DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first cooling device" in its second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji et al. (US 2012/0138379).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji discloses a dozer including a cabin, the dozer comprising:
an engine room (8) located in front of the cabin (7), where an engine (31) is internally disposed; and
an exhaust gas after-treatment device (33) located above the engine (see Fig. 4 and ¶0040), for purifying exhaust gases emitted from the engine.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuji further discloses that the exhaust gas after-treatment device (33) and the engine (31) are configured to not overlap each other, when viewed from the front of the dozer (see e.g., Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji further discloses a first cooling device (36) located in front of the exhaust gas after-treatment device (33; see Fig. 4 and ¶0037).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji further discloses that the first cooling device (36) is capable of cooling the exhaust gas after-treatment device (33; see ¶0089).
Regarding claims 8-9, Tsuji further discloses a top cover (11) covering at least one area above the engine room (8) that supports an exhaust pipe (53), with a top discharge opening (formed to discharge into pipe 53, see ¶0047) formed in one region thereof through which air is discharged by an operation of the first cooling device (see ¶0047 describing how cooling air is pressurized, in part, by the cooling device fan 37 and is discharged from the top exhaust via an enlarged opening for the exhaust gas outlet of the gas treatment device’s 33 exhaust pipe 53).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuji further discloses a side cover (13) covering the side of the engine room (8), one region of which has an inspection door (e.g., doors 21/22) that can be opened and closed for maintenance of the engine (see Figs. 3, 4 and ¶0034).
Regarding claim 11, Tsuji further discloses that the exhaust gas after-treatment device (33) includes one or more of a diesel oxidation catalyst, a diesel particulate filter, and a selective catalytic reducer (see ¶0040 and ¶0057).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji) in view of Miwa et al. (US 2011/0173962).
Regarding claims 4-5, while Tsuji appears to show a plate within the engine room (8) that supports the exhaust gas after-treatment device (33) and divides the engine room into different areas, it does not explicitly disclose such a structure.
Miwa teaches another work vehicle having an engine room (11) housing both an engine (12) and an exhaust gas after-treatment device (25). A dividing member (18) divides the engine room into an engine installation area (see Fig. 1) where the engine (12) is installed and an after-treatment installation area (20) where the exhaust gas after-treatment device (25) is installed; wherein the exhaust gas after-treatment device (25) is installed in the after-treatment device installation area (20) which is divided by the dividing member (18) and spaced apart from the engine (12; see Fig. 1).
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 dozer of Tsuji to divide the engine room using a partition as taught by Miwa 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 applying a known technique (e.g., using a plate as an air guide and/or as a heat shield in a vehicle) to known devices (e.g., work vehicles with exhaust treatment equipment in their engine rooms) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------an engine room that better directs heat and/or air toward and away from different components).
Regarding claim 15, Tsuji discloses a dozer including a cabin, the dozer comprising:
an engine room (8) located in front of the cabin (7);
an engine (31) located under an exhaust gas after-treatment device (33) for purifying exhaust gases emitted from the engine; and
a first cooling device (36) located in front of the exhaust gas after-treatment device (see Fig. 4 and ¶0037), and capable of cooling the exhaust gas after-treatment device.
As discussed immediately above, Tsuji appears to provide a plate dividing the engine room to separate the gas after-treatment device from the engine, but does not explicitly discuss this feature.
Miwa teaches another work vehicle having an engine room (11) housing both an engine (12) and an exhaust gas after-treatment device (25). A dividing member (18) divides the engine room into an engine installation area where the engine is installed and an after-treatment installation area (20) where the exhaust gas after-treatment device (25) is installed; wherein the exhaust gas after-treatment device (25) is installed in the after-treatment device installation area (20) which is divided by the dividing member (18) and spaced apart from the engine (12; see Fig. 1).
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 dozer of Tsuji to divide the engine room using a partition as taught by Miwa 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 applying a known technique (e.g., using a plate as an air guide and/or as a heat shield in a vehicle) to known devices (e.g., work vehicles with exhaust treatment equipment in their engine rooms) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------an engine room that better directs heat and/or air toward and away from different components).
Regarding claim 16, Tsuji further discloses a front grille portion (12; see e.g., Figs. 4 and 6 showing air flowing through the front face 12, the fact that air passes therethrough implicitly requires that the face has openings which read upon the term “grille” when applying a reasonably broad interpretation to the term), one region of which is located in front of the engine room (8; see e.g., Fig. 2), and through which outside air is guided to flow.
Miwa further teaches that the air entering into an engine room (11) can be directed to both sides of a separating partition/dividing member (18; see ¶0074).
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 dozer of the Tsuji combination to provide air to both areas divided a partition plate as taught by Miwa 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 applying a known technique (e.g., using a plate as an air guide in a vehicle to separate air received within an area) to known devices (e.g., work vehicles with multiple components in need of air cooling) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------an engine room that better directs cooling air toward and away from different components).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Miwa as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sakai (9,175,455).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuji further discloses that the exhaust gas after-treatment device (33) is oriented and positioned in a manner that maintains air flow over the device while also shaping the hood/cover (15, 16) to improve visibility (see ¶0033) and that the treatment device (33) is oriented following this visibility improving slanted cover’s shape (see e.g., ¶s0040-43). Further, as discussed above with respect to claim 4, the Tsuji/Miwa combination provides for an after-treatment system separated from the engine by a partition plate, but the Tsuji combination does not specifically provide for a slanted after-treatment systems partition.
Sakai teaches the well-known expedient of configuring an engine room’s top cover (13) to have a slope toward the front to improve visibility (110; see Fig. 1). Sakai further teaches that the engine room includes a mounting plate/bracket (50) that supports an exhaust gas after-treatment device (41/42). As shown in Figs. 3-4, the bracket (50) arranges the after-treatment devices (41, 42) to follow the contour of the available space within the engine room defined by the engine and the overlying visibility-improving sloped cover (13). That is, the bracket (50) that supports the after-treatment device (41/42) and separates the devices (41/42) from the engine is shaped to accommodate the downwardly sloping visibility-improving cover (13) while still housing both the engine and the after-treatment device within a front engine room.
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 dozer of the Tsuji/Miwa combination to have a downwardly sloped arrangement of its top cover along with a complementarily arranged after-treatment support following the shape that improves visibility as taught by Sakai 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 known technique (e.g., shaping a vehicle’s body and arranging its housed components to improve driver sight lines) to known devices (dozers having cover’s shaped to improve visibility) in the same way (e.g., angling the engine room cover downwardly to allow improved visibility) to yield predictable results (e.g., a dozer having under hood exhaust treatment equipment arranged at an angle to follow the improved front visibility provided by sloping the front cover/hood).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Sakai.
Regarding claim 12, while Tsuji discloses that the dozer includes exhaust gas after-treatment device can include a reactor (see ¶0057), it does not disclose that a plurality of reactors where one reactor is forward and lower than another.
Sakai teaches another dozer including an engine-room disposed exhaust treatment device having a plurality of reactors (41, 42) with the first reactor (41) both forward of an lower than the second reactor (42).
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 dozer of Tsuji to use a plurality of after-treatment reactors and to orient them with them arranged in front and below each other as taught by Sakai 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 use of known techniques (e.g., using multiple exhaust treatment device in series to further purify the vehicle’s exhaust while presenting each device to open/clear air flow to ensure proper ventilation/cooling) to improve similar devices (e.g., work vehicle’s having in-engine room exhaust treatment equipment) in the same way.
Regarding claim 13, Tsuji further discloses that the exhaust gas after-treatment device (33) is oriented and positioned in a manner that maintains air flow over the device while also shaping the hood/cover (15, 16) to improve visibility (see ¶0033) and that the treatment device (33) is oriented following this visibility improving slanted cover’s shape (see e.g., ¶s0040-43), but Tsuji does not specifically disclose that the top cover is slanted downwardly to the front.
Sakai teaches the well-known expedient of configuring an engine room’s top cover (13) to have a slope toward the front to improve visibility (110; see Fig. 1).
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 dozer of Tsuji to have a downwardly sloped top cover as taught by Sakai 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 known technique (e.g., shaping a vehicle body to improve driver sight lines) to known devices (dozers having cover’s shaped to improve visibility) in the same way (e.g., angling the engine room cover downwardly to allow improved visibility) to yield predictable results (e.g., a dozer having under hood exhaust treatment equipment, but also improved front visibility).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Fukuzawa et al. (8,695,722).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Tsuji does not disclose a second cooling device mounted at the rear of the dozer.
Fukuzawa teaches another dozer including a front-disposed engine room (see engine 33 in Fig. 7) that is cooled by a rear-disposed cooling device (37) located behind the cabin (13; see Fig. 5).
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 dozer of Tsuji to include a rear-disposed engine cooling device as taught by Fukuzawa 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 known technique (e.g., providing a large engine cooling radiator at the rear of a bulldozer) to known devices (dozers having front-disposed engine rooms) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a dozer that has cleaner air cooling its engine’s radiator by placing the body of the vehicle between the work implement/blade and the radiator).
Conclusion
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 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 at 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 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613