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 Status
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/09/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1, 10 & 12 has/have been amended, no claim(s) has/have been cancelled, and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In both of newly amended claims 1 & 12, the recitation “over a front side of at least one of the first color or second cooler” should be corrected to “over a front side of at least one of the first cooler or second cooler”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10-12, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 & 102a2 as being anticipated by TANAKA (JP H05202748 A).
TANAKA ‘748 discloses the invention as follows:
A cooling system for a machine (e.g., vehicle; fig. 1), the cooling system comprising:
a first frame (e.g., air guide duct 5; see fig. 1-2);
a second frame (e.g., stays 5c; see fig. 2) coupled to the first frame 5 and positioned in front of a portion of first frame 5 in a stacked arrangement (see fig. 1);
a first cooler (e.g., radiator 2) supported by the first frame 5 (via bolts 7; see fig. 1-2);
a second cooler (e.g., condenser 3) supported by the second frame 5c (via bolts 8; see fig. 1-2); and
a baffle system (11, 12, 13, 10; see fig. 1-2) including:
a bracket (e.g., stays 5d; see fig. 1-2) coupled directly to one of the first frame 5 or the second frame 5c (In this instance, bracket 5d is coupled directly to first frame 5);
a baffle (e.g., damper 10; see fig. 1-2) coupled to the bracket 5d (via bolts 17; fig. 1-2) and positioned over a front side of at least one of the first cooler 2 or second cooler to facilitate selectively restricting airflow through at least a portion (i.e., bottom) of the at least one of the first cooler 2 or the second cooler 3; and
an actuator (e.g., negative pressure-type actuator 11) positioned to facilitate reconfiguring the baffle 10 between a non- restrictive orientation and a restrictive orientation (see fig. 1).
2. The cooling system of Claim 1, wherein the baffle 10 (fig. 1-2) is positioned in front of the first cooler 2 and not in front of the second cooler 3 (i.e., baffle 10 is below cooler 3).
6. The cooling system of Claim 1, wherein the actuator 11 is configured to pivot the baffle 10 between the non-restrictive orientation and the restrictive orientation.
10. A cooling system for a machine (e.g., vehicle), the cooling system comprising:
a frame (e.g., air guide duct 5; fig. 1-2);
a cooler (e.g., radiator 2) supported by the frame 5;
a fan 4 (fig. 1) positioned to drive air through the cooler 2; and
a baffle system (11, 12, 13, 10; see fig. 1-2) including:
a bracket (e.g., stays 5d; fig. 1-2) coupled directly to the frame 5;
a baffle (e.g., damper 10; fig. 1-2) coupled to the bracket 5d and positioned over a front side of cooler 2 to facilitate selectively restricting airflow through at least a portion (i.e., bottom) of the cooler 2; and
an actuator (e.g., negative pressure-type actuator 11) positioned to facilitate reconfiguring the baffle 10 between a non- restrictive orientation and a restrictive orientation (fig. 1).
11. The cooling system of Claim 10, further comprising: a sensor (e.g., cooling water temperature sensor; not shown) configured to acquire data (e.g., cooling water temperature Tw) regarding operation of the cooling system; and a controller (not shown) configured to control the actuator 11 to selectively reconfigure the baffle 10 between the non-restrictive orientation and the restrictive orientation based on the data (cooling water temp. Tw). TANAKA discloses the following:
“First, after starting the engine 1 (step S1), it is determined whether or not an air conditioner switch (not shown) for operating the air conditioner is turned on (step S2). When the air conditioner switch is not turned on (NO), it is determined whether the cooling water temperature Tw of the engine 1 is higher than the first set temperature Tw1 (80 ° C) (step S6). When the cooling water temperature Tw is lower than the first set temperature Tw1 (NO), the control valve 15 to operate the negative pressure type actuator 11 to drive the opening / closing damper 10 to the side of closing the bypass 9 (step S4) to promote warm-up of the engine 1. When the cooling water temperature Tw is higher than the first set temperature Tw1 (YES), the opening / closing damper 10 opens the bypass 9 (step S5)”.
12. A machine (vehicle) comprising:
a driveline (implicitly and conventionally taught as internal combustion engines (ICEs) in vehicles w/ ICEs);
a hydraulic circuit (implicitly and conventional taught in ICEs for vehicles) including a hydraulically-operated implement (e.g., transmission and its components, as best interpreted under BRI); and
a cooling system including:
a first frame (e.g., air guide duct 5; see fig. 1-2);
a second frame (e.g., stays 5c; see fig. 2) coupled to the first frame 5 and positioned in front of a portion of first frame 5 in a stacked arrangement (see fig. 1);
a first cooler (e.g., radiator 2) supported by the first frame 5 (via bolts 7; see fig. 1-2);
a second cooler (e.g., condenser 3) supported by the second frame 5c (via bolts 8; see fig. 1-2), wherein each of the first cooler (radiator 2) and the second cooler (condenser 3) is fluidly coupled to the driveline (the actual ICE) or the hydraulic circuit; and
a fan 4 positioned to drive air through the first cooler and the second cooler; and
a baffle system (11, 12, 13, 10; see fig. 1-2) including:
a bracket (e.g., stays 5d; fig. 1-2) coupled directly to one of the first frame 5 or the second frame;
a baffle (e.g., damper 10; fig. 1-2) coupled to the bracket 5d and positioned over a front side of at least one of the first cooler 2 or second cooler to facilitate selectively restricting airflow through at least a portion (i.e., bottom) of the cooler 2; and
an actuator (e.g., negative pressure-type actuator 11) positioned to facilitate reconfiguring the baffle 10 between a non- restrictive orientation and a restrictive orientation (fig. 1).
14. The machine of Claim 12, wherein the fan 4 (fig. 1) is positioned behind the first cooler 2 and the second cooler 3.
15. The machine of Claim 12, wherein the baffle 10 is positioned in front of the first cooler 2 and not in front of the second cooler 3 (In this instance, baffle 10 is below second cooler 3; see fig. 1).
19. The cooling system of Claim 12, wherein the actuator 11 is configured to pivot the baffle 10 between the non-restrictive orientation and the restrictive orientation.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA (‘748) in view of SAIDA et al. (US 2010/0083917 A1).
Re claims 3 & 16, TANAKA discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, TANAKA fails to explicitly teach wherein the baffle is positioned in front of the first cooler and in front of the second cooler. However, the patent application to SAIDA teaches a similar vehicle cooling system wherein the baffle 25 (fig. 1) is positioned in front of the first cooler 18 and in front of the second cooler 24 since it allows for the adjustment of the amount of cooling air to be directed toward the radiator/first cooler (see Abstract). Thus, it would have bee obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the baffle system of TANAKA such that the baffle is positioned both in front first and second coolers, as clearly suggested and taught by SAIDA, since it allows for the adjustment of the amount of cooling air to be directed toward the radiator/first cooler (see Abstract).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA (‘748) in view of HARICH (US 20080257286 A1).
Re claims 4 & 17, TANAKA discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, TANAKA fails to explicitly teach wherein the baffle is positioned behind the first cooler and not behind the second cooler. However, the patent application to HARICH teaches a similar vehicle cooling device (see fig. 12) wherein the baffle 32 (fig. 14; 0048) is positioned behind the first cooler 22 and not behind the second cooler 23. (Note, as described in par. 0002, the cooling module 30, as shown in figure 14, can have various cooling components like the ones shown in figure 12). HARICH discloses in par. 0046 that such structure would allow the flow paths for the two mutually adjacent heat exchangers to be simultaneously divided, which latter can thus be regulated with respect to their cooling output by an adapted air-mass flow. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the baffle system of TANAKA, such that the baffle is positioned behind the first cooler and not behind the second cooler, as clearly suggested and taught by HARICH, in order to allow the flow paths for the two mutually adjacent heat exchangers to be simultaneously divided, which latter can thus be regulated with respect to their cooling output by an adapted air-mass flow (see par. 0046).
Re claims 7 & 20, TANAKA discloses the invention as essentially claimed including that the actuator is configured to pivot the baffle between the orientations. However, TANAKA fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to translate the baffle between the non-restrictive orientation and the restrictive orientation. However, the patent application to HARICH teaches a similar vehicle cooling device (see fig. 14) wherein an actuator (not shown) is configured to translate the baffle 31 between the non-restrictive orientation and the restrictive orientation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the baffle system of TANAKA, such that wherein the actuator is configured to translate the baffle between the non-restrictive orientation and the restrictive orientation, as clearly suggested and taught by HARICH, as a different means that also allows for the flow paths for the two mutually adjacent heat exchangers to be simultaneously divided, which latter can thus be regulated with respect to their cooling output by an adapted air-mass flow (see par. 0046).
Claim(s) 5 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA (‘748) in view of KURATA (JP 2000320331 A).
Re claims 5 & 18, TANAKA discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, TANAKA fails to explicitly teach wherein the baffle is positioned behind the first cooler and behind the second cooler. However, the patent application to KURATA teaches a similar vehicle cooling system wherein the baffle 7 (see fig. 5) is positioned behind the first cooler 4 and behind the second cooler 5. KURATA teaches that such structure of the baffle system would help prevent overheating of the engine and shorten the time for engine warm-ups (see ADVANTAGE). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the baffle system of TANAKA, such that wherein the baffle is positioned behind the first cooler and behind the second cooler, as clearly suggested and taught by KURATA, in order to help prevent overheating of the engine and shorten the time for engine warm-ups (see ADVANTAGE).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA (‘748) in view of SCHAAL (DE 3825071 C1).
Re claim 13, TANAKA discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, TANAKA fails to explicitly teach wherein the fan is positioned in front of the first cooler and the second cooler. However, the patent application to SCHAAL teaches that it is conventional in the art of ICEs’ cooling system wherein the fan 14 (see the sole figure) is positioned in front of the first cooler 23 and the second cooler. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify machine of TANAKA, such that the fan is positioned in front of the first cooler and the second cooler, as clearly suggested and taught by SCHAAL, in order to effectively cool the coolers while allowing for a more compact cooling package.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, with respect to only independent claims 1, 10 & 12, Applicant argues that opening and closing a "bypass" does not disclose "a baffle ... positioned over a front side of at least one of the first color 2 or second cooler to facilitate selectively restricting airflow through at least a portion of the at least one of the first cooler or the second cooler," as in claim 1, since Fig. 1 of Tanaka merely shows a "bypass 9," and Tanaka describes that "negative pressure type actuator 11 [can] drive the opening / closing damper 10 to the side of closing the bypass 9.". Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Note, as explicitly shown in the prior art rejections of claims 1-2, 10, 12 and 15 above, and repeated here, Tanaka’s Figures 1 & 2 both explicitly show that “a baffle (e.g., damper 10; see fig. 1-2) coupled to the bracket 5d (via bolts 17; fig. 1-2) and positioned over a front side of at least one of the first cooler 2 or second cooler to facilitate selectively restricting airflow through at least a portion (i.e., bottom) of the at least one of the first cooler 2 or the second cooler 3”. Again, Figures 1-2 show that the “baffle 10”, which opens and closes the “bypass circuit 9”, is clearly positioned over a front side of the first cooler 2, as clearly required by the claim amendments of independent claims 1, 10 and 12.
Thus, the rejections of claims 1-7 and 10-20 are hereby maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The various prior arts made of record all teach very similar engine cooling systems wherein the baffle system can be either in the front of the two coolers, in the middle or in the back and behind the coolers. Other systems also teach pivotal and translational systems for actuation of the baffle system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747