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 § 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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11 is/are rejected, as best understood due to indefiniteness issues, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montocchio et al. US 2013/0153180 A1.
Re claim 1, Montocchio et al. teach a work machine comprising: a heat exchange part including at least one heat exchanger (32); a plurality of cooling fans (30, 36) configured to cool the heat exchange part; and a controller (28) configured to change each of the plurality of cooling fans from a forward rotation to a backward rotation and to maintain each of the plurality of cooling fans in the backward rotation for a predetermined time, while controlling such that, when rotation of at least one of the cooling fans is stopped during a process of changing from forward rotation to backward rotation, at least one of the other cooling fans is rotating in the forward direction or the backward direction (fig 9).
Re claim 2, Montocchio et al. teach wherein the cooling fans are electric fans (para 31).
Re claim 3, Montocchio et al. teach wherein the controller is configured to transmit a control signal in order to change rotation from forward rotation to backward rotation to at least one of the cooling fans and thereafter, after a predetermined time period has elapsed, transmit a control signal in order to change rotation from forward rotation to backward rotation to at least one of the other cooling fans (para 31, fig 9, paras 22, 24).
Re claim 4, Montocchio et al. teach wherein the controller is configured to change the rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation one by one in order (fig 9).
Re claim 5, Montocchio et al. teach further comprising: a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of a fluid to be cooled by being subjected to heat exchange in the heat exchanger, the controller being configured to change the rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation when a value detected by the temperature sensor is equal to or less than a predetermined value (para 58).
Re claim 6, Montocchio et al. teach wherein the heat exchange part includes an after-cooler as the heat exchanger (noting changing the name does not require structure and the heat exchanger may be considered an after cooler).
Re claim 11, Montocchio et al. teach further comprising an engine (48), wherein the heat exchange part is disposed upstream of the plurality of cooling fans in an airflow direction when the cooling fans are rotated in the forward rotation (fig 1), the engine is disposed downstream of the plurality of cooling fans in the airflow direction when the cooling fans are rotated in the forward rotation (noting a circular loop is capable of forming when the vehicle is at standstill or moving slowly such that air will be recirculated in the airflow direction) and the heat exchange part, the plurality of cooling fans, and the engine are disposed in a direction perpendicular to a forward-rear direction of a vehicle body (noting an upwards volume is perpendicular to forward an d backward axes).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected, as best understood due to indefiniteness, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montocchio et al. in view of Robitaille US 20180045430 A1.
Additionally, Re claim 4, Montocchio et al. teach wherein the controller is configured to change the rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation one by one in order (fig 9).
Robitaille teach wherein the controller is configured to change the rotation of the
plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation one by one in order (para 50) to provide independent fan controls.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to include independent fan controls as taught by Robitaille in the Montocchio et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for energy efficiency.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to try to provide wherein the controller is
configured to change the rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to
backward rotation one by one in order (para 50) as taught by Robitaille in the Montocchio et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for energy efficiency by only reversing a single fan (for the purpose of debris removal as taught by the primary reference) while attempting to maintain efficient heat exchange (as taught by the secondary reference).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected, as best understood due to indefiniteness, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montocchio et al. in view of HARA WO 2020/104058.
Additionally, Re claim 5, HARA teach further comprising: a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of a fluid to be cooled by being subjected to heat exchange in the heat exchanger, the controller being configured to change the rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation when a value detected by the temperature sensor is equal to or less than a predetermined value (page 8 second to last para, page 10 lines 12-24) to provide fan controls.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include controls as taught by HARA in the Montocchio et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for ideal cleaning and heat exchange.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montocchio et al. in view of Kitaoka US 20140060099 A1 .
Additionally Re claim 6, Kitaoka teach wherein the heat exchange part includes an after-cooler as the heat exchanger (para 39) to incorporate different types of heat exchangers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the HEs as taught by Kitaoka in the Montocchio et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for different intended use machinery.
Re claim 7, Kitaoka teach wherein the heat exchange part further includes a radiator and an oil cooler as a plurality of heat exchangers (para 12) to incorporate different types of heat exchangers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the HEs as taught by Kitaoka in the Montocchio et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for different intended use machinery.
Re claim 8, Montocchio et al. , as modified, teach wherein the plurality of cooling fans includes one cooling fan having a largest surface area overlapping the after-cooler as viewed along a suction direction of air, the controller is configured to change the rotation of the one cooling fan, from the forward rotation to the backward rotation last among the plurality of cooling fans (noting the configuration is met since either fan can be controlled which meets the claim limitations in the instant combination, fig 9 Montocchio et al., fig 3 Kitaoka ) .
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of cooling fans includes one cooling fan having a largest surface area overlapping the after-cooler as viewed along a suction direction of air, the controller is configured to change the rotation of the one cooling fan, from the forward rotation to the backward rotation last among the plurality of cooling fans (given the different sizes of heat exchangers in the instant combination), since it has been held that a mere reversal or rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part C.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montocchio et al. in view of HARA WO 2020/104058.
Re claim 9, HARA teach further comprising: a backward rotation switch operated by a driver, the backward rotation switch being configured to transmit an operation signal to the controller, wherein the controller being configured to change the rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation upon receiving the operation signal (page 7 second to last para, page 3 lines 1-4) to provide an operator with a switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a backward rotation switch as taught by HARA in the over Montocchio et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for manual cleaning from a human operator.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Montocchio et al. in view of Naito US 20130000999 A1.
Re claim 9, Naito teach a backward rotation switch operated by a driver, the backward rotation switch being configured to transmit an operation signal to the controller, wherein the controller being configured to change the rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation upon receiving the operation signal (para 41) to provide an operator with a switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a backward rotation switch as taught by Naito in the over Montocchio et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for manual cleaning from a human operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 6/10/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights