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 § 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 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 6, the term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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.
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, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinoshita et al. (JP 2014-4034844, see applicant provided copy).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kinoshita discloses a work machine comprising:
an engine (21);
a hydraulic pump (22) disposed on a side of the engine (see Fig. 2);
an engine room that accommodates the engine and the hydraulic pump (see Fig. 1 showing the engine and pump within the work machine body); and
an electrical component (engine control unit 33) included in the engine room and disposed above the hydraulic pump in a vertical direction and on a side of the engine (see Fig. 2 showing the ECU supported by bracket 34 above the pump and on a side of the engine).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), Kinoshita further discloses an exhaust treatment device (25) that is disposed above the engine and treats exhaust gas discharged from the engine (see Fig. 2), wherein the electrical component (33) is disposed on a side near the exhaust treatment device (as shown in Fig. 2, the bracket and component 34/33 are on a side of the engine and in relatively close proximity to the exhaust element 25 which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “near”).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Hanada et al (JP 2015-86565, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 2-4, Kinoshita discloses that the electrical components (33) are disposed at the same end of the engine as the hydraulic pump (21; see Fig. 3), but does not disclose a cooling portion on the opposite side of the engine as the pump or air outlets.
Hanada teaches another work machine having an engine that drives a hydraulic pump (27)and which includes a cooling portion (25) to cool at least the engine (27). The cooling portion including a fan (26) that sends air toward the engine (see Fig. 2) and out through an opening portion (30, 21a) provided below the pump (see Figs. 2-4).
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 have modified the machine of Kinoshita to include a cooling system mounted on the end of the engine opposite of the pump and to vent the cooling air downwardly as taught by Hanada 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., -------providing an engine-driven cooling system for a vehicle and using exhaust outlets to ensure heated cooling air is properly vented) to known devices (e.g., hydraulic work vehicles having ICE-driven pumps) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a vehicle that can provide improved performance through proper cooling of its heat producing components).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa et al. (JP 2013-104167, see applicant provided copy) in view of Kinoshita.
Regarding claim 5, Hirasawa discloses a work machine comprising:
an engine (8);
a hydraulic pump (9) disposed on a side of the engine;
an engine room that accommodates the engine and the hydraulic pump (see e.g., Fig. 2);
a tank (29) that stores the oil pumped by the hydraulic pump is disposed in front of the engine (see Fig. 2); and
an electrical component (20) included in the engine room and disposed in a vertical direction and on a side of the engine (see e.g., Figs. 5-7);
wherein a wall portion (6C) on a front side of the engine room has an inclined surface (see e.g., Figs. 6-7) inclined in a direction from a front side to a rear side from a lower side to an upper side, and the electrical component (20) is attached to the interior portion of the wall (6C).
Hirasawa, does not disclose that the electrical component is mounted above the hydraulic pump or that it is mounted on the inclined portion of the wall.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Kinoshita teaches a work machine having a its engine control unit (33) mounted within its engine room and above the hydraulic pump (22; see Figs. 2-3).
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 work vehicle of Hirasawa to locate the engine controller above the height of the hydraulic pump as taught by Kinoshita 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 since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., repositioning a component from one location in an engine compartment to another location) with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Similarly, while Hirasawa discloses that the controller is mounted on a vertical portion of the front wall of the engine room and not upon the immediately above incline surface of the wall, doing so would be nothing more than a matter of design choice. The examiner notes that Applicant seeks to claim a patent on the arrangement of parts. 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. It is further emphasized that Applicant has not advanced any novel or unexpected results or provided criticality for the arrangement. 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.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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