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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Canceled:
Objected to:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statements filed by the Applicant listed below:
July 21, 2026
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant’s argument have been considered and are persuasive. However, the amendments have given rise to new rejections, infra.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that a temperature rise rate VH of the first area ≥ a first rate threshold: a difference V0 between the temperature rise rate of the first area and the temperature rise rate of the second area ≥ a first temperature rise threshold: or a difference To between a temperature TH of the first area and a temperature TL of the second area>2 a third temperature threshold, and To = TH- - TL, controlling the heat exchange parameters of the first trunk and the second trunk to be different" in Lines .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to a temperature rise rate VH of the first area ≥ a first rate threshold: a difference V0 between the temperature rise rate of the first area and the temperature rise rate of the second area ≥ a first temperature rise threshold: or a difference To between a temperature TH of the first area and a temperature TL of the second area>2 a third temperature threshold, and To = TH- - TL, controlling the heat exchange parameters of the first trunk and the second trunk to be different"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Claim
The claim recites the limitation "in response to that " in Line .
As set forth in the context of the claim, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the limitation that follows due to grammatical or idiomatic errors. The Examiner believes that phrasing is the result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim in idiomatic English.
Examiner suggests the following amendment if Applicant believes it to be commensurate with the scope intended:
"in response to"
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and are rejected for depending therefrom.
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
[Examiner Note A: With respect to Claims : it is important to note that per the Claim Interpretation - Contingent Limitations section, supra, a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP § 2111.04(II). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.]
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A control method for a heat management system, the control method comprising:
obtaining a heat exchange signal; See at least ¶¶ and
controlling at least one of a first trunk in the heat management system and a second trunk in the heat management system to exchange heat with a battery, the first trunk being configured to exchange heat with a first area in the battery, the second trunk being configured to exchange heat with a second area in the battery, and the first area being different from the second area. See at least ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein when a first condition is met, at least one of the first trunk and the second trunk is controlled to cool the battery; and
the first condition comprises at least one of:
a battery temperature ≥ a first temperature threshold, a charging power ≥ a first power threshold, a discharging power ≥ a second power threshold, a charging voltage ≥ a first voltage threshold, a discharging voltage ≥ a second voltage threshold, a charging current ≥ a first current threshold, a discharging current ≥ a second current threshold, or a user cooling instruction. See at least ¶¶; Fig 6 (See Examiner Note , supra)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein when a second condition is met, at least one of the first trunk and the second trunk is controlled to heat the battery; and
the second condition comprises at least one of a battery temperature ≤ a second temperature threshold, a discharging power ≤ a third power threshold, a discharging voltage ≤ a third voltage threshold, a discharging current < a third current threshold, ending of battery self-heating, or a user heating instruction. See at least ¶ (See Examiner Note , supra)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein heat exchange parameters of the first trunk and the second trunk are different. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein heat exchange parameters of a first heat exchange unit and a second heat exchange unit are different; and the first heat exchange unit is configured to exchange heat with the first area and is arranged in the first trunk, and the second heat exchange unit is configured to exchange heat with the second area and is arranged in the second trunk. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein that the heat exchange parameters are different comprises: heat exchange quantities are different or heat exchange efficiencies are different. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein a flow rate of the first trunk and a flow rate of the second trunk are different. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
when a third condition is met, the heat exchange parameters of the first trunk and the second trunk are different. See at least ¶¶; () See at least ¶ (See Examiner Note , supra)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
when a fourth condition is met, cooling, by at least one of the first trunk and the second trunk, the battery, the heat exchange parameters of the first trunk and the second trunk being different. See at least ¶¶; () See at least ¶ (See Examiner Note , supra)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the fourth condition comprises: the battery temperature > a fourth temperature threshold. See at least ¶¶0027
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the fourth condition comprises: at least one of a battery charging power > a first threshold, a battery discharging power > a second threshold, or a motor power > a third threshold. See at least ¶¶0015-0020, 0027
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the fourth condition comprises: at least one of the charging voltage, a third voltage threshold, or the discharging voltage ≥ a fourth voltage threshold. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
when a fifth condition is met, heating, by at least one of the first trunk and the second trunk, the battery, the heat exchange parameters of the first trunk and the second trunk being different. See at least ¶¶; () See at least ¶ (See Examiner Note , supra)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the fifth condition comprises: the battery temperature a fifth temperature threshold. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
the first area being preferentially cooled, wherein the temperature of the first area of the battery is higher than the temperature of the second area; or the temperature rise rate of the first area of the battery is higher than the temperature rise rate of the second area of the battery; or the first area of the battery is the electrode area of the battery, and the second area of the battery is a non-electrode area of the battery. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
when a sixth condition is met, the first area being preferentially cooled. See at least ¶¶; () See at least ¶ (See Examiner Note , supra)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein that the first area is preferentially cooled comprises: a flow rate of a heat exchange medium in the first trunk is greater than a flow rate of a heat exchange medium in the second trunk. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein that the first area is preferentially cooled comprises: a temperature of a heat exchange medium at an inlet end of the first trunk is lower than a temperature of a heat exchange medium at an inlet end of the second trunk. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
the second area being preferentially heated; and the temperature of the first area of the battery being higher than the temperature of the second area; or the temperature rise rate of the first area of the battery being higher than the temperature rise rate of the second area of the battery; or the first area of the battery being the electrode area of the battery, and the second area of the battery being a non-electrode area of the battery. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
when a seventh condition is met, the second area being preferentially heated. See at least ¶¶; () See at least ¶ (See Examiner Note , supra)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein that the second area is controlled to be preferentially heated comprises: a temperature of a heat exchange medium at an inlet end of the second trunk is higher than a temperature of a heat exchange medium at an inlet end of the first trunk. See at least ¶¶; ()
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
when an eighth condition is met, the first area stopping being preferentially cooled, and/or the second area stopping being preferentially heated; and the temperature of the first area of the battery being higher than the temperature of the second area; or the temperature rise rate of the first area of the battery being higher than the temperature rise rate of the second area of the battery; or the first area of the battery being the electrode area of the battery, and the second area of the battery being a non-electrode area of the battery. See at least ¶ (See Examiner Note , supra)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A vehicle, performing the control method of the heat management system according to claim 1. See at least ¶¶0035
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights