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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
“heat exchange amount adjustment control unit” in claim 1.
“decompression unit” in claims 1, 5-6, and 13.
“heat generation device” in claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12.
“cooling decompression unit” in claims 3-6.
“target temperature setting unit” in claims 7-8.
“device cooling control unit” in claims 12-13.
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 appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“heat exchange amount adjustment control unit” corresponds to a component of a control device that includes “a known microcomputer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like, and peripheral circuits thereof” as described in lines 18-21 of page 21 of the specification.
“decompression unit” corresponds to an expansion valve unit as described in lines 10-14 of page 11 of the specification.
“heat generation device” corresponds to an inverter, a motor generator, a charger, and the like as described in lines 8-13 of page 92.
“cooling decompression unit” corresponds to an expansion valve unit as described in lines 10-14 of page 11 of the specification.
“target temperature setting unit” corresponds to a component of a control device that includes “a known microcomputer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like, and peripheral circuits thereof” as described in lines 18-21 of page 21 of the specification.
“device cooling control unit” corresponds to a component of a control device that includes “a known microcomputer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like, and peripheral circuits thereof” as described in lines 18-21 of page 21 of the specification.
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 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 5-8 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 claim 5, the claim recites “wherein when cooling of the blown air is started from a state where cooling of the blown air is stopped in a state where the heat generation device is cooled” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because it is not entirely clear which specific mode of the air conditioning system the claim is referring to. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein when cooling of the blown air is ended from a state where the blown air is cooled in a state where the heat generation device is cooled” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because it is not entirely clear which specific mode of the air conditioning system the claim is referring to. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 7, it is noted that the conditional step of “wherein the target temperature setting unit lowers the target temperature in a case where a temperature of the heat generation device rises when cooling of the heat generation device and heating of the blown air are performed” may never occur. In particular, claim 7 does not positively recite the condition precedent (i.e. a temperature of the heat generation device rising when cooling of the heat generation device and heating of the blown air are performed), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in a case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of “lowering the target temperature” need not occur to satisfy the claim. As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in a case” step of claim 7, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that the conditional step of “wherein the target temperature setting unit lowers the target temperature in a case where a temperature of the heat generation device becomes equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold when cooling of the heat generation device and heating of the blown air are performed” may never occur. In particular, claim 8 does not positively recite the condition precedent (i.e. a temperature of the heat generation device becoming equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold when cooling of the heat generation device and heating of the blown air are performed), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in a case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of “lowering the target temperature” need not occur to satisfy the claim. As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in a case” step of claim 8, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the 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.
Claims 1-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 20170021698 A1, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama) in view of Enomoto et al. (US 20160109163 A1, herein after referred to as Enomoto).
Regarding claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches an air conditioner (vehicle air-conditioning device 1 Fig. 1) comprising: a heat pump cycle (refrigeration circuit 2 Fig. 1) including a compressor (compressor 20 Fig. 1) that compresses and discharges a refrigerant (paragraph [0034]), a condenser (condenser 21 Fig. 1) that condenses a high-pressure refrigerant (corresponds to the “refrigerant that has been compressed” by compressor 20 as described in paragraph [0034]) compressed by the compressor by heat exchange (paragraph [0034]), a decompression unit (expansion valve 25 Fig. 1) that decompresses the refrigerant flowing out of the condenser (paragraph [0036]), and an evaporator (refrigerant-water heat exchanger 27 Fig. 1) that exchanges heat between a low-pressure refrigerant (corresponds to the “refrigerant that has been expanded” by expansion valve 25 as described in paragraph [0037]) decompressed by the decompression unit (paragraph [0037]) and a low-temperature side heat medium (disclosed “low-water temperature cooling water” in paragraph [0037]) to evaporate the refrigerant (paragraph [0037]); a heating unit (high-water-temperature circuit 4 Fig. 1) including a heating heat exchanger (heater core 41 Fig. 1) that heats blown air (disclosed “air” in paragraph [0051]) to be blown into an air conditioning target space (corresponds to the vehicle cabin as described in paragraph [0051]) using heat of the high-pressure refrigerant as a heat source (paragraph [0051]); a low-temperature side heat medium circuit (low-water-temperature circuit 3 Fig. 1) configured such that the low-temperature side heat medium from which heat is absorbed by heat exchange in the evaporator circulates (paragraph [0038] and Fig. 1), and including a heat generation device (battery 322 Fig. 1) arranged to be coolable by heat exchange with the low-temperature side heat medium (Fig. 1), an outside air heat exchanger (sub-radiator 312 Fig. 1) that exchanges heat between the low-temperature side heat medium and outside air (corresponds to the outside air as described in paragraph [0043]), and a heat exchange amount adjustment unit (three-way valve 351 and three-way valve 361 Fig. 1) that adjusts a heat exchange amount in the heat generation device (paragraph [0043]) and a heat exchange amount in the outside air heat exchanger (paragraph [0043]); and a heat exchange amount adjustment control unit (controller 5 Fig. 1) that controls an operation of the heat exchange amount adjustment unit (paragraph [0055]).
Hatakeyama teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the heat exchange amount adjustment control unit adjusts the heat exchange amount in the outside air heat exchanger such that a blown air temperature of the blown air heated by the heating heat exchanger approaches a predetermined target temperature in a state where a cooling capacity by heat exchange between the heat generation device and the low-temperature side heat medium is maintained”.
However, Enomoto teaches wherein a heat exchange amount adjustment control unit (control device 60 Fig. 7 corresponds to the heat exchange amount adjustment control unit of Hatakeyama) adjusts a heat exchange amount (corresponds to the heat exchange amount inside radiator 13 Fig. 23 as described in paragraph [0474] where it is understood that a change in heat transfer with cooler core 16 would result in a change in heat transfer with radiator 13 since the two are connected) in an outside air heat exchanger (radiator 13 corresponds to the outside heat exchanger of Hatakeyama) such that a blown air temperature (corresponds to the disclosed “heater core-blowout temperature TH” in paragraph [0474]) of a blown air (the disclosed “blasted air” heated in heater core 17 corresponds to the blown air of Hatakeyama) heated by a heating heat exchanger (heater core 17 Fig. 23 corresponds to the heating heat exchanger of Hatakeyama) approaches a predetermined target temperature (disclosed “heater core-blowout target temperature THO” in paragraph [0474]) in a state where a cooling capacity (corresponds to the cooling capacity associated with the process described in paragraph [0475]) by heat exchange between a heat generation device (inverter 81B Fig. 23 corresponds to the heat generation device of Hatakeyama) and a low-temperature side heat medium (disclosed “coolant” in paragraph [0362] corresponds to the low-temperature side heat medium of Hatakeyama) is maintained (paragraph [0475]) to control the temperature of the blown air regardless of the rotational speed of the compressor (paragraph [0477]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hatakeyama to include “wherein the heat exchange amount adjustment control unit adjusts the heat exchange amount in the outside air heat exchanger such that a blown air temperature of the blown air heated by the heating heat exchanger approaches a predetermined target temperature in a state where a cooling capacity by heat exchange between the heat generation device and the low-temperature side heat medium is maintained” in view of the teachings of Enomoto to control the temperature of the blown air regardless of the rotational speed of the compressor.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the heat exchange amount adjustment unit (first switching valve 18 and second switching valve 19 Fig. 23 of Enomoto correspond to the heat exchange amount adjustment unit of Hatakeyama) includes a flow rate adjusting valve (first switching valve 18 and second switching valve 19 Fig. 23 and paragraph [0373] of Enomoto) that continuously adjusts a flow rate ratio (paragraph [0373] of Enomoto, where a person skilled in the art would recognize that changing the flow rate of the coolant to the different devices would also result in changing the flow ratio between the different devices) between a flow rate of the low-temperature side heat medium with respect to the heat generation device (corresponds to the “flow rate” of the coolant flowing through inverter 81B as described in paragraph [0373] of Enomoto) and a flow rate of the low-temperature side heat medium with respect to the outside air heat exchanger (corresponds to the “flow rate” of the coolant flowing through radiator 13 as described in paragraph [0373] of Enomoto) in the low-temperature side heat medium circuit (Fig. 23 and paragraph [0373] of Enomoto).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the heat pump cycle includes a cooling evaporator (evaporator 26 Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama) that is connected in parallel with the evaporator (Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama) and cools the blown air by heat exchange (paragraph [0038] of Hatakeyama), and a cooling decompression unit (expansion valve 24 Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama) that is disposed on a refrigerant inlet side of the cooling evaporator (corresponds to the inlet side of evaporator 26 Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama) and decompresses the refrigerant flowing out of the condenser (paragraph [0036] of Hatakeyama).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach further comprising a device cooling control unit (controller 5 Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama) that performs control related to cooling of the heat generation device (paragraph [0055] of Hatakeyama), wherein when starting the cooling of the heat generation device, the device cooling control unit starts circulation of the low-temperature side heat medium via the evaporator (paragraph [0062] of Hatakeyama where it is disclosed that “the cooling water may be circulated through the battery circuit 32” in order to cool battery 322) and then starts circulation of the refrigerant to the evaporator in the low-temperature side heat medium circuit (paragraph [0062] of Hatakeyama).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the device cooling control unit starts the circulation of the refrigerant to the evaporator by starting operation of the compressor (paragraph [0062] of Hatakeyama).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (JP2017088160A, herein after referred to as Yamada).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the cooling evaporator includes a cold storage unit that stores cold of the refrigerant decompressed by the cooling decompression unit, and is a cold storage heat exchanger configured to cool the blown air by the cold stored in the cold storage unit”.
However, Yamada teaches wherein a cooling evaporator (evaporator 7 Fig. 1 corresponds to the cooling evaporator of Hatakeyama) includes a cold storage unit (cold storage cold storage containers 7e Fig. 2) that stores cold of a refrigerant decompressed (paragraph [0039] where the disclosed “refrigerant” corresponds the decompressed refrigerant of Hatakeyama) by a cooling decompression unit (pressure reducing device 6 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0007] corresponds to the cooling decompression unit of Hatakeyama), and is a cold storage heat exchanger (paragraph [0039]) configured to cool blown air (the disclosed “air” in paragraph [0040] corresponds to the blown air of Hatakeyama) by the cold stored in the cold storage unit (paragraph [0040]) to cool the blown air even when the heat pump cycle is temporarily stopped (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the cooling evaporator includes a cold storage unit that stores cold of the refrigerant decompressed by the cooling decompression unit, and is a cold storage heat exchanger configured to cool the blown air by the cold stored in the cold storage unit” in view of the teachings of Yamada to cool the blown air even when the heat pump cycle is temporarily stopped.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20200313255 A1, herein after referred to as Wu).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein when cooling of the blown air is started from a state where cooling of the blown air is stopped in a state where the heat generation device is cooled, an opening area ratio of an opening area of the decompression unit to a sum of the opening area of the decompression unit and an opening area of the cooling decompression unit is smaller after the cooling of the blown air is started than before the cooling of the blown air is started”.
However, Wu teaches wherein when cooling of a blown air (the air that is cooled in the inside of the vehicle as described in paragraph [0120] corresponds to the blown air of Hatakeyama) is started from a state where cooling of the blown air is stopped in a state where the heat generation device is cooled (understood to be a mode in which both the battery and the inside of the vehicle are cooled simultaneously with priority given to the battery as described in paragraph [0120]), an opening area ratio (corresponds to the ratio that can be obtained from the disclosed “opening degrees” of first expansion valve 32 and second expansion valve 42 in paragraph [0120]) of an opening area of a decompression unit (corresponds to the disclosed “opening degree” of first expansion valve 32 in paragraph [0120] where first expansion valve 32 Fig. 4 corresponds to the decompression unit of Hatakeyama) to a sum (corresponds to the sum of the disclosed “opening degrees” of first expansion valve 32 and second expansion valve 42 in paragraph [0120]) of the opening area of the decompression unit and an opening area of the cooling decompression unit (corresponds to the disclosed “opening degree” of second expansion valve 42 in paragraph [0120] where second expansion valve 42 Fig. 4 corresponds to the cooling decompression unit of Hatakeyama) is smaller after the cooling of the blown air is started than before the cooling of the blown air is started (referring to paragraph [0120], it is understood that when preference is given to cooling the battery over cooling the interior of the vehicle, the ratio would be smaller since the opening degree of first expansion valve 32 would be smaller than the opening degree of second expansion valve 42 in order to provide more cooling power to the battery) to provide a system that can prioritize cooling among different areas/components (paragraph [0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein when cooling of the blown air is started from a state where cooling of the blown air is stopped in a state where the heat generation device is cooled, an opening area ratio of an opening area of the decompression unit to a sum of the opening area of the decompression unit and an opening area of the cooling decompression unit is smaller after the cooling of the blown air is started than before the cooling of the blown air is started” in view of the teachings of Wu to provide a system that can prioritize cooling among different areas/components.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein when cooling of the blown air is ended from a state where the blown air is cooled in a state where the heat generation device is cooled, an opening area ratio of an opening area of the decompression unit to a sum of the opening area of the decompression unit and an opening area of the cooling decompression unit is larger after the cooling of the blown air is ended than before the cooling of the blown air is ended”.
However, Wu teaches wherein when cooling of a blown air (the air that is cooled in the inside of the vehicle as described in paragraph [0120] corresponds to the blown air of Hatakeyama) is ended from a state where the blown air is cooled in a state where the heat generation device is cooled (understood to be a mode in which both the battery and the inside of the vehicle are cooled simultaneously with priority given to the inside of the vehicle as described in paragraph [0120]), an opening area ratio (corresponds to the ratio that can be obtained from the disclosed “opening degrees” of first expansion valve 32 and second expansion valve 42 in paragraph [0120]) of an opening area of a decompression unit (corresponds to the disclosed “opening degree” of first expansion valve 32 in paragraph [0120] where first expansion valve 32 Fig. 4 corresponds to the decompression unit of Hatakeyama) to a sum (corresponds to the sum of the disclosed “opening degrees” of first expansion valve 32 and second expansion valve 42 in paragraph [0120]) of the opening area of the decompression unit and an opening area of the cooling decompression unit (corresponds to the disclosed “opening degree” of second expansion valve 42 in paragraph [0120] where second expansion valve 42 Fig. 4 corresponds to the cooling decompression unit of Hatakeyama) is larger after the cooling of the blown air is ended than before the cooling of the blown air is ended (referring to paragraph [0120], it is understood that when preference is given to cooling the interior of the vehicle over cooling battery, the ratio would be larger since the opening degree of first expansion valve 32 would be larger than the opening degree of second expansion valve 42 in order to provide more cooling power to the interior of the vehicle) to provide a system that can prioritize cooling among different areas/components (paragraph [0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein when cooling of the blown air is ended from a state where the blown air is cooled in a state where the heat generation device is cooled, an opening area ratio of an opening area of the decompression unit to a sum of the opening area of the decompression unit and an opening area of the cooling decompression unit is larger after the cooling of the blown air is ended than before the cooling of the blown air is ended” in view of the teachings of Wu to provide a system that can prioritize cooling among different areas/components.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahlbom (US 20200208542 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach further comprising a low-temperature side temperature sensor (first coolant temperature sensor 64 Fig. 23 of Enomoto) that detects a temperature of the low-temperature side heat medium (paragraph [0189] of Enomoto) flowing out of the evaporator (Fig. 23 of Enomoto), a low-temperature side device internal volume (internal volume associated with battery 322 Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama in which the “low-water temperature cooling water” flows in order to cool battery 322) is an internal volume (Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama) through which the low-temperature side heat medium flows in the heat generation device (paragraph [0037] of Hatakeyama).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a low-temperature sensor-side internal volume is an internal volume from an outflow port of the low-temperature side heat medium in the evaporator to the low-temperature side temperature sensor”.
However, Ahlbom teaches wherein a low-temperature sensor-side internal volume (see below annotated Fig. 3a of Ahlbom) is an internal volume (see below annotated Fig. 3a of Ahlbom) from an outflow port (heat exchanger outlet port 3 Fig. 3a) of a low-temperature side heat medium (the disclosed “first medium” in paragraph [0070] corresponds to the low-temperature side heat medium of Hatakeyama) in an evaporator (heat exchanger 1 Fig. 1 corresponds to the evaporator of Hatakeyama) to a low-temperature side temperature sensor (temperature sensor 10A Fig. 3a corresponds to the low-temperature side temperature sensor of Enomoto) to improve the accuracy of the measurements (paragraph [0082]).
PNG
media_image1.png
340
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a low-temperature sensor-side internal volume is an internal volume from an outflow port of the low-temperature side heat medium in the evaporator to the low-temperature side temperature sensor” in view of the teachings of Ahlbom to improve the accuracy of the measurements.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the low-temperature side temperature sensor is disposed such that the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume is smaller than the low-temperature side device internal volume”.
However, Ahlbom does teach a low-temperature sensor-side internal volume (see above annotated Fig. 3a of Ahlbom), a low-temperature side device internal volume (see above annotated Fig. 3a of Ahlbom), and positioning the temperature sensor at different locations inside the outlet conduit to improve the accuracy of the measurements (see paragraph [0082]).
Therefore, “the low-temperature side temperature sensor is disposed such that the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume is smaller than the low-temperature side device internal volume” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume being smaller than the low-temperature side device internal volume.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a low-temperature sensor-side internal volume, a low-temperature side device internal volume, and positioning the temperature sensor at different locations inside the outlet conduit, were disclosed in the prior art by Ahlbom, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the low-temperature side temperature sensor is disposed such that the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume is smaller than the low-temperature side device internal volume”.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein a volume (corresponds to the internal volume of refrigerant-water heat exchanger 27 Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama which accommodates the “low-water temperature cooling water”) occupied by the low-temperature side heat medium flowing inside the evaporator so as to be capable of exchanging heat with the refrigerant is defined as an evaporator-side internal volume (Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the low-temperature side temperature sensor is disposed such that a sum of the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume and the evaporator-side internal volume is smaller than the low-temperature side device internal volume”.
However, Hatakeyama and Ahlbom do teach an evaporator-side internal volume (corresponds to the internal volume of refrigerant-water heat exchanger 27 Fig. 1 of Hatakeyama which accommodates the “low-water temperature cooling water”), a low-temperature sensor-side internal volume (see above annotated Fig. 3a of Ahlbom), a low-temperature side device internal volume (see above annotated Fig. 3a of Ahlbom), and positioning the temperature sensor at different locations inside the outlet conduit to improve the accuracy of the measurements (see paragraph [0082] of Ahlbom).
Therefore, “the low-temperature side temperature sensor is disposed such that a sum of the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume and the evaporator-side internal volume is smaller than the low-temperature side device internal volume” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a sum of the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume and the evaporator-side internal volume being smaller than the low-temperature side device internal volume.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. an evaporator-side internal volume, a low-temperature sensor-side internal volume, a low-temperature side device internal volume, and positioning the temperature sensor at different locations inside the outlet conduit, were disclosed in the prior art by Hatakeyama and Ahlbom, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the low-temperature side temperature sensor is disposed such that a sum of the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume and the evaporator-side internal volume is smaller than the low-temperature side device internal volume”.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the low-temperature side temperature sensor is disposed such that the low-temperature sensor-side internal volume is smaller than the evaporator-side internal volume (see below annotated Fig. 3a of Ahlbom).
PNG
media_image2.png
702
807
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “further comprising a target temperature setting unit that sets the target temperature related to the blown air temperature of the blown air, wherein the target temperature setting unit lowers the target temperature in a case where a temperature of the heat generation device rises when cooling of the heat generation device and heating of the blown air are performed”.
The closet prior art reference(s), Hatakeyama and Enomoto, teach further comprising a target temperature setting unit (control device 60 Fig. 7 of Enomoto) that sets the target temperature related to the blown air temperature of the blown air (paragraph [0197] of Enomoto).
However, the reference(s) fail(s) to disclose, suggest or teach “wherein the target temperature setting unit lowers the target temperature in a case where a temperature of the heat generation device rises when cooling of the heat generation device and heating of the blown air are performed”.
Therefore, dependent claim 7 is considered allowable.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “further comprising a target temperature setting unit that sets the target temperature related to the blown air temperature of the blown air, wherein the target temperature setting unit lowers the target temperature in a case where a temperature of the heat generation device becomes equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold when cooling of the heat generation device and heating of the blown air are performed”.
The closet prior art reference(s), Hatakeyama and Enomoto, teach further comprising a target temperature setting unit (control device 60 Fig. 7 of Enomoto) that sets the target temperature related to the blown air temperature of the blown air (paragraph [0197] of Enomoto).
However, the reference(s) fail(s) to disclose, suggest or teach “wherein the target temperature setting unit lowers the target temperature in a case where a temperature of the heat generation device becomes equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold when cooling of the heat generation device and heating of the blown air are performed”.
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights