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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 15-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman et al. (11,725,363) in view of Haughom (US 2023/0151585).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 26, Gorman discloses a hydrogen-powered excavator comprising:
a hydrogen fuel cell (15, see e.g., Col. 5, lines 5-7 describing how the power source can be a fuel cell);
a hydrogen storage unit (310; see Col. 15, lines 51-59) for supplying hydrogen to the hydrogen fuel cell;
a chassis (22) configured to house the hydrogen storage unit;
a working arm (10) coupled to the chassis; and
a counterweight (226) located proximal a rear of the chassis for counter-balancing the working arm;
wherein the hydrogen storage unit (310) is positioned proximal to the rear of the chassis of the vehicle, in front of the counterweight (226; see Fig. 8 and Col. 15, lines 47-51 describing how the power supply 310 is located in front of the rear-disposed counterweight 226) and extends in both lateral directions relative to a central longitudinal line (see Fig. 8).
As discussed immediately above, Gorman discloses that the hydrogen storage unit is proximal to the rear of the vehicle and Gorman discloses that the power supply 310 may be located in a hollowed out counterweight 226, which implies that the power supply may also not be in a hollowed out portion. Nevertheless, Gorman does not explicitly disclose that the hydrogen tanks are “fully” in front of the counterweight.
Haughom teaches another fuel-cell powered excavator (see Fig. 1) having a hydrogen storage unit (8) located in a more forward position relative to the rear/counterweight (9) of the excavator’s slewing upper structure, but fully in front of the counterweight. The storage tank (8) is disposed between the counterweight and the excavator’s fuel cell (11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the excavator of Gorman to have its operating hydrogen storage tanks positioned more forward in the excavator body, such that the tanks are fully in front of the rear counterweight as taught by Haughom, while still being proximal to the rear of the vehicle as disclosed by Gorman, to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be nothing more than a matter of design choice for the arrangement of parts from one known location (positioning the hydrogen tanks forward of, but potentially overlapping, the rear-disposed counterweight) to another (forward of the counterweight). To this point, the Applicant is informed that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. As noted by the courts, "it is well-settled that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability." See Span-Deck, Inc., v. Fab-Con, Incorporated et al., 215 USPQ 835, 841. The particular configuration taught by the Applicant "appears to be no more than a logical and obvious step forward which accomplishes no new and unexpected result, but which is admittedly of economic importance." Id.
Regarding claim 5, Gorman further discloses that the fuel cells hydrogen storage is provided in plural “tanks” (see Col. 15, lines 53-56) which reads upon a plurality of sub-units.
Regarding claims 15, 17 and, 20, Gorman further discloses that the vehicle chassis includes front, rear, and sides to define an internal volume (228; see e.g., Fig. 4-5) that houses the power core/fuel cell (15, 310; see bottom of Col. 15 describing how the various power source embodiments, including fuel cells and batteries, can be located in the chamber).
Regarding claim 16, while Gorman discloses that the excavator includes a hydrogen fuel cell (15) inside the internal volume, it does not specifically recite that the fuel cell is disposed proximal to a second side.
Haughom teaches that the fuel-cell (11) of an excavator located proximal to the side opposite of the cab (6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to dispose the fuel cell of the Gorman combination near a side of the excavator as taught by Haughom to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation being to provide more centrally located space for the internal hydrogen tanks (310) to improve range/run time.
Regarding claims 18-19, Gorman further discloses a cooling pack (342) housed within the internal volume (see Fig. 8) and located at a side of the vehicle. Examiner notes that this cooling pack (342) can deemed a “first” pack or “second” pack as no further structure is recited indicating that more than one cooling pack is being claimed in either claim 18 or 19.
Regarding claim 21, Gorman further discloses a cab (224) located on the same first side of the vehicle as the cooler 342 (see e.g., Fig. 6).-
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Haughom as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Woo (US 2022/0243873)
Regarding claim 6, while Gorman discloses that multiple hydrogen tanks can be co-located, it does not disclose how they are arranged/stacked.
Woo teaches a hydrogen-powered excavator’s hydrogen fuel cell tanks (30) can be vertically stacked (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the excavator of the Gorman combination to have its hydrogen tanks stacked vertically as taught by Woo to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (stacked plural hydrogen tanks in a storage portion on a chassis) for another (non-specifically arranged plural hydrogen tanks in a storage portion on a chassis) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a vehicle maximizing available storage space).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Haughom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (8,037,963).
Regarding claim 7, while Gorman discloses that the excavator includes a fan-based air cooling system (342) with the cooler located and its intake port on one side of the excavator and drawing air laterally from a port in that side of the excavator (see Fig. 8), it does not disclose that a second port on the opposite side is in fluid communication with the first port.
Nishimura teaches another excavator (1) having a cooling system having a vertical inlet port (12; see Fig. 8 showing an air inlet port in door 41 – see also Col. 5, lines 28-38 describing how the cooling inlet can be formed in the door) and with a vertical outlet/exhaust hole on the opposing side (see Fig. 8 showing the air from the intake passing through the excavator and out the opposite side and Col. 5, line 33-35) of the excavator. A fan (19) directs airflow between the two ports across the chassis of the excavator with respect to its longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the excavator of the Gorman combination to have two fluidly connected opposing air flow ports on opposite lateral sides of the excavator as taught by Nishimura to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., improving air flow through the use of both an inlet and an outlet), and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (e.g., cooling the internal compartment of an excavator); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g., cooling the power unit of the excavator).
Claim 8-11, 13-14, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Nishimura and Pfohl et al. (9,586,473).
Regarding claims 8-11, 13-14, and 27, Gorman discloses a hydrogen-powered excavator comprising:
a hydrogen fuel cell (15, see e.g., Col. 5, lines 5-7 describing how the power source can be a fuel cell);
a hydrogen storage unit (310; see Col. 15, lines 51-59) for supplying hydrogen to the hydrogen fuel cell;
a chassis (22) configured to house the hydrogen storage unit;
a working arm (10) coupled to the chassis;
wherein the excavator comprises a longitudinal axis, wherein the excavator further comprises a first port provided at/on a first side of the working vehicle (see cooling unit 342 with fans in Figs. 6-9) with respect to the longitudinal axis;
wherein an airflow pathway is defined from the first port (342) and extends laterally across the chassis of the working vehicle with respect to the longitudinal axis (see e.g., Fig. 8) through an interior of the body and to the hydrogen storage (310);
a fan arrangement to control the airflow comprising one or more fans (342, see Fig. 8 and Col. 17, lines 27-28) positioned between a side of the chassis and the hydrogen storage unit (310).
While Gorman discloses that the excavator includes a fan-based air cooling system (342) with the cooler located and its intake port on one side of the excavator and drawing air laterally from a port in that side of the excavator (see Fig. 8) to cool the interior housing the fuel tanks and power unit (310), it does not disclose that a second port on the opposite side is in fluid communication with the first port and that the fan can be rotated in different directions to direct the air flow in either direction between the ports to clear dirt build-up.
As discussed immediately above, Nishimura teaches another excavator (1) having a cooling system having a vertical inlet port (12; see Fig. 8 showing an air inlet port in door 41 – see also Col. 5, lines 28-38 describing how the cooling inlet can be formed in the door) and with a vertical outlet/exhaust hole on the opposing side (see Fig. 8 showing the air from the intake passing through the excavator and out the opposite side and Col. 5, line 33-35) of the excavator. A fan (19) directs airflow between the two ports across the chassis of the excavator with respect to its longitudinal axis.
Pfohl teaches another excavator where a cooling fan (208) is periodically (see Col. 5, line 62 to Col. 6, line 10) rotated in a first direction to direct cooling airflow (arrows F, see Figs. 1A, 1C, and 3) in one direction and can be rotated in a reverse direction (arrows R to push or pull air through the two opposing air inlet/outlet screens (304/306) to direct the cooling air in the opposite direction to clear dirt build up.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the excavator of Gorman to have two fluidly connected opposing air flow ports on opposite lateral sides of the excavator as taught by Nishimura and to run the cooling fan in either direction to create bi-directional airflow to clear debris from the ports as taught by Pfohl to create a through-excavator bi-directional cooling air path that traverses the centralized hydrogen storage unit to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., improving air flow through the use of both an inlet and an outlet while taking into account external factors, such as dirt/debris build up), and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (e.g., cooling the internal compartment of an excavator); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g., maximizing the cooling capability for the power unit of the excavator).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Haughom as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (10,000,908).
Regarding claim 22, while Gorman discloses that the excavator includes the well-known expedient of hydraulic actuators that necessarily use control valves (50, it does not specifically recite that the valves are centrally disposed in the internal volume.
Ota teaches another excavator with the hydraulic control valves (11) at a covered (see body panels/covers 21, 22) centrally located position (see e.g. Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to dispose the hydraulic actuators of the Gorman combination at a central location as taught by Ota to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation being to collect the directional control valves at a location that is both proximate to the boom/arm and the drive system.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Haughom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (KR 20110003940, see previously provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 24, Gorman discloses that the excavator includes a slew motor (46) for rotating the chassis and that the pivot point is enclosed/protected (see Fig. 1, 4, 6), but it does not specifically recite that the slew motor is centrally disposed in the internal volume.
Hwang teaches another excavator with the well-known expedient of a swing/slew motor (260) at the covered centrally located pivot point of the upper chassis (see e.g. Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to dispose the slew motor of the Gorman combination at the center pivot point as taught by Hwang to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation being to locate the pivot drive proximate to the pivot point.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly, independent claim 1 has been amended to show the forward positioning of the tanks relative to the counterweight while remaining proximal to the rear of the chassis. As discussed above, the base Gorman reference discloses that the hydrogen tanks remain proximate to the rear of the excavator, but may not provide for the fully-in-front-of limitation and while the examiner believes that Gorman still likely discloses that the relative positioning of the center core portion 310 that represents the hydrogen tanks can be reasonably interpreted to still read up being fully in front of the counterweight as the hollowed out portion is only described in one embodiment’s counterweight 226, while another counterweight 126 is represented as being fully behind the power unit (e.g., engine 500 in Fig. 7). However, to further compact prosecution, the examiner has provided a secondary reference (Haughom) that teaches a fuel cell powered excavator can have its hydrogen tanks forward of the counterweight as no internal placement is shown or discussed.
Lastly, the applicant has amended independent claim 8 to recite that the cooling fan can be periodically reversed to clear the cooling system’s ports of any dirt build up. Additional searching of the prior art produced the Pfohl patent which teaches that the cooling fan of work machines can be reversed periodically to clear dirt debris from the system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights