (see Figure 13B where 231 is isolated).
CHEN does not teach a control device that controls the switching device, wherein, when heating is requested, the control device controls the switching device to establish the first heat transfer medium circuit when a temperature of the heat transfer medium that is flowing through the radiator is lower than ambient air temperature, and controls the switching device to establish the second heat transfer medium circuit ,when the temperature of the heat transfer medium that is flowing through the radiator is no lower than the ambient air temperature.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for thermal management systems to have a control device that controls the valves based on the ambient air temperature, as evidenced by MIYOSHI, see MIYOSHI’s ¶¶ [0065 and 0126] and Figure 13 where thermal management system (1) comprises a radiator (33); a drive device (motor of 39) that includes a heat exchanger (39); a chiller device (27); a switching device (34-36) and a control device (5) that controls the switching device (see ¶¶ [0094-0096]), wherein the control device (5) controls the valves based on the ambient air temperature ( see at least ¶¶ [0065 and 0126]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the thermal management system of CHEN with a control device that controls the switching device, wherein, when heating is requested, the control device controls the switching device to establish the first heat transfer medium circuit when a temperature of the heat transfer medium that is flowing through the radiator is lower than ambient air temperature, and controls the switching device to establish the second heat transfer medium circuit ,when the temperature of the heat transfer medium that is flowing through the radiator is no lower than the ambient air temperature, since as evidenced by MIYOSHI, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of automatically control CHEN’s switching device thus improving the system efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, CHEN as modified further teaches wherein: the first heat transfer medium circuit includes a first series circuit in which the heat exchanger, the radiator, and the chiller device are connected in series (see Figure 14B where the heat exchanger of 211, 231, and 261 are connected in series); and the second heat transfer medium circuit includes a second series circuit in which the radiator is isolated from the first series circuit and the heat exchanger and the chiller device are connected in series (see Figure 13B where the heat exchanger of 211 and the chiller device 261 are connected in series while the radiator 231 is isolated).
Regarding claim 3, CHEN as modified further teaches further comprising a temperature sensor (53 of MIYOSHI) that detects the temperature of the heat transfer medium that is flowing into the radiator (33 of MIYOSHI), wherein, when heating is requested, the control device (5 of MIYOSHI) controls the switching device (300 of CHEN) to establish the first heat transfer medium circuit (see CHEN’s Figure 14B), when a detected value of the temperature sensor (53 of MIYOSHI) is lower than the ambient air temperature, and controls the switching device to establish the second heat transfer medium circuit (see CHEN’s Figure 13B), when the detected value of the temperature sensor (53 of MIYOSHI) is no lower than the ambient air temperature ( see at least MIYOSHI’s ¶¶ [0065 and 0126]).
Regarding claim 4, CHEN as modified further teaches wherein: the switching device (300 of CHEN) includes a nine-way valve (see CHEN’s Figure 14A); and the control device (5 of MIYOSHI) switches between the first heat transfer medium circuit and the second heat transfer medium circuit by controlling the nine-way valve (See CHEN’s Figures 13A-14B).
CHEN does not teach that the switching device (300 of CHEN) includes a five-way valve.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the configuration of CHEN’s switching device would result in a difference in function of CHEN’s thermal management system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the configuration of CHEN’s switching device, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem, indicating that “the switching valve may have other configurations (e.g., a multi-way valve other than a five-way valve and a nine-way valve)” (, specification at para. [0093]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the configuration the switching device as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switching device of CHEN in view of MIYOSHI to have a nine-way valve and a five-way valve and the control device switches between the first heat transfer medium circuit and the second heat transfer medium circuit by controlling each of the nine-way valve and the five-way valve as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, CHEN as modified further teaches further comprising a temperature sensor (53 of MIYOSHI) that detects the temperature of the heat transfer medium that is flowing through the heat exchanger (39 of MIYOSHI), wherein the control device controls the switching device (5 of MIYOSHI) to establish the first heat transfer medium circuit (see CHEN’s Figure 14B) when a detected value of the temperature sensor (53 of MIYOSHI) becomes lower than the ambient air temperature in a state in which the second heat transfer medium circuit is established ( see at least MIYOSHI’s ¶¶ [0065 and 0126]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights