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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025, 08/19/2025 and 03/20/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes phrases which can be implied, such as “Provided are a thermal management system and a vehicle”. The phrase does not aid in understanding the invention and said phrasing is expressly discouraged in order to clearly and concisely describe the invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because the claim form and arrangement does not comply with the form and arrangement guidelines as set out in MPEP 608.01(n) III-IV, wherein a dependent claim should first declare the preceding claim from which it depends, then continuing to specify a further limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
For example, to overcome the Objection, the claim may be rewritten in a similar form as follows:
The thermal management system of claim 1, wherein the thermal management system is further disposed within a vehicle.
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:
Switch element in at least claim 1
Armature control member in at least claims 4-5 and 13-14
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 show 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:
A switch element appears to be described as a proportional control valve with a first port, second port, and a third port in at least ¶ 0006-0007 of the specification.
An armature control member appears to be described as a DCDC accessory in at least ¶ 0037 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 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 4-5 and 13-14 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.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 recites the limitation “armature control member” in line 2. The term “member,” being a non-structural term that is a substitute for the term "means," invokes a claim interpretation under the guise of 35 USC § 112(f), which requires a reliance on the corresponding disclosure to provide the limits on the structure, material or act that performs the claimed function. The disclosure must show with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. Possession is shown by describing the claimed invention with all limitations. Here, the armature control member, including its function, is discussed in ¶ 0037. However, the corresponding structure that is capable of performing the claimed function (i.e. controlling the armature) of the member is not provided in the specification. While the specification broadly describes the armature control member as being a DCDC accessory, the further description still does not adequately describe the structure capable of performing the function. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function, is a failure to provide adequate written description for a § 112(f) limitation claim interpretation. Because the specification fails to provide an adequate description of a structure for the armature control member, the boundary of claim is not clearly defined. A claim without clearly defined boundaries is rendered indefinite. Therefore, the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
The limitation “armature control member” in Claims 4-5 and 13-14 render the claim(s) indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not understand the scope of the claimed invention when read in light of the specification. The lack of disclosure regarding the limitation " armature control member” as called for in the dependent claims creates such an inconsistency between the claims and the description that it prevents a skilled artisan from understanding the scope of the independent claims (MPEP § 2173.03). The specification does not use the claim terminology to identify the “armature control member.” For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be broadly interpreted as any known accessory means to control an armature member. Therefore the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “...the condenser and the radiator being located at one side of the bypass pipeline…” renders the claim unclear. There are multiple possible interpretations of the limitation, making it unclear as to precisely what Applicant is intending to claim. Specifically, the claims may be interpreted as requiring both the condenser and the radiator on a same side of the bypass pipeline, or they may be interpreted as requiring that the condenser and radiator are located at respective sides of the bypass line. Considering the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is unclear as to how a component may exist at one side of a pipeline, but not another, when a loop commonsensically provides fluid through all components (i.e. it is unclear as to what structure defines a side of the pipeline in a continuous loop, therefore both components may be considered to be on either side of the pipeline depending on a relative starting reference point). Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. 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.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of “...the first pump and the radiator being located at one side of the bypass pipeline,” renders the claim unclear. There are multiple possible interpretations of the limitation, making it unclear as to precisely what Applicant is intending to claim. Specifically, the claims may be interpreted as requiring both the pump and the radiator on a same side of the bypass pipeline, or they may be interpreted as requiring that the pump and radiator are located at respective sides of the bypass line. Considering the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is unclear as to how a component may exist at one side of a pipeline, but not another, when a loop commonsensically provides fluid through all components (i.e. it is unclear as to what structure defines a side of the pipeline in a continuous loop, therefore both components may be considered to be on either side of the pipeline depending on a relative starting reference point). Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. 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.
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation of “...close to…,” renders the claim unclear. The term “close to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear as to what magnitude of relative distance may constitute as being “close to”, therefore making it unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art as to when infringement would occur. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of “...the first pump and the radiator being located at one side of the bypass pipeline,” renders the claim unclear. There are multiple possible interpretations of the limitation, making it unclear as to precisely what Applicant is intending to claim. Specifically, the claims may be interpreted as requiring both the pump and the radiator on a same side of the bypass pipeline, or they may be interpreted as requiring that the pump and radiator are located at respective sides of the bypass line. Considering the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is unclear as to how a component may exist at one side of a pipeline, but not another, when a loop commonsensically provides fluid through all components (i.e. it is unclear as to what structure defines a side of the pipeline in a continuous loop, therefore both components may be considered to be on either side of the pipeline depending on a relative starting reference point). Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. 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.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayase et al. (US 20220410652 A1, hereinafter “Hayase”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayase teaches a thermal management system[1] [Figs. 1-10], comprising:
a battery temperature control loop [20] provided with a chiller heat exchanger [22] [¶ 0053]; and
an armature temperature control loop [10, 15] provided with a condenser [12] and a radiator [11] [¶ 0030], the condenser being able to exchange heat with the chiller heat exchanger [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection cooling circuits are thermally connected], the armature temperature control loop being connected in parallel with a bypass pipeline [30a to 26e], the condenser and the radiator being located at one side of the bypass pipeline [Note: under broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation does not appear to limit the scope of the claim, as any component commonsensically exists on a side of a line in a loop configuration], and the bypass pipeline being provided with a switch element [30a] for opening or closing the bypass pipeline [¶ 0038-0040; valve 30a may provide fluid to 26a and/or 26e].
Regarding Claim 2, Hayase teaches the thermal management system according to claim 1 above and Hayse teaches wherein the switch element has a first port [30a to 26a], a second port [30a to 26e], and a third port [11 to 30a], each of the first port and the third port being in communication with the armature temperature control loop [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], and the second port being in communication with the bypass pipeline [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection] [¶ 0051-0056; valve 30a may provide fluid to 26a and/or 26e].
Regarding Claim 3, Hayase teaches the thermal management system according to claim 2 above and Hayase wherein the switch element is a proportional control valve [¶ 0052; valve 30a may continuously adjust a flow rate ratio between the pathways].
Regarding Claim 4, Hayase teaches the thermal management system according to claim 2 above and Hayase teaches wherein the armature temperature control loop is provided with an armature control member, a drive motor [¶ 0036; 16 provides a plurality of devices, such as drive assistance systems and control devices for said system (i.e. armature control member and drive motor)], and a first pump [at least 23b], the switch element being disposed between the drive motor and the first pump [see at least Fig. 8, fluid may be considered to flow from 23b to 30a to 16], and the first pump and the radiator being located at one side of the bypass pipeline [see at least Fig. 8; pump 23b and radiator 11 may be considered upstream of 30a].
Regarding Claim 9, Hayase teaches the thermal management system according to claim 1 above and Hayase wherein the bypass pipeline has an end close to the condenser and another end close to the radiator [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection the bypass line [30a to 26e] is close to 11 and also close to 12].
Regarding Claim 10, Hayase teaches a vehicle [¶ 0035], comprising the thermal management system according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Hayase teaches the vehicle according to claim 10 above and Hayase teaches wherein the switch element has a first port [30a to 26a], a second port [30a to 26e], and a third port [11 to 30a], each of the first port and the third port being in communication with the armature temperature control loop [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], and the second port being in communication with the bypass pipeline [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection] [¶ 0051-0056; valve 30a may provide fluid to 26a and/or 26e].
Regarding Claim 12, Hayase teaches the vehicle according to claim 11 above and Hayase teaches wherein the switch element is a proportional control valve [¶ 0052; valve 30a may continuously adjust a flow rate ratio between the pathways].
Regarding Claim 13, Hayase teaches the vehicle according to claim 11 above and Hayase teaches wherein the armature temperature control loop is provided with an armature control member, a drive motor [¶ 0036; 16 provides a plurality of devices, such as drive assistance systems and control devices for said system (i.e. armature control member and drive motor)], and a first pump [at least 23b], the switch element being disposed between the drive motor and the first pump [see at least Fig. 8, fluid may be considered to flow from 23b to 30a to 16], and the first pump and the radiator being located at one side of the bypass pipeline [see at least Fig. 8; pump 23b and radiator 11 may be considered upstream of 30a].
Regarding Claim 18, Hayase teaches the vehicle according to claim 10 above and Hayase teaches wherein the bypass pipeline has an end close to the condenser and another end close to the radiator [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection the bypass line [30a to 26e] is close to 11 and also close to 12].
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.
Claims 5-8 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayase as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Lindquist et al. (US 20220161630 A1, hereinafter “Lindquist”).
Regarding Claim 5, Hayase teaches the thermal management system according to claim 4 above and
while Hayase teaches a plurality of valves used to control flow between the plurality of circuits [¶ 0051-0056], and wherein the battery temperature control loop is provided with a power battery [21] [¶ 0066], Hayse does not explicitly further teach comprising: a first four-way valve located between the armature control member and the condenser, the first four-way valve having two valve ports in communication with the armature temperature control loop and other two valve ports in communication with the battery temperature control loop; and a second four-way valve located between the radiator and the condenser, and the second four-way valve having two valve ports in communication with the armature temperature control loop and other two valve ports in communication with the battery temperature control loop, wherein the battery temperature control loop is provided with a power battery disposed between the first four-way valve and the second four-way valve.
However, Lindquist teaches an electric vehicle thermal system [Fig. 1] comprising a battery temperature control loop [loop containing 18] with a chiller [104] [¶ 0013, 0024-0025], as well as an armature control loop [at least 14 and 16] with a condenser [122] and a radiator [56] [¶ 0020, 0022]. Lindquist further teaches a first four-way valve [46], wherein fluid from 14 must pass through 46 before arriving at condenser 122 [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], the valve having at least two ports connected to the armature control loop, and two ports configured to flow towards battery pump 102 (i.e. the bottom port receives fluid from the armature loop, while the top, left and right ports are capable of communicating with valve 54, thereby being capable of also communicating with either the armature or the battery loop; alternatively, the top port is also capable of flowing towards 102 via 90 and 96) [¶ 0018, 0020-0021]. Lindquist further teaches a second four-way valve [54], wherein fluid from 56 must pass through 54 before arriving at condenser 122 [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], the valve having two ports (top and left) in communication with the armature control loop, and two ports (bottom and right) configured to flow towards battery pump 102 [¶ 0018-0020]. Lindquist further provides structure capable of flowing fluid, in order, through valve 46, radiator 56, lines 90 to 96, to battery 108, then through valve 54 [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection] [¶ 0023-0024]. Linquist teaches that utilizing dual four-way valves is a known means to selectively reroute coolant to capture heat from a plurality of components when available, and then utilizing the heat for other functions, thereby reducing waste heat and improving the system [¶ 0012]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the plurality of four-way valves as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the plurality of four-way valves would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. utilizing dual four-way valves is a known means to selectively reroute coolant to capture heat from a plurality of components when available, and then utilizing the heat for other functions, thereby reducing waste heat and improving the system [¶ 0012].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hayse to have a first four-way valve located between the armature control member and the condenser, the first four-way valve having two valve ports in communication with the armature temperature control loop and other two valve ports in communication with the battery temperature control loop; and a second four-way valve located between the radiator and the condenser, and the second four-way valve having two valve ports in communication with the armature temperature control loop and other two valve ports in communication with the battery temperature control loop, wherein the battery temperature control loop is provided with a power battery disposed between the first four-way valve and the second four-way valve, in view of the teachings of Lindquist where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. utilizing dual four-way valves is a known means to selectively reroute coolant to capture heat from a plurality of components when available, and then utilizing the heat for other functions, thereby reducing waste heat and improving the system.
Regarding Claim 6, Hayase, as modified, teaches the thermal management system according to claim 5 above and Lindquist teaches wherein the battery temperature control loop is provided with a second pump [at least 102] disposed between the power battery [108] and the second four-way valve [54] [¶ 0024; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection] [For clarity, pump 52 may be considered similar to pump 23b in Hayase, as it is configured to flow fluid through the armature circuit].
Regarding Claim 7, Hayase, as modified, teaches the thermal management system according to claim 5 above and Lindquist teaches wherein the armature temperature control loop is provided with a warm air pump [36] disposed between the condenser and the second four-way valve [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection 36 may be disposed between 122 and 54] [¶ 0018-0019].
Regarding Claim 8, Hayase, as modified, teaches the thermal management system according to claim 7 above and Lindquist teaches wherein the armature temperature control loop is connected in parallel with a warm air core [38], the warm air core having an end located between the warm air pump and the second four-way valve [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection, fluid may flow in order from 34 to 38 to 54] and another end located between the condenser and the first four-way valve [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection, fluid may flow in order from 46 to 38 to 122].
Regarding Claim 14, Hayase teaches the vehicle according to claim 13 above and
while Hayase teaches a plurality of valves used to control flow between the plurality of circuits [¶ 0051-0056], and wherein the battery temperature control loop is provided with a power battery [21] [¶ 0066], Hayse does not explicitly further teach comprising: a first four-way valve located between the armature control member and the condenser, the first four-way valve having two valve ports in communication with the armature temperature control loop and other two valve ports in communication with the battery temperature control loop; and a second four-way valve located between the radiator and the condenser, and the second four-way valve having two valve ports in communication with the armature temperature control loop and other two valve ports in communication with the battery temperature control loop, wherein the battery temperature control loop is provided with a power battery disposed between the first four-way valve and the second four-way valve.
However, Lindquist teaches an electric vehicle thermal system [Fig. 1] comprising a battery temperature control loop [loop containing 18] with a chiller [104] [¶ 0013, 0024-0025], as well as an armature control loop [at least 14 and 16] with a condenser [122] and a radiator [56] [¶ 0020, 0022]. Lindquist further teaches a first four-way valve [46], wherein fluid from 14 must pass through 46 before arriving at condenser 122 [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], the valve having at least two ports connected to the armature control loop, and two ports configured to flow towards battery pump 102 (i.e. the bottom port receives fluid from the armature loop, while the top, left and right ports are capable of communicating with valve 54, thereby being capable of also communicating with either the armature or the battery loop; alternatively, the top port is also capable of flowing towards 102 via 90 and 96) [¶ 0018, 0020-0021]. Lindquist further teaches a second four-way valve [54], wherein fluid from 56 must pass through 54 before arriving at condenser 122 [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], the valve having two ports (top and left) in communication with the armature control loop, and two ports (bottom and right) configured to flow towards battery pump 102 [¶ 0018-0020]. Lindquist further provides structure capable of flowing fluid, in order, through valve 46, radiator 56, lines 90 to 96, to battery 108, then through valve 54 [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection] [¶ 0023-0024]. Linquist teaches that utilizing dual four-way valves is a known means to selectively reroute coolant to capture heat from a plurality of components when available, and then utilizing the heat for other functions, thereby reducing waste heat and improving the system [¶ 0012]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the plurality of four-way valves as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the plurality of four-way valves would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. utilizing dual four-way valves is a known means to selectively reroute coolant to capture heat from a plurality of components when available, and then utilizing the heat for other functions, thereby reducing waste heat and improving the system [¶ 0012].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hayse to have a first four-way valve located between the armature control member and the condenser, the first four-way valve having two valve ports in communication with the armature temperature control loop and other two valve ports in communication with the battery temperature control loop; and a second four-way valve located between the radiator and the condenser, and the second four-way valve having two valve ports in communication with the armature temperature control loop and other two valve ports in communication with the battery temperature control loop, wherein the battery temperature control loop is provided with a power battery disposed between the first four-way valve and the second four-way valve, in view of the teachings of Lindquist where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. utilizing dual four-way valves is a known means to selectively reroute coolant to capture heat from a plurality of components when available, and then utilizing the heat for other functions, thereby reducing waste heat and improving the system.
Regarding Claim 15, Hayase, as modified, teaches the vehicle according to claim 14 above and Lindquist teaches wherein the battery temperature control loop is provided with a second pump [at least 102] disposed between the power battery [108] and the second four-way valve [54] [¶ 0024; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection] [For clarity, pump 52 may be considered similar to pump 23b in Hayase, as it is configured to flow fluid through the armature circuit].
Regarding Claim 16, Hayase, as modified, teaches the vehicle according to claim 14 above and Lindquist teaches wherein the armature temperature control loop is provided with a warm air pump [36] disposed between the condenser and the second four-way valve [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection 36 may be disposed between 122 and 54] [¶ 0018-0019].
Regarding Claim 17, Hayase, as modified, teaches the vehicle according to claim 16 above and Lindquist teaches wherein the armature temperature control loop is connected in parallel with a warm air core [38], the warm air core having an end located between the warm air pump and the second four-way valve [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection, fluid may flow in order from 34 to 38 to 54] and another end located between the condenser and the first four-way valve [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection, fluid may flow in order from 46 to 38 to 122].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights