DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is the initial office action based on the 19/233,116 application filed June 10, 2025. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated June 10, 2025 and July 16, 2025 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Langervik (U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2003/0150407).
Regarding Claim 1, Langervik discloses a pressure equalization tank (18) for an engine coolant system (see Abstract), wherein the tank includes a first partial volume (see Figure 2, volume above coolant (32)) filled with pressurized gas, a second partial volume filled with a coolant (32), and an electronically controlled valve (42) operable to release pressurized gas from the pressure equalization tank when a coolant pressure exceeds a threshold value (see embodiment of Figure 5, and paragraphs [0026] - [0030]).
The pressurization tank being employed in an electrically driven vehicle is considered an intended use of the tank. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987), and MPEP § 2114 (II).
Regarding Claim 2, Langervik discloses that tank (18) includes a gas port (28) for receiving pressurized gas, the gas port opening to the first partial volume (see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Langervik discloses that tank (18) includes a coolant port (20) for supplying coolant to the cooling system, the coolant port opening to the second partial volume (see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Langervik discloses that tank (18) includes a tight cap (22) arranged at its top side (see Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langervik.
Regarding Claim 5, Langervik discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically describe the electronically controlled valve is a turbo control valve.
However, it nevertheless would have been an obvious matter of design choice to substitute the valve of Langervik with a turbo control valve, since Applicant has not disclosed that using this specific type of valve solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any appropriate valve design.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehring et al. (U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2023/0420712, herein “Mehring” in view of Langervik and further in view of Lin (U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2023/0211644, herein “Lin”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 11, Mehring discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including a system for an electrically driven motor vehicle (see paragraph [0016], a “fuel cell system may be installed in an electrically driven motor vehicle”) having a fuel cell system (1) and a cooling system (8). Mehring discloses a first radiator (11), a coolant circuit (9) for carrying a coolant between the fuel cell system and the first radiator (see paragraph [0035]), and a pressure equalization tank (12) comprising a first partial volume (29) filled with pressurized gas (see paragraph [0038]) and a second partial volume (30) filled with a coolant (see paragraph [0038]). Mehring is silent concerning the inclusion of a degassing system and that the pressure equalization tank includes an electronically controlled valve.
However, Langervik discloses a cooling system having a pressure equalization tank (18) for an engine coolant system (see Abstract), wherein the tank includes a first partial volume (see Figure 2, volume above coolant (32)) filled with pressurized gas, a second partial volume filled with a coolant (32), and an electronically controlled valve (42) operable to release pressurized gas from the pressure equalization tank when a coolant pressure exceeds a threshold value (see embodiment of Figure 5, and paragraphs [0026] - [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization tank of Mehring by providing an electronically controlled valve therein as described in Langervik in order to prevent automatic pressure decay in the expansion tank to maintain higher pressure when the engine load and the pressure of the engine intake system is reduced (see Langervik, paragraph [0034]).
Furthermore, Lin discloses that it is known, within a cooling system, that flow of a coolant mainly depends on pressure of a water pump, steam bubbles are generated on one side of a water pump having low water suction pressure, and the steam bubbles are also generated when a temperature of the coolant rises, and according to Lin, the condition that the amount of the coolant is reduced occurs (see paragraph [0035]). To overcome these drawbacks, Lin discloses that a degassing system (see Figure 1) is coupled to the coolant circuit, the degassing system being adapted to remove gas from the coolant (see paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cooling system of Mehring by providing a degassing system as described in Lin in order to remove bubbles within the cooling system (see Lin, paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 9, Mehring discloses the invention sub discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically describe that the degassing system in s swirl pot.
However, it nevertheless would have been an obvious matter of design choice to substitute the degassing system of Mehring with a swirl pot, since Applicant has not disclosed that using this specific type of valve solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any appropriately degassing system.
Regarding Claim 10, Mehring discloses that the pressure equalization tank (12) is located vertically above the fuel cell system (1) (see Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, various references are cited that provide detail of relevant cooling systems for vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G MOUBRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM - 6:30PM.
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, Lindsay M. Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights