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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/612,404. Responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 3/21/2024, Claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2024 and 1/30/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because title text “Agricultural working tool” in line 1 and “Fig. 1” in line 9 should be removed to conform to the single paragraph requirement for abstracts. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: all references to specific claim numbers (e.g., paragraphs [0001] and [0008]) should be removed as claim scope and numbering is subject to change during prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 6-7 state, “at least oil-carrying sub-assemblies of the cooling system (16) are pressure-resistant up to at least 200 bar” which is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what “pressure-resistant” is referring to and whether this limitation only refers to a maximum allowable pressure of the sub-assemblies. Additionally, it is unclear what structure/element(s) facilitate the sub-assemblies being pressure-resistant (i.e., if Applicant considers the effect of being pressure-resistant up to at least 200 bar to be novel, then the structural element(s) which cause this effect must be claimed as these would be considered essential elements that are not currently claimed).
Claim 2, line 4 states, “pressure-resistant up to at least 200 bar” which is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what “pressure-resistant” is referring to and whether this limitation only refers to a maximum allowable pressure of the at least one pipeline. Additionally, it is unclear what structure/element(s) facilitate the at least one pipeline being pressure-resistant (i.e., if Applicant considers the effect of being pressure-resistant up to at least 200 bar to be novel, then the structural element(s) which cause this effect must be claimed as these would be considered essential elements that are not currently claimed).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the at least one pipeline" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 3 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “at least one pipeline” in line 3.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the pipeline heat exchanger" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 3 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a pipeline heat exchanger” in line 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coolant container" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 4 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a coolant container” in line 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pipeline heat exchanger" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 4 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a pipeline heat exchanger” in line 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coolant container" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 4 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a coolant container” in line 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pipeline heat exchanger" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 4 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a pipeline heat exchanger” in line 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coolant container" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 4 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a coolant container” in line 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the coolant" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 5 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “coolant” in line 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the coolant container" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 5 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a coolant container” in line 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the coolant container" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 5 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a coolant container” in line 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the coolant" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 5 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “coolant” in line 5.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to its dependence from indefinite Claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outgoing flow" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 8 should be amended to depend from Claim 5 which provides support for “an outgoing flow” in line 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the coolant container" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 8 should be amended to depend from Claim 5 (see “outgoing flow” discussion above regarding Claim 8) and Claim 5 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a coolant container” in line 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cooler" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 8 should be amended to depend from Claim 5 which provides support for “a cooler” in line 2.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the coolant container" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears Claim 5 should be amended to depend from Claim 2 which provides support for “a coolant container” in line 3.
Claim 10 is indefinite due to its dependence from indefinite Claim 1.
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)(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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHINN (US 2008/0245043 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, SHINN discloses an agricultural working tool (Figs. 1-6) which is constructed for coupling to an agricultural carrier vehicle or towing vehicle (11), having at least one hydraulic power take-off member (31, 32), having hydraulic connections (“L”), via which the at least one hydraulic power take-off member can be supplied with hydraulic oil from the carrier vehicle or towing vehicle (Fig. 4; paragraph [0024], “high pressure hydraulic fluid is transmitted from a reservoir throughout the vehicle 11 to various hydraulic motors”), having a cooling system (Fig. 4 and including heat exchanger 40) for cooling the hydraulic oil, characterized in that at least oil-carrying sub-assemblies of the cooling system are pressure-resistant up to at least 200 bar (Fig. 4, lines “L” connected to 40; paragraph [0024], “return lines “L””, “pressure range of 195-350 bar”).
Regarding Claim 2 as best understood, SHINN discloses the cooling system has a pipeline heat exchanger (40; paragraph [0025], “heat-exchanger”) which is arranged in a coolant container (Figs. 4 and 5) and whose at least one pipeline through which oil flows is pressure-resistant up to at least 200 bar and whose at least one pipeline through which oil flows is flowed around by coolant which flows through the coolant container (Fig. 4, lines “L” connected to 40; paragraph [0024], “return lines “L””, “pressure range of 195-350 bar”).
Regarding Claim 3 as best understood, SHINN discloses the at least one pipeline of the pipeline heat exchanger is constructed in a coil-like or helical manner (paragraph [0025], “heat-exchanger”; Figs. 4 and 5, (40)).
Regarding Claim 4 as best understood, SHINN discloses at least one supply for oil and at least one discharge for oil extends through at least one wall of the coolant container (Fig. 4, lines “L” connected to 40), via the at least one supply oil which is intended to be cooled can be supplied to the pipeline heat exchanger which is arranged in the coolant container (Figs. 3-5; paragraph [0025], “heat-exchanger”), via the at least one discharge oil which has been cooled by the pipeline heat exchanger which is arranged in the coolant container can be discharged (Figs. 3-5; paragraph [0025], “heat-exchanger”).
Regarding Claim 5 as best understood, SHINN discloses the cooling system has a cooler for the coolant, wherein via an outgoing flow coolant can be removed from the coolant container and can be supplied to the cooler (Fig. 6; paragraph [0027], “flow…through the oil cooler 40”), and wherein via a return flow coolant from the cooler can be supplied to the coolant container (Fig. 6; paragraph [0027], “flow…through the oil cooler 40”).
Regarding Claim 6 as best understood, SHINN discloses the cooler is an air heat exchanger which cools the coolant with respect to ambient air (Fig. 6; paragraph [0027], “air flow”, “flow of ambient air through the oil cooler 40”).
Regarding Claim 7 as best understood, SHINN discloses a fan which conveys ambient air through the cooler is associated with the cooler (paragraph [0027], “air flow”, “accelerates the pull of ambient air…through the oil cooler 40”).
Regarding Claim 8 as best understood, SHINN discloses a coolant pump is integrated in the outgoing flow which extends between the coolant container and the cooler (paragraph [0027], “air flow”, “accelerates the pull of ambient air…through the oil cooler 40”).
Regarding Claim 9 as best understood, SHINN discloses the cooler is mounted on a wall of the coolant container (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding Claim 10 as best understood, SHINN discloses the tool is a mower (Fig. 1) having at least one cross-conveyor in the form of a belt conveyor (Fig. 4) for mown harvested material (paragraph [0022], “hydraulic cutter device”, “clearing land”), wherein the respective cross-conveyor has a hydraulic drive (31, 32) as a hydraulic power take-off member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TAKEDA et al. (US 8,544,584) discloses a construction vehicle cooling system (see Fig. 3).
HONZEK et al. (US 2007/0246278 A1) discloses a utility vehicle cooling system (see Fig. 1).
SCHLESSER et al. (US 2005/0044832 A1) discloses an agricultural mower system (See ABSTRACT).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655