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 . Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 13-23 were previously pending. Claims 1, 16, and 21 have been amended. Claim 2, 18, and 20 have been cancelled. Claim 24 has been newly added. Thus claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 21-24 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “driving system” in claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 19, and 24, “heat exchange device” in claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 21-24, and “cooling fan control unit” in claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15 19, and 24 (although claims 17 and 23 recite “the cooling fan control unit”, as best understood these are interpreted to instead be referring to the processor, see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below).
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.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “driving system”, “heat exchange device”, and “cooling fan control unit” all use a generic placeholder (system, device, unit) coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves 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:
Driving system: Figs. 1-2, [0030-0031, 0034]
Heat exchange device: Fig. 2, [0028-0037]
Cooling fan control unit: [0045-0046, 0052, 0055, 0057]
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 17 and 23 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.
Claims 17 and 23 recite “the cooling fan control unit” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Is this intended to introduce a new limitation (a cooling fan control unit), is this intended to recite a different limitation which has previously been introduced (such as the processor), or this intended to refer to an entirely different limitation? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claims indefinite. As best understood, the claims will be interpreted to be referring to the processor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-16, 19, 21-22, and 24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not disclose or render obvious the following limitation of independent claim 1 (and similar limitations in independent claim 16) in its entirety:
“An electric construction machine, comprising: a driving system configured to drive a machine body by electric power from a battery; a heat exchange device configured to exchange heat of a cooling medium for cooling the driving system; a cooling fan configured to send air for cooling the heat exchange device; and a cooling fan control unit configured to control a rotation of the cooling fan according to a set operating mode of multiple operating modes of the driving system, wherein the multiple operating modes include: a driving mode in which the driving system drives the machine body, and a charging mode in which the driving system is stopped and the battery is charged, wherein the charging mode is terminated in response to the battery becoming fully charged, wherein the cooling fan control unit is configured to: when the driving system is in the driving mode, set a first rate of rotation of the cooling fan based on a temperature of the cooling medium while in the driving mode, and in response to the driving system switching from the driving mode to the charging mode, set a second rate of rotation of the cooling fan based on a comparison of a temperature of the cooling medium while in the charging mode to a predetermined threshold, wherein the second rate of rotation is greater than zero and less than the first rate of rotation when the temperature of the cooling medium while in the charging mode is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold.”
Noguchi (US 2013/0078071 A1) discloses an electric construction machine, comprising: a driving system configured to drive a machine body by electric power (Fig. 24, [0068-0070] – electric motor 18 is a source of power for the electric hydraulic shovel); a heat exchange device configured to exchange heat of a cooling medium for cooling the driving system (Fig. 24, [0070, 0072] – heat exchanger 21 including a radiator 23, circulating coolant through the radiator 23 to cool down the electric motor 18); a cooling fan configured to send air for cooling the heat exchange device (Fig. 24, [0072] – cooling air from the cooling fan 30).
Noguchi further discloses multiple operating modes, wherein: the multiple operating modes include: a driving mode in which the driving system drives the machine body ([0071] – electric motor 18 is driven), and a charging mode in which the driving system is stopped and the battery is charged ([0013-0014] – when vehicle is stopped to remove and recharge the battery).
Tokozakura (US 2020/0406783 A1) teaches the following limitations: a cooling fan control unit configured to control a rotation of the cooling fan according to a set operating mode of multiple operating modes (see at least Figs. 3-5, [0046, 0053-0054, 0063]), wherein: the multiple operating modes include: a driving mode in which the driving system drives the machine body (see at least [0022, 0046] – motor 2 outputs motive power for traveling… traveling state), and a charging mode in which the driving system is stopped and the battery is charged (see at least [0024, 0053] – charging state/mode), wherein the charging mode is terminated in response to the battery becoming fully charged (see at least [0063] – charging is completed), and wherein the cooling fan control unit is configured to: in the driving mode, set a first rate of rotation of the cooling fan while in the driving mode (see at least Fig. 3, [0036, 0046] – by operating the electric fan 108, the radiator 104 can be cooled with air… cooling the motor 2 during traveling), in the charging mode, set a second rate of rotation of the cooling fan while in the charging mode (see at least Fig. 5, [0054] – operate the electric fan 108 to cool the battery 4 during charging), wherein the second rate of rotation is less than the first rate of rotation (see at least [0063] – when charging is completed, stop the electric fan 108).
Hara (US 2019/0241060 A1)teaches the following limitations: the cooling fan control unit is configured to: set a first rate of rotation of the cooling fan based on a temperature of the cooling medium, and set a second rate of rotation of the cooling fan based on a comparison of a temperature of the cooling medium to a predetermined threshold (see Figs. 3-4, [0022-0024] – controlling rotation speed NR of the fan motor 20 according to engine cooling water temperature TR or controlling rotation speed NH of the fan motor 22 according to the hydraulic oil temperature TH).
Nonetheless, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Noguchi, Tokozakura, and Hara to arrive at the claimed invention because doing so would require impermissible hindsight.
Claims 17 and 23 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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 filed 12/19/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669