DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/2/2025, 8/21/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 1/6/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 80. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 first control assembly” and “a second control assembly” in claims 8 and 17.
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.
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 8 and 17 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 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, recite the limitations “a first control assembly” and “a second control assembly”. The term “system” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which a system is controlled. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of controlling a system. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
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 2-8 and 11-18 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the claims recites “a condenser” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the condenser the same condenser previously recite din claim 1 or a different condenser. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite -- the condenser --.
Claim limitation “a first control assembly” and “a second control assembly” in claim 8 and 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of controlling a system
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-7, 12-16 and 18 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
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) 1, 8, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al (US 20230364980) as further in view of Yang et al (US 20240092145).
Regarding claim 1, Kawaguchi teaches a thermal management system (1), comprising: a refrigerant circuit (10) provided with a liquid refrigerant (41) and comprising a corresponding circuit (fig. 1) formed through a plurality of components among a compressor (42), a first heat exchanger (49), a condenser (43), a first evaporator (48) a first expansion valve (41c), a second expansion valve (47), and a third expansion valve (41a) according to needs; and a water circuit (60, 70, 80) provided with a cooling liquid (61, 62, 71, 72, 81, 82) and comprising a corresponding circuit formed through a plurality of components among the first heat exchanger (49), a first water pump (63), a first four-way valve (91), a second four-way valve (92), a battery assembly (84), a second water pump (87), a three-way valve (86) according to needs.
Kawaguchi teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach a refrigerant circuit provided with a second evaporator, a second heat exchanger and a water circuit provided with a drive assembly and the second heat exchanger.
However Yang teaches a refrigerant circuit provided with a second evaporator (131), a second heat exchanger (50) and a water circuit (20, 30, 40) provided with a drive assembly (41) and the second heat exchanger (50) to efficiently cool the engine module, the electric assembly module, and the battery module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thermal management system of Kawaguchi to include a refrigerant circuit provided with a second evaporator, a second heat exchanger and a water circuit provided with a drive assembly and the second heat exchanger in view of the teachings of Yang to efficiently cool the engine module, the electric assembly module, and the battery module.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combined teachings teach the drive assembly comprises a first drive motor (310 of Yang), a first control assembly (311 of Yang), a second drive motor (The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04)) and a second control assembly (The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04)), the water circuit comprises a first branch (The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04)) and a second branch (The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04)) provided in parallel, the first drive motor and the first control assembly are connected in series to the first branch, and the second drive motor and the second control assembly are connected in series to the second branch (The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04)).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach a vehicle (paragraph 0028).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al (US 20230364980) and Yang et al (US 20240092145) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Lee et (US 20220055454).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach a first liquid storage apparatus communicated with the refrigerant circuit to replenish the refrigerant circuit; and/or a second liquid storage apparatus communicated with the water circuit to replenish the water circuit.
However, Lee teaches a second liquid storage apparatus (530) communicated with the water circuit to replenish the water circuit (paragraph 0057) to replenish insufficient cooling water on the cooling water line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thermal management system of the combined teachings to include a second liquid storage apparatus communicated with the water circuit to replenish the water circuit in view of the teachings of Lee to efficiently cool the engine module, the electric assembly module, and the battery module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 11-18 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.
Claims 2, 8, 11 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al (US 20230364980) and Yang et al (US 20240092145) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Frykberg et al (US 20220373221).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach an air conditioner main unit comprising a first heat exchange air duct, a second heat exchange air duct and a circulating air duct, wherein: the first heat exchange air duct is provided with a condenser, a first air inlet end and a first air outlet end, the first air inlet end comprises a first air inlet communicated with a circulating air inlet and a second air inlet communicated with an outside of a vehicle, and the first air outlet end is respectively communicated with a first air outlet communicated with an inside of the vehicle and a second air outlet communicated with the outside of the vehicle; the second heat exchange air duct is provided with the first evaporator, a second air inlet end and a second air outlet end, the second air inlet end comprises a third air inlet communicated with the circulating air inlet and a fourth air outlet communicated with the outside of the vehicle, and the second air outlet end is respectively communicated with a third air outlet communicated with the inside of the vehicle and the fourth air outlet communicated with the outside of the vehicle; and the circulating air duct is configured to recycle an air after heat exchange through the first heat exchange air duct and circulate the air to the first air inlet.
However, Frykberg teaches an air conditioner main unit (1) comprising a first heat exchange air duct (arrow into 22b), a second heat exchange air duct (arrow into 22a) and a circulating air duct (19), wherein: the first heat exchange air duct is provided with the condenser (4b), a first air inlet end and a first air outlet end (arrows, fig 1a-1c), the first air inlet end comprises a first air inlet (arrow into 4b) communicated with a circulating air inlet (from 19 into 4b) and a second air inlet (arrow into 22b) communicated with an outside of a vehicle (E), and the first air outlet end is respectively communicated with a first air outlet (fig. 1a-1c) communicated with an inside of the vehicle; the second heat exchange air duct is provided with the first evaporator (4a), a second air inlet end and a second air outlet end (arrows, fig. 1a-1c), the second air inlet end comprises a third air inlet (from 19 to 4a) communicated with the circulating air inlet and the circulating air duct is configured to recycle an air after heat exchange through the first heat exchange air duct and circulate the air to the first air inlet (fig. 1a-1c) in contrast to the claimed features of a second air outlet communicated with the outside of the vehicle; a fourth air outlet communicated with the outside of the vehicle, and the second air outlet end is respectively communicated with a third air outlet communicated with the inside of the vehicle and the fourth air outlet communicated with the outside of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights