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 19 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 the last line of claim 19, Applicant recites “at least one electronic component” is a double recitation of that which has already been recited in claim 17. It is not clear if this is the same electronic component recited in claim 17 or a different electronic component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-2, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Park (KR 2015-0106178).
With respect to claim 1, Fukunaga et al. disclose the claimed roof assembly except for the air intake port being provided along at least one lateral side of the outer housing. Fukunaga et al. disclose a roof assembly 20 configured for use with an operator's cab for a work vehicle (shown in Fig. 1 of Fukunaga et al.), the roof assembly 20 including:
an outer housing 21/22 including at least one air intake port 63 provided on the outer housing 22 and at least one air outlet port 64 provided along an aft end of the outer housing (as shown in Fig. 4 of Fukunaga et al.); and
first and second roof members positioned within the outer housing 21/22 as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Fukunaga et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (second roof member)][AltContent: textbox (first roof member)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
390
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first and second roof members collectively defining at least one airflow channel 65 extending between the at least one air intake port 63 and the at least one air outlet port 64 for directing an airflow through an interior of the outer housing (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Fukunaga et al.);
wherein the airflow is used to cool at least one heat-generating component 51 positioned within the outer housing 21/22 (Fukunaga et al., paragraph [0069]).
Park teaches a similar roof assembly including at least one air intake port 245 provided along at least one lateral said of an outer housing 20 (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Park).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to replace the intake port provided on a front end of the outer housing, as disclosed by Fukunaga et al., with the teaching of Park because it would have been obvious to try. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are a finite, limited number of sides that an air intake could be provided on a vehicle roof: the front and back sides and the lateral sides. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the air intake to function properly no matter which side it is disposed on. Thus, it would have been obvious to use the identified, predictable solution taught by Park in combination with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al.
With respect to claim 2, Park teaches that the outer housing 20 includes at least one first air intake port 245 provided along a first lateral side of the outer housing and at least one second air intake port 245 provided along a second lateral side of the outer housing 20 (as shown in Fig. 3 of Park).
With respect to claim 10, Fukunaga et al. disclose at least one fan 71 positioned at or adjacent to the at least one air outlet port 64, the at least one fan 71 generating a suction force for intaking the airflow through the at least one air intake port 63 (note, fan 71 would provide at least some of the airflow through the at least one air intake port).
With respect to claim 11, Fukunaga et al. disclose that the at least one heat-generating component 51 is housed within an inner storage compartment 54 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Fukunaga et al.) of the roof assembly 20, the inner storage compartment 54 being positioned within the outer housing (as show in Figs. 3 and 5 of Fukunaga et al.).
With respect to claim 16, Fukunaga et al. disclose that the at least one heat-generating component 51 comprises at least one electronic component (“power source,” Fukunaga et al., paragraph [0066]).
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Shuttleworth et al. (US 20040144850).
With respect to claim 1, Fukunaga et al. disclose the claimed roof assembly except for the air intake port being provided along at least one lateral side of the outer housing. Fukunaga et al. disclose a roof assembly 20 configured for use with an operator's cab for a work vehicle (shown in Fig. 1 of Fukunaga et al.), the roof assembly 20 including:
an outer housing 21/22 including at least one air intake port 63 provided on the outer housing 22 and at least one air outlet port 64 provided along an aft end of the outer housing (as shown in Fig. 4 of Fukunaga et al.); and
first and second roof members positioned within the outer housing 21/22 as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Fukunaga et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (second roof member)][AltContent: textbox (first roof member)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
390
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first and second roof members collectively defining at least one airflow channel 65 extending between the at least one air intake port 63 and the at least one air outlet port 64 for directing an airflow through an interior of the outer housing (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Fukunaga et al.);
wherein the airflow is used to cool at least one heat-generating component 51 positioned within the outer housing 21/22 (Fukunaga et al., paragraph [0069]).
Shuttleworth et al. teach a similar roof assembly including at least one air intake port 44 provided along at least one lateral said of an outer housing 12 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Shuttleworth et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to replace the intake port provided on a front end of the outer housing, as disclosed by Fukunaga et al., with the teaching of Shuttleworth et al. because it would have been obvious to try. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are a finite, limited number of sides that an air intake could be provided on a vehicle roof: the front and back sides and the lateral sides. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the air intake to function properly no matter which side it is disposed on. Thus, it would have been obvious to use the identified, predictable solution taught by Shuttleworth et al. in combination with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al.
With respect to claim 8, Fukunaga et al. disclose at least one filter 68 positioned at or adjacent to the at least one air intake port 63 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Fukunaga et al.).
With respect to claim 9, Shuttleworth et al. teach a filter 48 and an access panel 52 provided along the at least one lateral side of an outer housing to allow access to the at least one filter 48 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Shuttleworth et al.).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Park (KR 2015-0106178), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of DE 202017101238.
With respect to claim 3, Fukunaga et al. in view of Park disclose the claimed roof assembly except for the at least one first air outlet port and at least one second air outlet port provided along the aft end of the housing and except for the first airflow channel and the second airflow channel. However, DE 202017101238 teaches a similar roof assembly including
at least one first air outlet port 102 and at least one second air outlet port 102 provided along the aft end of the housing, wherein first and second roof members 86/94 collectively define a first airflow channel 74a extending between the at least one first air intake port 100 and the at least one first air outlet port 102 and a second airflow channel 74b extending between the at least one second air intake port 100 and the at least one second air outlet port 102 (as shown in Fig. 2 of DE 202017101238).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of DE 202017101238 with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et l. in view of Park for the advantage of the additional channel allowing for the cooling of additional electronic components.
With respect to claim 4, DE 202017101238 teaches that the first and second airflow channels 74a/74b are isolated from each other (as indicated at least by the plate or divider shown in the middle of Fig. 2 of DE 202017101238).
With respect to claim 5, DE 202017101238 teaches a first heat transfer component (portion of heat exchanger 108 in channel 74a as shown in Fig. 4 of DE 202017101238) provided in flow communication with the airflow directed through the first airflow channel 74a and a second heat transfer component (portion of heat exchanger 108 in channel 74b) provided in flow communication with the airflow directed through the second airflow channel (as shown in Figs. 2-4 of DE 202017101238).
With respect to claim 6, DE 202017101238 disclose that the first heat transfer component (portion of heat exchanger 108 in channel 74a) is thermally coupled to a first heat-generating component 80 (one of motor inverters 24, fuses 28 or switches 30) positioned within the outer housing and the second heat transfer component (portion of heat exchanger 108 in channel 74b) is thermally coupled to a second heat-generating component 80 (one of converter 54, converter 66, inverter 56, fuse 27, or switch 30) positioned within the outer housing (see bottom of pg. 5 of the machine translation of DE 202017101238).
With respect to claim 7, Fukunaga et al. in view of Park disclose the claimed roof assembly except for the at least one heat transfer component provided in flow communication with the airflow directed through the at least one airflow channel, the at least one heat transfer component being thermally coupled to the at least one heat-generating component. However, DE 202017101238 teaches a similar roof assembly including at least one heat transfer component 108 provided in flow communication with the airflow directed through at least one airflow channel 74a, the at least one heat transfer component 108 being thermally coupled to the at least one heat-generating component 80 (as shown in Fig. 4 of DE 202017101238).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of DE 202017101238 with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al. in view of Park for the advantage of rapidly removing heat from the heat generating component to allow for the air passage to efficiently cool the heat transfer component 108.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Park (KR 2015-0106178), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gielda et al. (US 2016/0039262).
With respect to claim 13, Fukunaga et al. in view of Park disclose the claimed roof assembly except that they are silent on whether the inner storage compartment is configured to function as a Falling Objects Protective Structure (FOPS) component for the work vehicle. However, Gielda et al. teach a roof assembly that may be incorporated with falling objects protective structures (Gielda et al. , paragraph [0014]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Gielda et al. with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al. in view of Park for the advantage of protecting a driver of the vehicle from injury due to falling objects.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Park (KR 2015-0106178), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baro et al. (US 7,484,793).
With respect to claim 14, Fukunaga et al. in view of Park discloses the claimed roof assembly except for the one or more openings defined through the outer housing 16 to provide a visibility window. However, Baro et al. teach a similar roof assembly including one or more openings (at locations of openable panels 36) defined through the outer housing 16 to provide a visibility window for an operator of the work vehicle that allows a view-through at least a portion roof assembly (Baro et al., col. 2, lines 29-40; Fig. 2).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Baro et al. with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al. in view of Park for the advantage of providing the driver with increased visibility of the environment around the vehicle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Park (KR 2015-0106178), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badie et al. (US 2021/0307193).
With respect to claim 15, Fukunaga et al. in view of Park disclose the claimed roof assembly except for the one or more flow dividers positioned within the at least one airflow channel to divide the airflow flowing through the at least one airflow channel.
However, Badie et al. teach an airflow guiding device including one or more flow dividers 112 positioned within the at least one airflow channel to divide the airflow flowing through the at least one airflow channel (as shown in Fig. 1 of Badie et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Badie et al. with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al. in view of Park for the advantage of guiding the cooling air to the places in the airflow channel where it is most needed.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Hingne et al. (US 2016/0355077).
With respect to claim 17, Fukunaga et al. disclose the claimed roof assembly except that they are silent on the inclusion of at least one isolation mount. Fukunaga et al. disclose a roof assembly 20 configured for use with an operator's cab for a work vehicle, the roof assembly including:
an outer housing 21/22;
an inner storage compartment 54 positioned within the outer housing 21/20, the inner storage compartment 54 configured to house at least one electronic component 51 therein.
Hingne et al. teach an electronic component 29 mounted in a vehicle (Hingne et al., paragraph [0017) including at least one isolation mount 14/16 coupling an inner storage compartment 24 to an adjacent component 202 of the roof assembly, the at least one isolation mount 14/16 being configured to reduce an amount of vibrations transmitted between the adjacent component 202 and the inner storge compartment 24 (Hingne et al., paragraphs [0019]-[0020]), Figs. 6C-6E).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Hingne et al. with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al. for the advantage of preventing vehicle vibrations from adversely affecting the electronic component.
With respect to claim 20, Hingne et al. teach that the at least one isolation mount 14/16 comprises a mounting bracket 16 secured to a portion of the inner storage compartment 24 and a damper 14 provided at an interface between the mounting bracket 16 and the adjacent component 10 of the roof assembly (as shown in Fig. 2A of Hingne et al.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Hingne et al. (US 2016/0355077), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Gielda et al. (US 2016/0039262).
With respect to claim 18, Fukunaga et al. in view of Hingne et al. disclose the claimed roof assembly except that they are silent on whether the inner storage compartment is configured to function as a Falling Objects Protective Structure (FOPS) component for the work vehicle. However, Gielda et al. teach a roof assembly that may be incorporated with falling objects protective structures (Gielda et al. , paragraph [0014]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Gielda et al. with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al. in view of Hingne et al. for the advantage of protecting a driver of the vehicle from injury due to falling objects.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US 2014/0083784) in view of Hingne et al. (US 2016/0355077), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Park (KR 2015-0106178).
With respect to claim 19, Fukunaga et al. in view of Hingne et al. disclose the claimed roof assembly except for the air intake port being provided along at least one lateral side of the outer housing. Fukunaga et al. disclose at least one airflow channel (as shown in Fig. 4 of Fukunaga et al.) defined within an interior of the outer housing 21/22, the at least one airflow channel extending between the at least one air intake port 63 and the at least one air outlet port 64 to allow an airflow to be directed through an interior of the outer housing 21/22; and
the airflow is used to cool at least one electronic component 51.
Park teaches a similar roof assembly including at least one air intake port 245 provided along at least one lateral said of an outer housing 20 and at least one second air intake port 245 provided along a second lateral side of the outer housing 20 (as shown in Fig. 3 of Park).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to replace the intake port provided on a front end of the outer housing, as disclosed by Fukunaga et al. in view of Hingne et al. with the teaching of Park because it would have been obvious to try. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are a finite, limited number of sides that an air intake could be provided on a vehicle roof: the front and back sides and the lateral sides. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the air intake to function properly no matter which side it is disposed on. Thus, it would have been obvious to use the identified, predictable solution taught by Park in combination with the roof assembly disclosed by Fukunaga et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for
the at least one isolation mount coupling the inner storage compartment to one of the first roof member and the second roof member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612