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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara et al. (JP 2020066358 A) in view of Kim (US 9004210 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kitahara et al. discloses a combine [1] in which an engine [E] is arranged at a front portion (see Fig. 2) of a traveling machine body (body of [1]), the combine comprising:
a cooling device [53 and 54] configured to cool the engine (see paragraph [0076], lines 1-2 and paragraph [0077], lines 1-2), wherein:
the cooling device overlaps the engine (radiator [53] is longer than the engine and the cooling device has pipes [2 and 4] which surround the engine; therefore, the cooling device overlaps the engine, see Figs. 3-4) along a front-rear direction ([F to B] direction) of the traveling machine body and is arranged at a side portion (see Fig. 2) of the traveling machine body.
But Kitahara et al. fails to disclose an electric controller configured to control operation of the combine is arranged on one side surface of the cooling device.
Kim discloses a similar combine (for any agricultural work vehicle; see Col. 3, lines 48- 50) wherein an electric controller [18] is configured to control operation of the combine (see Col. 4, lines 14-17) is arranged on one side surface (see Fig. 5) of the cooling device [12 and 13a].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric controller of Kim on the cooling device of Kitahara et al. in order to control core functions of the engine such as ignition time, fuel injection time, and idle rotation (see Kim Col. 4, lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 2, Kitahara et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the engine [E] is arranged on one side (see below) of the cooling device [52 and 53] in along the front-rear direction ([F to B] direction) of the traveling machine body (body of [1]) and a side surface (see below) of the cooling device opposite to the one side.
PNG
media_image1.png
645
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kitahara et al. fails to disclose the electric controller is arranged on a side surface of the cooling device opposite to the one side.
However, Kim discloses a similar cooling device [12 and 13a] wherein an electric controller [18] is arranged on one side surface (see below) of the cooling device opposite to the one side (see below; side engine is arranged on, see Col. 3, lines 57-63).
PNG
media_image2.png
413
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It can be seen then that when Kim's electric controller is provided to the cooling device of Kitahara et al. that the electric controller is on the side surface of the cooling device opposite to the side of the engine as disclosed by Kim (see Col. 3, lines 57-63 and Col. 6, lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 3, Kitahara et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the cooling device [53 and 54] includes a plurality of cooling devices (includes radiator [53] and intercooler [54]) arranged in an up-down direction (positioned vertically, see Fig. 3; therefore, arranged up-down on the machine body) on the traveling machine body (body of [1]), and
an upper cooling device (intercooler [54]) of the plurality of cooling devices includes a cooling fan (not shown, but present for the air to be cooled by the intercooler, see paragraph [0076], lines 1-2), and the upper cooling device is configured to cool air supplied to the engine (see paragraph [0076], lines 1-2).
But Kitahara et al. fails to disclose the electric controller is arranged on an upper one of the plurality of cooling devices.
However, Kim discloses the electric controller [18] is arranged on the cooling device [12 and 13a] on an upper portion (see Fig. 5) of the device.
It can be seen then that when Kim's electric controller is provided to the plurality of cooling devices of Kitahara et al. that the electric controller is arranged on an upper one of the plurality of cooling devices of Kitahara et al. as disclosed by Kim (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Kitahara et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses a grain tank [15] on the traveling machine body (body of [1]), but fails to disclose wherein the electric controller is arranged between the cooling device and the grain tank.
However, Kim discloses a similar cooling device [12 and 13a] wherein an electric controller [18] is arranged on one side surface (see above) of the cooling device.
It can be seen then that when the electric controller of Kim is applied to the cooling device of Kitahara et al. that the electric controller is arranged between the cooling device and the grain tank.
Regarding claim 5, Kim, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the electric controller [18] is a controller that is configured to control the engine (see Col. 4, lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 7, Kitahara et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the cooling device [53 and 54] is coupled to and supported by a support frame ([10]; see paragraph [120], lines 1-5) standing on the traveling machine body (body of [1]).
Regarding clam 8, Kim, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the electric controller [18] is directly attached on the one side surface (see above and Col. 5, lines 43-49) of the cooling device [12 and 13a].
Regarding claim 9, Kitahara et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the electric controller and the cooling device [53 and 54] are covered with an outside air introduction cover ([8], air introduced through hole [83a] for the exhaust pipe; see paragraph [0112], lines 1-3, paragraph [0113], line 1, and paragraph [0103], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Kitahara et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a line (see below) that is perpendicular to the front-rear direction ([F to B] direction) extends through both the cooling device [53 and 54] and the engine [E].
PNG
media_image3.png
485
928
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara et al. (JP 2020066358 A) and Kim (US 9004210 B2) as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Oihira (JP 2011073539 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kitahara et al. and Kim discloses the combine as applied above, but fails to disclose the electric controller includes a coupler to which an end portion of a harness is connected, and the coupler has an insertion port facing an inside of the traveling machine body in a width direction thereof.
Oihira discloses a similar electric controller [17] for a vehicle (see paragraph [0001], lines 1-3) wherein the electric controller includes a coupler [54] to which an end portion ([13], see Fig. 1) of a harness [9] is connected, and the coupler has an insertion port [25] facing an inside of the traveling machine body in a width direction thereof (see paragraph [0014], lines 7- 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coupler, harness, and insertion port of Oihira on the controller of Kitahara et al. and Kim in order to provide the controller with a support box for housing the electrical components and to ensure optimization of the wiring (see Oihira paragraph [0009], lines 1-4 and [0010], lines 1-4).
Response to Arguments
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Kitahara et al. (JP 2020066358 A).
Regarding the newly added limitation set forth in claim 1, lines 7-8, Kitahara’s intercooler [54] of the cooling device is positioned on one side of the engine [E] and the radiator [53] of the cooling device is positioned on the one side and has a length that is longer than the engine (see Fig. 4). Further, intercooler is connected to upstream exhaust pipe [2] and radiator is connected to downstream exhaust pipe [4], where both pipes surround the engine as can be seen in Fig. 3. This recites the same structure as set forth in applicant’s specification paragraphs [0145-0146] and therefore meets the limitation of the cooling device overlapping 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 SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671