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 August 3rd, 2026 for application no. 18/493,280 filed on October 24th, 2023. Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-18 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 10 and 16 are amended.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 10-11), please change the recitation of “wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side toward of the heat exchangers toward a fan side” to - - wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side [[toward]] of the heat exchangers toward a fan side - - 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 10-14 and 16-18 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 13-15), in the recitation of “wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side of the heat exchangers toward a fan side and airflow reentering the heat exchangers from the fan side” it is generally unclear what Applicant intended to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side of the heat exchangers toward a fan side
Claims 11-14 and 16-18 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 Figs. 1-3) 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) with the plane (P),
wherein the first heat exchanger (lower 30) and the second heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) are spaced apart forming a gap (gap between lower and upper 30) therebetween (see Fig. 2),
wherein a blocking member (“bracket” 34) bridges the gap (gap between lower and upper 30) and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side toward of the heat exchangers toward a fan side to force the airflow outward of the work machine (emphasis added; via “ports” 14; see structural arrangement in Figs. 1-3 and 6; see airflow direction in Figs. 4 and 6; col. 6, line 27 – “Another embodiment of the invention is next described. FIG. 6 is a plan view showing the direction of flow of cooling air. In the embodiment described above, cooling air flows from the radiators 30 toward the cooling fan 20 as indicated by the arrows of the sold lines. Alternatively, cooling air may be made to flow from the cooling fan 20 toward the radiators 30 as indicated by the arrows of the 12 is rendered smooth broken lines” emphasis added), and
wherein the plenum (11, 12) and the blocking member (34) cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side (see Figs. 1-4 and 6; see col. 6, line 27 passage above).
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 Figs. 2-3) 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 respective sides of the plane (P) and each form an acute angle (A2, A1) with the plane (P; see Examiner Fig. 1),
wherein the first heat exchanger (lower 30) and the second heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) are spaced apart forming a gap (gap formed between upper and lower 30) therebetween (see Figs. 2-3),
wherein a blocking member (34) bridges the gap (gap formed between upper and lower 30) and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side of the heat exchangers (lower 30 and upper 30 and/or 40) toward a fan side and airflow reentering the heat exchangers (lower 30 and upper 30 and/or 40) from the fan side and to force the airflow outward of the work machine (via 14; see Figs. 1-4 and 6; see col. 6, line 27 passage above), and
wherein the plenum (11, 12) and the blocking member (34) cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side (see Figs. 1-4 and 6; see col. 6, line 27 passage 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 Figs. 2-3).
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 Figs. 1-3) 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) with the plane (P; see Examiner Fig. 1),
wherein the first heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) and the second heat exchanger (lower 30) are spaced apart forming a gap (gap formed between upper and lower 30) therebetween (see Figs. 2-3),
wherein a blocking member (34) bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side toward of the heat exchangers (gap formed between upper and lower 30) toward a fan side and to force the airflow outward of the work machine (via 14; see Figs. 1-3 and 6; see col. 6, line 27 passage above), and
wherein the plenum (11, 12) and the blocking member (34) cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side (see Figs. 1-4 and 6; see col. 6, line 27 passage above).
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 Figs. 2-3) 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 respective sides of the plane (P) and each form an acute angle (A1, A2) with the plane (P; see Examiner Fig. 1),
wherein the first heat exchanger (upper 30 and/or 40) and the second heat exchanger (lower 30) are spaced apart forming a gap (gap formed between upper and lower 30) therebetween (see Fig. 2),
wherein a blocking member (34) bridges the gap (gap formed between upper and lower 30) and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side of the heat exchangers (upper 30 and/or 40 and lower 30) toward a fan side and airflow reentering the heat exchangers (upper 30 and/or 40 and lower 30) from the fan side and to force the airflow outward of the work machine (via 14; see Figs. 1-4 and 6; see col. 6, line 27 passage above), and
wherein the plenum (11, 12) and the blocking member (34) cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side (see Figs. 1-4 and 6; see col. 6, line 27 passage 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).
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, 9, 11, 14 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 first and second 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 first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno with the high temperature 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.
Konno does not explicitly 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 (gap formed between left and right 16) 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 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 explicitly teach “wherein the first heat exchanger cools a first fluid”. In other words, Konno does not explicitly disclose a fluid passing through the first and second 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 first and second heat exchangers taught by Konno with the high temperature 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.
Konno does not explicitly 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 (gap formed between left and right 16) 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 18, Konno teaches the work machine according to claim 10.
Konno does not explicitly 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 1-2, 7-8, 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narumoto (JP 2009-202684), in view of Simonin (EP 0 236 216). See translations provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Narumoto teaches a cooling system (see Figs. 1-2) to cool a power source (“engine” 14) of a work machine (“work vehicle” 2) comprising:
a fan (“fan” 18) and a plenum (“frame” 12a; [0029] – “In the embodiment of the present invention, an engine hood 12 was used as a cover for mounting the radiator 18. However, depending on the size and shape of the engine compartment 6c, a cover that can be opened and closed and to which the radiator is mounted may be provided instead of an engine hood”);
a heat exchanger (“radiator” 16) within the plenum (12a);
wherein the plenum (12a) prevents recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side (see arrows in Fig. 1).
Narumoto does not teach “a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger placed within the plenum; a plane normal to a surface of the fan and passing through the plenum; wherein 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, wherein the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are spaced apart forming a gap therebetween, wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side toward of the heat exchangers toward a fan side and to force the airflow outward of the work machine, and wherein the plenum and the blocking member cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side”.
Simonin teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 4, “heat exchangers” 38) and a second heat exchanger (36) placed within a plenum (“air circulation duct” 80);
a plane (see Fig. 4) normal to a surface of a fan (“motor-fan unit” 30) and passing through the plenum (80);
wherein the first heat exchanger (38) and the second heat exchanger (36) are placed on respective sides of the plane (38 is above the plane and 36 is below the plane) and each form an acute angle with the plane (see Fig. 4),
wherein the first heat exchanger (38) and the second heat exchanger (36) are spaced apart forming a gap (see Fig. 4) therebetween,
wherein a blocking member (central portion of 80) bridges the gap (see Fig. 4) and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side (right side of 38 and 36) toward of the heat exchangers (38, 36) toward a fan side (left of 38 and 36) and to force the airflow outward (see Fig. 4), and
wherein the plenum (80) and the blocking member (central portion of 80) cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side (left side of 38 and 36; see Fig. 4).
Simonin also teaches “two exchangers are arranged one above the other obliquely in a single air circulation duct, one end of which includes two air passage openings each associated with one of the heat exchangers, and in that this duct also contains means for speeding up the air, including at least one motor-fan unit” [0005], “Furthermore, thanks to this arrangement, the means of accelerating the air can be sufficiently far from the heat exchangers, which promotes the uniformity of the airflow through the exchangers” [0007] and “In all cases, this arrangement of heat exchangers makes it possible to reduce the size of each heat exchanger, increase their thermal efficiency and reduce the overall size of their arrangement at the front of the vehicle body” [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cooling system arrangement taught by Narumoto with the cooling system arrangement taught by Simonin, such that “a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger placed within the plenum; a plane normal to a surface of the fan and passing through the plenum; wherein 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, wherein the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are spaced apart forming a gap therebetween, wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side toward of the heat exchangers toward a fan side and to force the airflow outward of the work machine, and wherein the plenum and the blocking member cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cooling system arrangement of reduced size and increased thermal efficiency. See MPEP 2144.06(II) - Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose.
Regarding Claim 2, Narumoto and Simonin teach the cooling system according to claim 1,
Simonin teaches wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 4, 38) cools a first fluid (see [0025] of Simonin and [0003] of Narumoto) and the second heat exchanger (36) cools a second fluid ([0025] – “In the example shown, the lower heat exchanger 36 is the radiator of the cooling circuit of the vehicle's internal combustion engine, while the upper heat exchanger 38 is a condenser forming part of a working fluid circulation loop comprising, for example, a compressor and an evaporator, used in an air conditioning or cabin air conditioning system of the vehicle”).
Regarding Claim 7, Narumoto and Simonin teach the cooling system according to claim 1,
Simonin teaches wherein the blocking member (Fig. 4, central portion of 80) is integral to the plenum (80; see Fig. 4 of Simonin).
Regarding Claim 8, Narumoto and Simonin teach the cooling system according to the claim 1,
Simonin teaches wherein the plane (see Fig. 4) is parallel to a length of the work machine (taught in combination with Narumoto; see Fig. 4 of Simonin and Figs. 1-2 of Narumoto).
Regarding Claim 10, Narumoto teaches a work machine (Figs. 1-2, 2) comprising:
a traveling body (“rear body” 6) having a ground-engaging mechanism (“rear wheels” 6b);
a power source (14);
a cooling system (see Figs. 1-2) to cool the power source (14);
the cooling system including a fan (18) and a plenum (12a);
a heat exchanger (16) within the plenum (12a);
wherein the plenum (12a) prevents recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side (see arrows in Fig. 1).
Narumoto does not teach “a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger placed within the plenum; a plane normal to a surface of the fan and passing through the plenum; wherein 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, wherein the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are spaced apart forming a gap therebetween, wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side of the heat exchangers toward a fan side and airflow reentering the heat exchangers from the fan side and to force the airflow outward of the work machine, and wherein the plenum and the blocking member cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side”.
Simonin teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 4, 38) and a second heat exchanger (36) placed within a plenum (80);
a plane (see Fig. 4) normal to a surface of a fan (30) and passing through the plenum (80);
wherein the first heat exchanger (38) and the second heat exchanger (36) are placed on respective sides of the plane (38 is above the plane and 36 is below the plane) and each form an acute angle with the plane (see Fig. 4),
wherein the first heat exchanger (38) and the second heat exchanger (36) are spaced apart forming a gap (occupied by the central portion of 80) therebetween,
wherein a blocking member (central portion of 80) bridges the gap (see Fig. 4) and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side (right side of 38 and 36) toward of the heat exchangers (38, 36) toward a fan side (left of 38 and 36) and to force the airflow outward (see Fig. 4), and
wherein the plenum (80) and the blocking member (central portion of 80) cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side (left side of 38 and 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cooling system arrangement taught by Narumoto with the cooling system arrangement taught by Simonin, such that “a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger placed within the plenum; a plane normal to a surface of the fan and passing through the plenum; wherein 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, wherein the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are spaced apart forming a gap therebetween, wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side of the heat exchangers toward a fan side and airflow reentering the heat exchangers from the fan side and to force the airflow outward of the work machine, and wherein the plenum and the blocking member cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cooling system arrangement of reduced size and increased thermal efficiency. See MPEP 2144.06(II) - Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose.
Regarding Claim 11, Narumoto and Simonin teach the work machine according to claim 10,
Simonin teaches wherein the first heat exchanger (Fig. 4, 38) cools a first fluid (see [0025] of Simonin and [0003] of Narumoto) and the second heat exchanger (36) cools a second fluid (see [0025]).
Regarding Claim 17, Narumoto and Simonin teach the work machine according to the claim 10,
Simonin teaches wherein the plane (see Fig. 4) is parallel to a length of the work machine (taught in combination with Narumoto; see Fig. 4 of Simonin and Figs. 1-2 of Narumoto).
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narumoto (JP 2009-202684), in view of Simonin (EP 0 236 216), and in view of Konno (US 6,435,264).
Regarding Claim 3, Narumoto and Simonin teach the cooling system according to claim 1.
Narumoto or Simonin do not teach “wherein the first heat exchanger is a first group of heat exchangers”.
Konno teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 2, upper 30 and 40) is a first group of heat exchangers (30, 40; see Fig. 2; col. 6, line 10 – “Referring also to FIG. 2, an oil cooler 40 is rotatably mounted to the front side of one radiator 30 via a hinge 24. The inner and outer surfaces of the oil cooler 40 and the outer surface of this radiator 30 can be cleaned easily by swinging the oil cooler 40 about the hinge 24 to the position indicated by the phantom line. In this way, improved maintainability is offered”).
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 first heat exchanger taught by Narumoto and Simonin with the oil cooler taught by Konno, such that “wherein the first heat exchanger is a first group of heat exchangers”, 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 improving maintainability of the work machine taught by Narumoto and Simonin.
Regarding Claim 4, Narumoto and Simonin teach the cooling system according to claim 1.
Narumoto or Simonin do not teach “wherein the second heat exchanger is a second group of exchangers”.
Konno teaches a second heat exchanger (Fig. 2, upper 30 and 40) is a second group of heat exchangers (30, 40; see Fig. 2; see col. 6, line 10 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 provide the second heat exchanger taught by Narumoto and Simonin with the oil cooler taught by Konno, such that “wherein the second heat exchanger is a second group of exchangers”, 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 improving maintainability of the work machine taught by Narumoto and Simonin.
Regarding Claim 12, Narumoto and Simonin teach the work machine according to claim 10.
Narumoto or Simonin do not teach “wherein the first heat exchanger is a first group of heat exchangers”.
Konno teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 2, upper 30 and 40) is a first group of heat exchangers (30, 40; see Fig. 2; see col. 6, line 10 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 provide the first heat exchanger taught by Narumoto and Simonin with the oil cooler taught by Konno, such that “wherein the first heat exchanger is a first group of heat exchangers”, 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 improving maintainability of the work machine taught by Narumoto and Simonin.
Regarding Claim 13, Narumoto and Simonin teach the work machine according to claim 10,
Narumoto or Simonin do not teach “wherein the second heat exchanger is a second group of exchangers”.
Konno teaches a second heat exchanger (Fig. 2, upper 30 and 40) is a second group of heat exchangers (30, 40; see Fig. 2; see col. 6, line 10 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 provide the second heat exchanger taught by Narumoto and Simonin with the oil cooler taught by Konno, such that “wherein the second heat exchanger is a second group of exchangers”, 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 improving maintainability of the work machine taught by Narumoto and Simonin.
Claims 5, 9, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narumoto (JP 2009-202684), in view of Simonin (EP 0 236 216), and in view of Cummins (US 9,243,846).
Regarding Claim 5, Narumoto and Simonin teach the cooling system according to claim 1.
Narumoto or Simonin do not teach “the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”.
Cummins teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are spaced apart forming a gap (gap formed between left and right 16) in between and the gap is symmetrical on both 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 Narumoto and Simonin 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 Narumoto and Simonin.
Regarding Claim 9, Narumoto and Simonin teach the cooling system according to claim 1.
Narumoto or Simonin do not teach “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”.
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 Narumoto and Simonin 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 Narumoto and Simonin.
Regarding Claim 14, Narumoto and Simonin teach the work machine according to claim 10.
Narumoto or Simonin do not teach “wherein the gap is symmetrical on both of the respective sides of the plane”.
Cummins teaches a first heat exchanger (Fig. 3, left 16) and a second heat exchanger (right 16) are spaced apart forming a gap (gap formed between left and right 16) 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 Narumoto and Simonin as suggested by Cummins, such that “wherein 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 Narumoto and Simonin.
Regarding Claim 16, Narumoto, Simonin and Cummins teach the work machine according to claim 14,
Simonin teaches wherein the blocking member (Fig. 4, central portion of 80) is integral to the plenum (80; see Fig. 4 of Simonin).
Regarding Claim 18, Narumoto and Simonin teach the work machine according to claim 10.
Narumoto or Simonin do not teach “wherein the acute angles of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are equal angles with the plane”.
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 Narumoto and Simonin 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 Narumoto and Simonin.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed August 3rd, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed May 13th, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Applicant’s amendment has clarified the invention. As such, the relevant 112(b) rejections indicated in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s argument that “Konno Does Not Disclose A Blocking Member Configured To Perform The Claimed Airflow-Control Functions The Office identifies Konno's bracket 34 as the claimed "blocking member." However, the rejection does not identify any disclosure in Konno demonstrating that bracket 34 is configured to perform the airflow-control functions expressly recited in claims 1 and 10” (p. 6) is not persuasive. The structure of the blocking member (Fig. 3, 34) taught by Konno is substantially similar to the blocking member disclosed by Applicant. Konno also teaches “In the structure described above, the opening that is formed in the rear of the V-shaped radiator arrangement and located between the two radiators is covered by the bracket at the inner ends of the radiators, the fan shroud around the rear opening, the top plate, and the bottom plate. The cooling air passes across the whole surface of the radiator core without leakage. Therefore, cooling is done efficiently. Since the radiators are tightened to the bracket with the bolts” (col. 3, lines 48-54). The blocking member taught by Konno would prevent recirculation as Konno explicitly discloses efficient airflow circulation without leakage. As such, Konno anticipates the recitation of “wherein a blocking member bridges the gap and is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side toward of the heat exchangers toward a fan side”. Examiner encourages the Applicant to seek an appeal if an agreement cannot be reached on what is required to anticipate claims 1 and 10. See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
Applicant has repeatedly stated that Konno does not explicitly discuss the prevention of recirculation; however, Applicant has not explained how the blocking member of Konno would permit airflow to return against a direction of airflow that is explicitly taught by Konno (see Figs. 4 and 6 of Konno). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect airflow driven by a fan in one direction to continue doing so until the airflow slowly dissipates in the same direction, but Applicant’s suggestion that the airflow somehow reverses direction against the source of itself appears to contradict the laws of physics and the explicit teachings of Konno. In future responses, please explain how the direction of airflow within the plenum taught by Konno would mysteriously reverse direction past the blocking member (see arrows in Figs. 4 and 6 of Konno).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s argument that “The claims further require that the blocking member cooperate with the plenum to prevent recirculation of airflow back toward the fan side” (p. 6) is not persuasive. As previously stated, the substantially similar blocking member taught by Konno would prevent recirculation as Konno explicitly discloses efficient circulation without leakage (e.g., recirculation). As such, Konno anticipates the recitation of “wherein the plenum and the blocking member cooperate to prevent recirculation of the airflow back towards the fan side”. See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s argument that “Konno describes bracket 34 as a mechanical mounting structure used to connect the inner ends of adjacent radiators. Specifically, Konno explains that the inner ends of the radiators are detachably mounted to bracket 34 using bolts and discusses the resulting advantages in repairability, replacement, and maintenance. (Konno, col. 3 11. 53-59). Konno does not describe bracket 34 as an airflow-management component, a bracket 34 as controlling recirculation, and fails to attribute any airflow-blocking functionality to bracket 34” (p. 6) is not persuasive as Figs. 4 and 6 of Konno clearly show the blocking member (34) cooperating with the first and second heat exchangers (30) to direct airflow (see arrows in Figs. 4 and 6). As previously stated, the substantially similar blocking member taught by Konno would prevent recirculation as Konno explicitly discloses efficient circulation without leakage (e.g., recirculation). See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s argument that “The Office additionally relies on Konno's disclosure that "no gap is left" between the inner ends of the radiators and that cooling air passes across the radiator cores "without leakage." Applicant respectfully submits that this disclosure does not satisfy the pending claims. Konno's discussion of eliminating a physical opening between radiator ends relates to reducing leakage and increasing the effectiveness of airflow through the radiator cores. However, the claims are directed to a a blocking member that is configured to block a return airflow path from a discharge side of the heat exchangers toward a fan side and [block} airflow reentering the heat exchangers from a fan side and to force airflow outward of the work machine, and to cooperate with the plenum to prevent recirculation. The Office has not cited any disclosure in Konno identifying recirculation as a problem, describing bracket 34 as a recirculation-control structure, or explaining how bracket 34 cooperates with the alleged plenum to prevent airflow from returning toward the fan side and reentering the heat exchangers. At most, Konno teaches closing a physical "leak" opening between radiator ends. That disclosure is insufficient to establish the claimed recirculation-prevention functionality” (p. 7) is not persuasive and incorrect in light of the teachings of Konno (see col. 3, lines 48-54). As previously stated, the substantially similar blocking member taught by Konno would prevent recirculation as Konno explicitly discloses efficient circulation without leakage (e.g., recirculation). See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s argument that “The Rejection Does Not Establish The Claimed Cooperative Relationship Between The Blocking Member And The Plenum Claims 1 and 10 additionally require that the plenum and blocking member cooperate to prevent recirculation of airflow back toward the fan side. The Office identifies hood 11 and side covers 12 as the claimed plenum and identifies bracket 34 as the claimed blocking member. However, the Office does not identify where Konno describes any cooperative relationship between those structures. The rejection does not explain how bracket 34 interacts with hood 11 or side covers 12 to prevent recirculation, redirect airflow, or otherwise accomplish the recited function” (p. 7) is not persuasive as Figs. 4 and 6 of Konno clearly show airflow directed through the plenum (11, 12) identified by Examiner in previous Office Actions. As previously stated, the substantially similar blocking member (34) and the plenum (11, 12) taught by Konno would prevent recirculation as Konno explicitly discloses efficient circulation without leakage (e.g., recirculation). See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of Vollert; however, the claimed invention is still obvious in view of the prior art of record. See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
In conclusion, amended claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-18 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
Prosecution Insights