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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the one or more trigger conditions” in line 12 which should be recited to “the one or more preset trigger conditions” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an integrated value of a trip number” in lines 2-3 which should be recited to “the integrated value of the trip number” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
the limitation “a switching device” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “switching” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a switching device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a switching valve” see [0030] and figure 1. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a control device” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a control device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an ECU” see [0023] and figure 3. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a vehicle drive device” in claim 4 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “drive” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a vehicle drive device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a driving motor” see [0019]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; and
the limitation “a storage device” in claim 4 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “storage” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a storage device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a non-volatile memory” see [0023]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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 § 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)(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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mano et al. (WO2020153060A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mano discloses a thermal management system that performs thermal management of a vehicle, the thermal management system comprising:
a first flow path (10a) in which a reserve tank (17a) is not provided (see figure 1);
a second flow path (the flow path which is associated with the reserve tank 17a) in which the reserve tank (17a) is provided (see figure 1);
a switching device (13) configured to be switchable between connection and separation of the first flow path (10a) and the second flow path (the flow path which is associated with the reserve tank 17a); and
a control device (30) that controls the switching device (13), wherein the control device (30) is configured to execute a connection control to cause a thermal medium (the cooling water) to flow through the first flow path (10a) and the second flow path (the flow path which is associated with the reserve tank 17a) connected by the switching device (13) when a predetermined circumstance (the system is operated in air bleeding mode) is satisfied when at least one of one or more preset trigger conditions is established, and
wherein the one or more trigger conditions includes at least one of:
an instruction related to an exchange of the thermal medium (the cooling water) has been transmitted (injected) to the control device (30) from an external tool (the service tool) connected to the vehicle (paragraph 7 of page 11 to paragraph 3 of page 14; noted alternative limitation; the limitation corresponding to external tool has been addressed),
the control device has restarted after an auxiliary battery is removed from the vehicle, and
an integrated value of a trip number of the vehicle integrated under a predetermined condition has reached a predetermined value.
Regarding claim 2, Mano discloses the control device (30) controls the switching device (13) such that the connection control is continuously executed until air bleeding of the thermal medium (the cooling water) flowing through the first flow path (10a) and the second flow path (the flow path which is associated with the reserve tank 17a) is completed (paragraph 7 of page 11 to paragraph 3 of page 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Mano taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed control feature of the thermal management system as required in claims 3-5. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the thermal management system of Mano to arrive with the claim invention. Therefore, claims 3-5 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights