Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/579,974

WORK MACHINE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR WORK MACHINE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 17, 2024
Examiner
JONES, GORDON A
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Komatsu Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
331 granted / 548 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
613
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 548 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/26/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged. 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 1-9 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “change rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation while controlling that when at least one of the cooling fans stops rotating when changing rotation from forward rotation to backward rotation, at least one of the other cooling fans rotates forward or backward”, wherein it is unclear what “while controlling that when” is referring to. What is “that”? Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “that” have with the “while controlling that when”, since the term “that” is vague. Additionally, “while controlling that when at least one of the cooling fans stops rotating when changing rotation from forward rotation to backward rotation “ is unclear, since in the first clause “while controlling that when at least one of the cooling fans stops rotating “ has at least one of the fans is referenced to be acted on, but the second clause states “when changing rotation from forward rotation to backward rotation”, which is unclear if this phrase “when changing rotation from forward rotation to backward rotation” is referring to the overall controls and actions, or what must occur to a single of both of the fans or at least one of the fans. The vague grammar and run on construction also makes the clarity difficult to ascertain to one of ordinary skill in the art? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- change rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation while controlling when at least one of the cooling fans stops rotating, and at least one of the other cooling fans rotates forward or backward -- for clarity. Claim 8 recites the limitation " the cooling fan having a largest surface area overlapping the after-cooler as viewed along in a suction direction of air ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase has been examined as --one of the plurality of cooling fans--. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected. 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected, as best understood due to indefiniteness issues, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HARA WO 2020/104058. Re claim 1, HARA teach a work machine comprising: a heat exchange part (radiator 12, oil cooler 14, aftercooler 16) including at least one heat exchanger; a plurality of cooling fans (cooling fans 6, page 6 last two lines) configured to cool the heat exchange part; and a controller (controller 32) configured to change rotation of the plurality of cooling fans from forward rotation to backward rotation while controlling that when at least one of the cooling fans stops rotating when changing rotation from forward rotation to backward rotation, at least one of the other cooling fans rotates forward or backward (page 16 last two para). Re claim 2, HARA teach wherein the cooling fans are electric fans (page 7 last para). Re claim 3, HARA 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 (page 8 last para, page 9). 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). Re claim 6, HARA 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; page 5 lines 10-13). 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 HARA WO 2020/104058 in view of Robitaille US 20180045430 A1. Re claim 4, HARA fail to explicitly teach independent fan controls. 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 HARA 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 HARA 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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARA WO 2020/104058 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 HARA invention in order to advantageously allow for different intended use machinery. Re claim 7, HARA teach wherein the heat exchange part further includes a radiator and an oil cooler as a plurality of heat exchangers (page 5 lines 10-13; also noting in the instant combination three HEs are present as taught by the secondary reference see the rejection of claim 6). Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected, as best understood due to indefiniteness, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARA WO 2020/104058 and Kitaoka US 20140060099 A1 in view of Robitaille US 20180045430 A1. Re claim 9, HARA , as modified, fail to teach independent fan controls. Robitaille teach wherein the controller is configured to change the rotation of the cooling fan having a largest surface area overlapping the after-cooler as viewed along in a suction direction of air, from the forward rotation to the backward rotation last among the plurality of cooling fans (para 50, noting the configuration is met since either fan can be controlled which meets the claim limitations) 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 HARA 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 cooling fan having a largest surface area overlapping the after-cooler as viewed along in a suction direction of air, from the forward rotation to the backward rotation last among the plurality of cooling fans (para 50) as taught by Robitaille in the HARA 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARA WO 2020/104058 in view of Naito US 20130000999 A1. 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). Additionally, 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 HARA invention in order to advantageously allow for manual cleaning from a human operator. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20130146377 A1, US 20100236853 A1, US 20100224726 A1, US 20190309673 A1, US 2005/0211483 Al. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595065
100% AMBIENT AIR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12568605
LOOP HEAT PIPE FOR LOW VOLTAGE DRIVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12528588
VARIABLE CHILLER EXHAUST WITH CROWN VENTILATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12531218
WAFER PLACEMENT TABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12529524
ULTRA-THIN HEAT PIPE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 548 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month