DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on January 28th, 2026 for application no. 18/493,280 filed on October 24th, 2023. Claims 1-18 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-18 are amended.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections/rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 16, please change the recitation of “wherein the blocking member is integral to plenum” to - - wherein the blocking member is integral to the plenum - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17, end claim 17 with a period to correct a minor informality.
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 10-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 8-9), in the recitation of “the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are placed on of the plane and each form an acute angle with the plane” (emphasis added) it is generally unclear what Applicant intended to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are placed on respective sides of the plane and each form an acute angle with the plane” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 15 (line 1), claim dependency is generally unclear in the recitation of “The work machine according to claim 15”. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “The work machine according to claim [[15]] 14” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Claims 11-18 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 3-4, 8, 10, 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konno (US 6,435,264).
Regarding Claim 1, Konno teaches a cooling system (see Fig. 2) to cool a power source (“engine” 4) of a work machine (Title – “Cooling System For Working Vehicle”) comprising:
a fan (“cooling fan” 20) and a plenum (“hood” 11 and “side covers” 12);
a first heat exchanger (lower “radiators” 30) and a second heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or “oil cooler” 40) placed within the plenum (11, 12);
a plane (Examiner Fig. 1, P) normal to a surface of the fan (20) and passing through the plenum (11, 12);
wherein the first heat exchanger (lower 30) and the second heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) are placed on respective sides of the plane (P) and each form an acute angle (A2, A1, respectively) with the plane (P).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 1 – Fig. 2 of Konno
Regarding Claim 4, Konno teaches the cooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the second heat exchanger (Fig. 2, upper 30 and 40) is a second group of heat exchangers (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Konno teaches the cooling system according to the claim 1,
wherein the plane (Examiner Fig. 1, P) is parallel to a length of the work machine (see Fig. 2 and Examiner Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Konno teaches a work machine (see Title) comprising:
a traveling body (see Figs. 2 and 10) having a ground-engaging mechanism (col. 2, line 57 – “the radiators are arranged like the letter "V" having an opening in the rear and so the radiators are tilted from the side surface of the body” and col. 2, line 32 – “The above-described object is achieved by a first embodiment of the present invention that provides a cooling system for use with a wheel type working vehicle”);
a power source (4);
a cooling system (see Fig. 2) to cool the power source (4);
the cooling system including a fan (20) and a plenum (11, 12);
a first heat exchanger (lower 30) and a second heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) placed within the plenum (11, 12);
a plane (Examiner Fig. 1, P) normal to a surface of the fan (20) and passing through the plenum (11, 12);
wherein the first heat exchanger (lower 30) and the second heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) are placed on of the plane (P) and each form an acute angle (A2, A1, respectively) with the plane (P; see Examiner Fig. 1; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 13, Konno teaches the work machine according to claim 10,
wherein the second heat exchanger (Fig. 2, upper 30 and 40) is a second group of heat exchangers (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Konno teaches the work machine according to the claim 10, wherein the plane (Examiner Fig. 1, P) is parallel to a length of the work machine (see Fig. 2 and Examiner Fig. 1).
Examiner note: claim 1 is alternatively rejected with a slightly different interpretation of the first and second heat exchangers for the purpose of rejecting dependent claim 3.
Regarding Claim 1, Konno teaches a cooling system (see Fig. 2) to cool a power source (4) of a work machine (see Title) comprising:
a fan (20) and a plenum (11, 12);
a first heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) and a second heat exchanger (lower 30) placed within the plenum (11, 12);
a plane (Examiner Fig. 1, P) normal to a surface of the fan (20) and passing through the plenum (11, 12);
wherein the first heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) and the second heat exchanger (lower 30) are placed on respective sides of the plane (P) and each form an acute angle (A1, A2, respectively) with the plane (P; see Examiner Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Konno teaches the cooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2, upper 30 and 40) is a first group of heat exchangers (see Fig. 2).
Examiner note: claim 10 is alternatively rejected with a slightly different interpretation of the first and second heat exchangers for the purpose of rejecting dependent claim 12.
Regarding Claim 10, Konno teaches a work machine (see Title) comprising:
a traveling body (see Figs. 2 and 10) having a ground-engaging mechanism (see col. 2, line 57 and col. 2, line 32 passages above);
a power source (4);
a cooling system (see Fig. 2) to cool the power source (4);
the cooling system including a fan (20) and a plenum (11, 12);
a first heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) and a second heat exchanger (lower 30) placed within the plenum (11, 12);
a plane (Examiner Fig. 1, P) normal to a surface of the fan (20) and passing through the plenum (11, 12);
wherein the first heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) and the second heat exchanger (lower 30) are placed on of the plane (P) and each form an acute angle with the plane (P; see Examiner Fig. 1; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 12, Konno teaches the work machine according to claim 10,
wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2, upper 30 and/or 40) is a first group of heat exchangers (see Fig. 2).
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vollert (DE 10 2008 022 887). See translation provided to Applicant with the previous Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Vollert teaches a cooling system (Fig. 4, “cooling modules” 1) to cool a power source (“engine block” 9) of a work machine ([0001] – “invention relates to a cooling module, in particular of a motor vehicle, with at least two cooling devices”) comprising:
a fan (“fan” 4) and a plenum (“fresh air guide device” 6);
a first heat exchanger (“first cooling device” 2) and a second heat exchanger (“second cooling device” 3) placed within the plenum (6);
a plane (Examiner Fig. 2, P) normal to a surface of the fan (4) and passing through the plenum (6);
wherein the first heat exchanger (2) and the second heat exchanger (3) are placed on respective sides of the plane (P) and each form an acute angle (A2, A1, respectively) with the plane (P; see Examiner Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
409
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 2 – Fig. 4 of Vollert
Regarding Claim 2, Vollert teaches the cooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 4, 2) cools a first fluid and the second heat exchanger (3) cools a second fluid ([0017] – “cooling device is a coolant cooler of a cooling circuit of an internal combustion engine of a motor vehicle” and [0036] – “Furthermore, it is advantageous if at least one of the cooling devices comprises a low temperature cooler, a charge air cooler, a transmission oil cooler and/or an exhaust gas cooler” emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 8, Vollert teaches the cooling system according to the claim 1,
wherein the plane (Examiner Fig. 2, P) is parallel to a length (“cooling module central longitudinal plane” 25) of the work machine (see Examiner Fig. 2).
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, 5-6, 9, 11, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno (US 6,435,264), in view of Cummins (US 9,243,846).
Regarding Claim 2, Konno teaches the cooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the second heat exchanger (40 of upper 30 and 40) cools a second fluid (col. 6, line 10 – “Referring also to FIG. 2, an oil cooler 40 is rotatably mounted to the front side of one radiator 30”).
Konno does not teach “wherein the first heat exchanger cools a first fluid”. In other words, Konno does not explicitly disclose a fluid passing through the two heat exchangers (Fig. 2, 30).
Cummins teaches “Heavy duty off highway vehicles such as tractors and diggers employ several heat exchangers including an oil cooler, a radiator and a charge air cooler (CAC) which collectively form a heat exchanging apparatus. Each heat exchanger comprises a core typically having a fin and tube type construction. High temperature fluid from one of the vehicle's systems is directed through the tubes while ambient air is directed, by the fins, over the tubes so as to extract heat from the hot fluid. The fluid temperature of each system thus reduces whilst the ambient air temperature increases” (emphasis added; col. 1, line 5).
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 two heat exchangers taught by Konno with the fluid taught by Cummins, such that “wherein the first heat exchanger cools a first fluid”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of removing heat from the engine taught by Konno.
Regarding Claim 5, Konno teaches the cooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2, lower 30) and the second heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) are spaced apart forming a gap (adjacent “hinge” 24) in between (see Fig. 2).
Konno does not teach “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”. However, as seen in Examiner Fig. 1, the acute angles (A1, A2) taught by Konno appear to be substantially similar.
Cummins teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left “charge air coolers” 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are spaced apart forming a gap (see Fig. 3) in between and the gap is symmetrical on both respective sides of a plane normal to a fan surface (“axial fan” 19; col. 3, line 8 – “In one embodiment the two or more cores of the third heat exchanger may be arranged at an acute angle with respect to the major plane of the second heat exchanger. This causes a streamlined airflow at the outlet of the heat exchangers. The two or more cores of the third heat exchanger may be arranged symmetrically about an air flow direction through the first and second heat exchangers. This further enhances the streamlined flow at exit from the heat exchangers” emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to symmetrically arrange the first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno as suggested by Cummins, such that “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of streamlining airflow through the first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno.
Regarding Claim 6, Konno and Cummins teach the cooling system according to claim 5,
Konno teaches wherein a blocking member (Fig. 2, 24) is placed in the gap (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Konno teaches the cooling system according to claim 1.
Konno does not teach “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”. However, as seen in Examiner Fig. 1, the acute angles (A1, A2) taught by Konno appear to be substantially similar.
Cummins teaches acute angles of a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are equal angles (see Fig. 3) with a plane normal to a fan surface (19; see col. 3, line 8 passage above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to symmetrically arrange the first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno as suggested by Cummins, such that “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of streamlining airflow through the first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno.
Regarding Claim 11, Konno teaches the work machine according to claim 10,
wherein the second heat exchanger (40 of upper 30 and 40) cools a second fluid (col. 6, line 10 – “Referring also to FIG. 2, an oil cooler 40 is rotatably mounted to the front side of one radiator 30”).
Konno does not teach “wherein the first heat exchanger cools a first fluid”. In other words, Konno does not explicitly disclose a fluid passing through the two heat exchangers (Fig. 2, 30).
Cummins teaches “Heavy duty off highway vehicles such as tractors and diggers employ several heat exchangers including an oil cooler, a radiator and a charge air cooler (CAC) which collectively form a heat exchanging apparatus. Each heat exchanger comprises a core typically having a fin and tube type construction. High temperature fluid from one of the vehicle's systems is directed through the tubes while ambient air is directed, by the fins, over the tubes so as to extract heat from the hot fluid. The fluid temperature of each system thus reduces whilst the ambient air temperature increases” (emphasis added; col. 1, line 5).
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 two heat exchangers taught by Konno with the fluid taught by Cummins, such that “wherein the first heat exchanger cools a first fluid”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of removing heat from the engine taught by Konno.
Regarding Claim 14, Konno teaches the work machine according to claim 10,
wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2, lower 30) and the second heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) are spaced apart forming a gap (adjacent 24) in between.
Konno does not teach “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”. However, as seen in Examiner Fig. 1, the acute angles (A1, A2) taught by Konno appear to be substantially similar.
Cummins teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are spaced apart forming a gap (see Fig. 3) in between and the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of a plane normal to a fan surface (19; see col. 3, line 8 passage above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to symmetrically arrange the first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno as suggested by Cummins, such that “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of streamlining airflow through the first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno.
Regarding Claim 15, Konno and Cummins teach the work machine according to claim 15 (see 112(b) rejection above),
Konno teaches wherein a blocking member (Fig. 2, 24) is placed in the gap (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Konno teaches the work machine according to claim 10.
Konno does not teach “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”. However, as seen in Examiner Fig. 1, the acute angles (A1, A2) taught by Konno appear to be substantially similar.
Cummins teaches acute angles of a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are equal angles (see Fig. 3) with a plane normal to a fan surface (19; see col. 3, line 8 passage above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to symmetrically arrange the first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno as suggested by Cummins, such that “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of streamlining airflow through the first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollert (DE 10 2008 022 887), in view of Cummins (US 9,243,846).
Regarding Claim 5, Vollert teaches the cooling system according to claim 1,
wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 4, 2) and the second heat exchanger (3) are spaced apart forming a gap (see Examiner Fig. 2) in between.
Vollert does not teach “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”. However, as seen in Examiner Fig. 2, the acute angles (A1, A2) taught by Vollert appear to be substantially similar.
Cummins teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are spaced apart forming a gap (see Fig. 3) in between and the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of a plane normal to a fan surface (19; see col. 3, line 8 passage above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to symmetrically arrange the first and second heat exchangers taught by Vollert as suggested by Cummins, such that “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of streamlining airflow through the first and second heat exchangers taught by Vollert.
Regarding Claim 6, Vollert and Cummins teach the cooling system according to claim 5,
Vollert teaches wherein a blocking member (Fig. 4, “guide” 7) is placed in the gap (between 2 and 3; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Vollert and Cummins teach the cooling system according to claim 6,
Vollert teaches wherein the blocking member (Fig. 4, 7) is integral to the plenum (6; [0060] – “guide web 7 can form a common wall of the fresh air guide device 6”).
Regarding Claim 9, Vollert teaches the cooling system according to claim 1.
Vollert does not teach “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”. However, as seen in Examiner Fig. 2, the acute angles (A1, A2) taught by Vollert appear to be substantially similar.
Cummins teaches acute angles of a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are equal angles (see Fig. 3) with a plane normal to a fan surface (19; see col. 3, line 8 passage above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to symmetrically arrange the first and second heat exchangers taught by Vollert as suggested by Cummins, such that “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of streamlining airflow through the first and second heat exchangers taught by Vollert.
Claims 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollert (DE 10 2008 022 887), in view of Konno (US 6,435,264).
Regarding Claim 10, Vollert teaches a work machine ([0001] – “invention relates to a cooling module, in particular of a motor vehicle”) comprising:
a ground-engaging mechanism (Figs. 4-5; “tires” 33);
a power source (9);
a cooling system (1) to cool the power source (9);
the cooling system (1) including a fan (4) and a plenum (6);
a first heat exchanger (2) and a second heat exchanger (3) placed within the plenum (6);
a plane (Examiner Fig. 2, P) normal to a surface of the fan (4) and passing through the plenum (6);
wherein the first heat exchanger (2) and the second heat exchanger (3) are placed on of the plane (P) and each form an acute angle (A2, A1, respectively) with the plane (P; see Examiner Fig. 2; see 112(b) rejection above).
Vollert does not teach “a traveling body having a ground-engaging mechanism”. In other words, Vollert does not explicitly disclose a travelling body.
Konno teaches a traveling body (see Figs. 2 and 10) having a ground-engaging mechanism (col. 2, line 57 – “the radiators are arranged like the letter "V" having an opening in the rear and so the radiators are tilted from the side surface of the body” and col. 2, line 32 – “The above-described object is achieved by a first embodiment of the present invention that provides a cooling system for use with a wheel type working vehicle”).
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 work machine taught by Vollert with the travelling body taught by Konno, such that “a traveling body having a ground-engaging mechanism”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of housing the cooling system and securing the ground-engaging mechanism taught by Vollert.
Regarding Claim 11, Vollert and Konno teach the work machine according to claim 10,
Vollert teaches wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 4, 2) cools a first fluid and the second heat exchanger (3) cools a second fluid ([0017] – “cooling device is a coolant cooler of a cooling circuit of an internal combustion engine of a motor vehicle” and [0036] – “Furthermore, it is advantageous if at least one of the cooling devices comprises a low temperature cooler, a charge air cooler, a transmission oil cooler and/or an exhaust gas cooler” emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 17, Vollert and Konno teach the work machine according to the claim 10,
Vollert teaches wherein the plane (Examiner Fig. 2, P) is parallel to length (Fig. 4, 25) of work machine (see Fig. 4).
Claims 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollert (DE 10 2008 022 887), in view of Konno (US 6,435,264), and in view of Cummins (US 9,243,846).
Regarding Claim 14, Vollert and Konno teach the work machine according to claim 10,
Vollert teaches wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 4, 2) and the second heat exchanger (3) are spaced apart forming a gap (see Examiner Fig. 2) in between.
Vollert or Konno do not teach “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”. However, as seen in Examiner Fig. 2, the first and second angles (A1, A2) taught by Vollert appear to be substantially similar.
Cummins teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are spaced apart forming a gap (see Fig. 3) in between and the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of a plane normal to a fan surface (19; see col. 3, line 8 passage above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to symmetrically arrange the first and second heat exchangers taught by Vollert as suggested by Cummins, such that “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of streamlining airflow through the first and second heat exchangers taught by Vollert.
Regarding Claim 15, Vollert, Konno and Cummins teach the work machine according to claim 15 (see 112(b) rejection above),
Vollert teaches wherein a blocking member (Fig. 4, 7) is placed in the gap (between 2 and 3; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Vollert, Konno and Cummins teach the work machine according to claim 15,
Vollert teaches wherein the blocking member (Fig. 4, 7) is integral to plenum (6; see [0060]).
Regarding Claim 18, Vollert and Konno teach the work machine according to claim 10.
Vollert or Konno do not teach “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”. However, as seen in Examiner Fig. 2, the acute angles (A1, A2) taught by Vollert appear to be substantially similar.
Cummins teaches acute angles of a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are equal angles (see Fig. 3) with a plane normal to a fan surface (19; see col. 3, line 8 passage above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to symmetrically arrange the first and second heat exchangers taught by Vollert as suggested by Cummins, such that “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of streamlining airflow through the first and second heat exchangers taught by Vollert.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed January 28th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed October 28th, 2025. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 1, 7-8 and 10, Applicant’s amendment addresses various minor informalities previously indicated in the latest Office Action. As such, the relevant claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 15, claim 15 is now dependent upon itself. See 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding Claim 17, claim 17 is still missing a period. See relevant claim objection above.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12-14 and 18, Applicant’s amendment has clarified the invention. As such, the relevant 112(b) rejections previously indicated in the latest Office Action are withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant’s amendment has not clarified the invention. See relevant 112(b) rejection above.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s argument that “Konno Does Not Disclose at least a Plenum and a Blocking Member On page 7 of the Office Action, the Office equates Konno's "hood (11)" and "side covers (12)" to Applicant's "plenum (228)". Applicant defines plenum as "the space between fan 216 and heat exchangers 205 and provides an optimally sized and spaced transition duct, together with a fan shroud 218" (Applicant, [0018]). Konno at least does not disclose the "plenum" as required by independent claims 1 and 10. Konno's hood and side covers are not a plenum. This is further evidence by Konno's FIG. 2 (shown below) where the radiators are arranged to pull air laterally through the side covers (12), and not symmetrically about a plane normal to a fan surface. Konno's side covers (12) each have an "intake port (14)" unlike Applicant's plenum (228) that serves as a "conduit"” (p. 6) is not persuasive for several reasons. As seen in Figs. 2 and 6-7 of the Applicant’s disclosure, the plenum (228) is a housing that receives the heat exchangers (206, 208); therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the hood (Figs. 1-2, 11) and side covers (12) disclosed by Konno as the recited “plenum”. Also, Applicant’s argument that “where the radiators are arranged to pull air laterally through the side covers (12), and not symmetrically about a plane normal to a fan surface. Konno's side covers (12) each have an "intake port (14)" unlike Applicant's plenum (228) that serves as a "conduit"” is not presently recited in claims 1 and 10. For these reasons, claims 1 and 10 remain rejected as presented above.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s argument that “Additionally, "Plane P" is not disclosed by Konno and is merely the Office's constructed analytical plane” (p. 7) is not persuasive as the use of annotated figures is permitted and encouraged at the Office. Examiner is highly confident of Office personnel’s understanding of right angles; therefore, the prior art of Konno teaches the recitation of “a plane normal to a surface of the fan and passing through the plenum”. See Examiner Fig. 1 above.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Applicant’s argument that “Additionally, Konno fails to anticipate Applicant's "blocking member (220)". The Office equates Konno's hinge (24) to Applicant's "blocking member". However, this hinge is intended to easily clean the inner and outer surfaces of the oil cooler. (Konno, col. 6, 11. 10-17.) Contrary to Konno, Applicant' teaches the "blocking member" placed between the first heat exchanger 206 and the second heat exchanger 208...as bridging the gap 210 between the heat exchangers 205. The blocking member 220 further blocks the air passing from fan side to outside. "As the fan 216 induces air flow across through the heat exchangers 205, the air flow would turn over 180° to re-enter the heat exchangers 205 at the center 210 region. The blocking member 220 which bridges the gap 210 between the heat exchangers 205 will block the reentry of air flow and forces the air towards the outward direction of the machine" (Applicant's [0024]). These are structurally incompatible.” (p. 7) is not persuasive. As seen in Fig. 4 of the Applicant’s disclosure, the blocking member (220) connects the first and second heat exchangers (208, 206); therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the hinge (Fig. 2, 24) disclosed by Konno as the recited “blocking member”. As such, Konno clearly teaches wherein a blocking member (Fig. 2, “hinge” 24) is placed in a gap (see Fig. 2) between the first and second heat exchangers (30). For these reasons, claims 6 and 15 remain rejected as presented above.
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 15-16, Applicant’s argument that “Applicant's plenum (228) and block member (220) is shown below where there are no side "intake ports"” (p. 7) is not persuasive as these structural details are not currently recited in claims 6-7 and 15-16.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s argument that “However, Vollert fails to anticipate "a plane normal to the surface of the fan and passing through the plenum." "Plane P" is not disclosed by Vollert and is merely the Office's constructed analytical plane. The Office has not met its burden to show that the plane normal to the fan surface is inherently disclosed in Vollert because it has not provided any evidence or rationale tending to show inherency” (p. 8) is not persuasive as the use of annotated figures is permitted and encouraged at the Office. Again, Examiner is highly confident of Office personnel’s understanding of right angles; therefore, the prior art of Vollert teaches the recitation of “a plane normal to a surface of the fan and passing through the plenum”. See Examiner Fig. 2 above. Also, in order to clarify the record, Examiner did not rely on inherency to teach the recitation of “a plane normal to a surface of the fan and passing through the plenum”. This feature is clearly seen in the annotated figures provided to Applicant.
In conclusion, amended claims 1-18 are rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above.
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 James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655