DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on September 29, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9 and 10 are pending in the application. Claims 3 and 8 have been previously cancelled.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2017040212 A), hereinafter “Kato”, in view of Kaye (US Patent No. 4,565,175), hereinafter “Kaye”.
Regarding claim 1, Kato (Fig. 1) discloses a vehicle cooling device comprising: a first heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (4b, 51)) being a water-cooled intercooler that is configured to cool supercharged intake air (paragraph 14), the first heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (4b, 51)) disposed on an intake side (Fig. 1 (in the vicinity of 4c)) of an engine (Fig. 1 (1)); and a second heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (16)) being a water-cooled EGR gas cooler that is configured to cool EGR gas (Abstract) recirculating from an exhaust system to an intake system, the second heat exchanger being disposed on an exhaust side (Fig. 1 (in the vicinity of 11a) of the engine (Fig. 1 (1)) that is opposite the intake side (Fig. 1 (in the vicinity of 4c)), the first heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (4b, 51)), and the second heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (16)) being arranged in a position relatively farther from a hood of a vehicle (in the vicinity of element 61d) than the first heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (4b, 51)) when the cooling device has been installed in the vehicle.
Kato fails to disclose that the second heat exchanger is being arranged in series on a cooling water circuit such that the first heat exchanger is disposed upstream of the second heat exchanger in relation to a flow direction of cooling water flowing in the cooling water circuit.
However, Kaye discloses a second heat exchanger (Kaye (Fig. (34))) that is being arranged in series on a cooling water circuit such that the first heat exchanger (Kaye (Fig. (28))) is disposed upstream of the second heat exchanger (Kye (Fig. (34))) in relation to a flow direction of cooling water flowing in the cooling water circuit (Kaye (Fig. (26, 36, 38, 40))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kato by incorporating the teachings of Kaye in order to efficiently accommodate the different heat exchangers for the purpose of making a better use of the space.
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Kato discloses the vehicle cooling device according to claim 1, wherein a temperature of a medium to be cooled flowing into the second heat exchanger is relatively higher than a temperature of a medium to be cooled flowing into the first heat exchanger (paragraphs 15, 29, 43).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Kato discloses the vehicle cooling device according to claim 1, wherein a cooling water pump (Fig. 1 (55)) is provided upstream of the first heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (4b, 51)) and the cooling water cooled by a radiator (Fig. 1 (52)) is supplied to the first heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (4b, 51)) by the cooling water pump (Fig. 1 (55)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Kato discloses the vehicle cooling device according to claim 5, wherein the cooling water pump comprises an electric pump having a controllable flow rate (55).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Kato discloses the vehicle cooling device according to claim 1, wherein the second heat exchanger (16) is disposed in a position relatively lower than a height position of the first heat exchanger (4b, 51) when the cooling device is installed in the vehicle and the hood (in the vicinity of element 61d) is disposed above the first heat exchanger (4b, 51) and the second heat exchanger (16).
Claims 4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, in view of Kaye as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hollis (CA 2 217 770), hereinafter “Hollis”.
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Kato discloses the vehicle cooling device according to claim 1.
The modified invention of Kato fails to disclose an intermediate cooling water passage crossing through an interior of an oil pan of the engine, the intermediate cooling water passage being arranged such that the cooling water flowing out of the first heat exchanger passes through the intermediate cooling water passage and flows into the second heat exchanger.
However, Hollis discloses an intermediate cooling water passage (Hollis (Fig. 8 (in the vicinity of element 152))) crossing through an interior of an oil pan (Hollis (Fig. 8 (28))) of the engine, the intermediate cooling water passage (Hollis (Fig. 8 (in the vicinity of element 152))) being arranged such that the cooling water flowing out of the first heat exchanger passes through the intermediate cooling water passage (Hollis (Fig. 8 (in the vicinity of element 152))) and flows into the second heat exchanger (Hollis (Abstract; page 8, line 13 - page 10, line 24)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kato by incorporating the teachings of Hollis in order to maintain the temperature of the engine lubricating oil at or near its optimum operating temperature.
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Kato discloses the vehicle cooling device according to claim 10, wherein the intermediate cooling water passage is formed integrally with a bottom wall of the oil pan (When combining Hollis into Kato, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Kato discloses the vehicle cooling device according to claim 4, wherein fins for increasing area of contact with oil are provided to a pipeline wall inside the oil pan in which the intermediate cooling water passage is formed (When combining Hollis into Kato, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ remarks filed on August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-5923. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
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 Low can be reached on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
