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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth drawing objections have been withdrawn. Accordingly, the new drawing of Figure 7 and the specification’s amendment is accepted and entered.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “wherein the cooler core has a planar middle region, as required by claim 1. Rather, Ringholz clearly discloses that the heat sink 202 has a continuously curved structure (see e.g., Fig. 2c).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation Ringholz’s middle region (208) is a planar region since it’s a flat region at least from more than one point of view (i.e. front to back view). Moreover, any vertical point in Ringholz’s middle region (208) is flat and planar.
Applicant's arguments regarding the fan limitation have been considered but are moot because Ringholz was not relied upon to teach the fan limitation.
See new rejection below, as necessitated by Amendment.
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 4 and 21 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets above to read as if Applicant is claiming that the cooler core is formed as a bent rectangular plate.
Regarding claim 21, the recitation of “in particular of an engine of a motorcycle, wherein the cooler has a plate-like cooler core for exchanging heat between a coolant and ambient air, wherein the cooler core has a planar middle region, wherein the cooler core has a bend at each of at least two preferably opposite sides of the planar middle region” is unclear. First, the phrase " in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Second, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “the cooler has a plate-like cooler core for exchanging heat between a coolant and ambient air, wherein the cooler core has a planar middle region, wherein the cooler core has a bend at each of at least two preferably opposite sides of the planar middle region” since claim 1 already recites “a plate-like cooler core for exchanging heat between the coolant and ambient air, wherein the cooler core has a planar middle region, wherein the cooler core has a first bend and a second bend on two sides of the planar middle region, respectively”. Examiner interprets the above to read as not further limiting claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 21-24 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringholz (US 20070034365 A1: cited by Applicant) in view of Misaki (US 20060219450 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Ringholz discloses a cooler for cooling a liquid coolant (200: see Figure 2a), comprising:
a plate-like cooler core (202) for exchanging heat between the coolant and ambient air (see ¶ [0021]), wherein the cooler core (202) has a planar middle region (208), wherein the cooler core (202) has a first bend and a second bend on two sides of the planar middle region, respectively (see Figure 2a where 202 has a bend at each of the two opposite sides of 208).
Ringholz does not teach a fan arranged directly on the cooler core, the fan being fastened directly to the cooler core.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for coolers to have a fan that is arranged directly on the planar middle region, as evidenced by Misaki, see Misaki’s Figure 5 where the cooler has a fan (41-43) that is arranged and fastened directly on the cooler core.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Ringholz’s cooler with a fan arranged directly on the cooler core, the fan being fastened directly to the cooler core, since as evidenced by Misaki, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of enhancing the engine cooling performance.
Regarding claim 2, Ringholz further discloses wherein the two sides of the planar middle region are two opposite sides of the planar middle region, and the first and second bends are bent towards a same direction (see Figure 2a where the two sides of 202 are bent towards a same direction).
Regarding claim 3, Ringholz further discloses wherein the cooler core (202) is not bent along at least one direction (see Figure 2a).
Regarding claim 4, Ringholz further discloses wherein the planar middle region (208) is formed substantially rectangular (see Figure 2a and ¶ [0023]), or is arranged in a center of an area of the cooler core, or occupies an area of more than one quarter of a total area of the cooler core, or occupies an area of 200 to 400 square centimeters.
Regarding claim 7, Ringholz does not teach wherein the first and second bends that partially delimit the planar middle region have a same bend radius or a same bend angle, or a bend radius of at least one of the first and second bends is between 180 mm and 220 mm, or a bend angle of at least one of the first and second bends is between 18° and 22°.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the bend radius would result in a difference in function of Ringholz’s cooler. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the bend radius of Ringholz’s cooler, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed bend radius. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed bend radius solves any stated problem, indicating that other dimensions are also conceivable, specification at Page. 14 Lines [1-3] and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the bend radius as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bend radius of Ringholz’s cooler to have the bend radius of at least one bend is between 18° mm and 22°mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 8, Ringholz as modified further teaches wherein the fan is arranged over a majority of an area of the planar middle region (see Misaki’s Figure 5 where the cooler has a fan (41-43) that is arranged directly on the planar middle region over the major part of cooler area).
Regarding claim 9, Ringholz as modified further teaches wherein the fan is arranged directly on the cooler core without an intermediate space therebetween (see Misaki’s Figure 5 where the cooler has a fan (41-43) that is arranged directly on the planar middle region without an intermediate space therebetween).
Regarding claim 10, Ringholz further discloses wherein at least one bracket (220) for fastening the cooler core to a motorcycle is arranged on the cooler core (202) or on at least one side strip (strip that is on the top 202) on at least one front side of the cooler core (see Figure 2a).
Regarding claim 11, Ringholz further discloses wherein the planar middle region (208) extends as far as at least one front side of the cooler core (202: see Figures 2a and 2c), wherein the at least one side strip (strip that is on the top 202) of the at least one front side is formed straight (viewed from front to back) in a portion adjoining the planar middle region (208: see Figure 2a), and wherein the at least one bracket (220) is arranged on the straight portion of the at least one side strip (see Figure 2a).
Regarding claim 12, Ringholz further discloses wherein: the cooler core (202) is manufactured from aluminum; or at least one bracket for fastening the cooler core to motorcycle is arranged on the cooler core, and the at least one bracket is manufactured from aluminum; or at least one side strip on a front side of the cooler core is manufactured from aluminum (see ¶¶ [0009, 0024, and 0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Ringholz further discloses wherein, at a side of at least one of the first and second bends that is situated opposite the planar middle region, there is arranged: a planar side region of the cooler core; or a coolant inlet (inlet on the left side of 200 next to 216); or a coolant outlet (outlet on the right side of 200 next to 228); or a coolant reservoir (204 and/or 206: see Figure 2a).
Regarding claim 21, Ringholz further discloses in particular of an engine of a motorcycle (100: see Figure 1), wherein the cooler has a plate-like cooler core (202) for exchanging heat between a coolant and ambient air (see ¶[0021]), wherein the cooler core (202) has a bend at each of at least two preferably opposite sides of the planar middle region (see Figure 2a where 202 has a bend at each of the two opposite sides of 208).
Regarding claim 22, Ringholz further discloses wherein the entire cooler core (202) is formed concave as seen from a first side and convex as seen from a second side (see Figure 2c).
Regarding claim 23, Ringholz further discloses wherein the at least one direction includes a width direction of the cooler core (see in Figure 2a where the cooler core (202) is not bent in a width direction).
Regarding claim 24, Ringholz further discloses wherein the at least one bracket (220) is fastened to the cooler core or to the at least one side strip by brazing (The recitation " wherein the at least one bracket is fastened to the cooler core or to the at least one side strip by brazing " is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113)).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringholz (US 20070034365 A1: cited by Applicant) in view of Misaki (US 20060219450 A1: Previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagihara (US 4876778 A: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Ringholz does not teach wherein the cooler core is formed as a bent rectangular plate, wherein the cooler core has a longitudinal direction and a width direction, wherein the cooler core is longer in the longitudinal direction than in the width direction, and the longitudinal direction is orthogonal to the width direction.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to have a motorcycle cooler that is formed as a bent rectangular plate, as evidenced by Hagihara, see Hagihara’s Figure 3 where a motorcycle cooler (9) comprises a cooler core is formed as a bent rectangular plate, wherein the cooler core has a longitudinal direction (horizontal direction) and a width direction (vertical direction), wherein the cooler core is longer in the longitudinal direction than in the width direction, and the longitudinal direction is orthogonal to the width direction (see Figure 3).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of Ringholz’s cooler core to be formed as a bent rectangular plate, wherein the cooler core has a longitudinal direction and a width direction, wherein the cooler core is longer in the longitudinal direction than in the width direction, and the longitudinal direction is orthogonal to the width direction, since as evidenced by Hagihara, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the area of Ringholz’s cooler core thus increasing the heat transfer rate.
Regarding claim 6, Ringholz as modified further teaches wherein the planar middle region (208) is shorter in the longitudinal direction (horizontal direction) of the cooler core (202) than in the width direction (vertical direction) of the cooler core (202: see Figure 2a), or is between 140 mm and 150 mm in size in the longitudinal direction of the cooler core, or occupies more than one quarter of the length of the cooler core in the longitudinal direction of the cooler core, or extends over the entire width of the cooler core.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringholz (US 20070034365 A1: cited by Applicant) in view of Misaki (US 20060219450 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Ringholz discloses a motorcycle (100: see Figure 1) having the cooler (100/200) according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1), wherein the cooler core is arranged between a front wheel (front wheel of 100) and an engine (102) of the motorcycle (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Ringholz further discloses wherein the two sides of the planar middle region are two opposite sides of the planar middle region (see Figure 2a where 202 is bent at two opposite sides of 208), and the first and second bends are bent towards the front wheel (see Figures 2a and 1).
Regarding claim 16, Ringholz as modified further teaches wherein the fan is arranged between the cooler core and the engine (see Misaki’s Figures 2 & 5 and ¶ [0051] where the fan (41-43) is on a rear portion of the cooler (23) which makes the fan (41-43) arranged between the cooler (23) and the engine (17a)).
Regarding claim 17, Ringholz further discloses wherein coolant lines lead from the cooler: to the engine; or to a heat exchanger for cooling oil (Examiner notes that it’s inherent for the type of Ringholz’s cooler to have coolant lines lead from the cooler to the engine).
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 KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights