VEHICLE

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 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on April 4th, 2024, has been considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0151995, filed on 11/06/2023. Drawings The drawing submitted on April 4th, 2024, has been considered and accepted by the examiner. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al., (US20190039434) in view of Ajisaka (US20190152287). Regarding Claim 1, Wallace teaches: A vehicle comprising: A reservoir having a space in which a cooling fluid is stored; ([0024, Fig. 2 - “a PE/DU (first) fluid reservoir 138”). An air separator connected to the reservoir and configured to separate air from the cooling fluid supplied from the reservoir; ([0024]- Fig 2. Air separator 136 connected to the reservoir 138). A pump connected to the air separator and configured to pump the cooling fluid supplied from the air separator (Fig. 2- [0024] – “Air separator and reservoir fluidly upstream and coupled to pump 132”, [0029]- “A PE/DU pump 132 operable for circulating liquid coolant”). A chiller connected to the pump and configured to cool the cooling fluid supplied from the pump ([0009]- “A second coolant loop composed of an electric RESS chiller and RESS pump for circulating coolant fluid emitted from the RESS chiller”). A compressor connected to the chiller and configured to supply the chiller with a refrigerant that exchanges heat with the cooling fluid; ([0009]- “The ATM system may further include a third coolant loop with an AC compressor that compresses a refrigerant-based coolant and fluid conduits that fluidly interconnect the AC compressor and AC condenser with the RESS chiller”). While these loops are separate loops Wallace teaches: “It is also within the scope of this disclosure to fluidly couple two or more of these loops, e.g., through electronically controlled fluid valving, such that the coolant fluid may be transferred there between (i.e., for open loop or continuous loop architecture” [0023]). However, Wallace is silent on: Wherein the first region includes the reservoir, the air separator, and the pump, and a second region includes the chiller and the compressor, the first region being spaced apart from the second region in a leftward and rightward direction. Ajisaka, however, in a similar field of endeavor - the vehicle temperature regulation system, teaches: “Disposing the first heat exchanger at the vehicle front side of the power unit and disposing the second heat exchanger at the vehicle rear side of the power unit to separate the first cooling unit and the second cooling unit” [0008] and that the related art it cites states “heat exchangers are disposed next to each other at the vehicle front side” [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wallace to have a combined coolant flow loop consisting of a reservoir, air separator, pump, chiller, and compressor and use the teachings of Ajisaka to place them within the existing architecture of the vehicle such as in the leftward and rightward direction since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding Claim 2, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends upon. Ajisaka further teaches: Wherein the vehicle is positioned between the first region and the second region ([0027] Fig 1- “A front portion of a vehicle 10 to which the temperature regulation system pertaining to the embodiment has been applied is provided with a right and left pair of front side members 12 that extend in the vehicle front-rear direction”). Regarding Claim 3, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends upon. Wallace further teaches: Wherein the air separator is spaced apart downward from the reservoir (Fig 2. Wallace shows air separator (136) downward from the reservoir (138)). Regarding Claim 4, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends upon. Wallace teaches an active thermal management coolant consisting of the reservoir, air separator, pump, chiller and compressor, [0009], [0024] and Ajisaka teaches the placement of the vehicle temperature regulation system in the front-rear direction of the vehicle [0026]. While Wallace, in view of Ajisaka does not specifically teach: “Wherein the first region is positioned in a left region of the vehicle, and the second region is positioned in a right region of the vehicle” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wallace and Ajisaka to rearrange the parts of the thermal management system in the front of the vehicle and arrange them in the left front and the right front region of the vehicle since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding Claim 9, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 9 depends upon. While Wallace, in view of Ajisaka does not specifically teach: Wherein the air separator is fastened to one point on the body of the vehicle. Wallace teaches a joint ATM system (consisting of an air separator) and the vehicle being equipped with a joint ATM system for heating/ cooling electronic modules [0005]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wallace and have the air separator fastened to one point on the body of the vehicle. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding Claim 10, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 10 depends upon. Wallace further teaches: An air separator-pump connection pipe configured to connect the air separator and the pump; (Wallace- [0024], Fig. 2- “the air separator and reservoir 136, 138 are fluidly upstream from and coupled to the pump 132”). While Wallace, in view of Ajisaka does not specifically teach: Wherein at least a part of the air separator-pump connection pipe is positioned in an internal space defined by a front side member, a front apron, and a wheel guard of a body of the vehicle Ajisaka does teach- “a first cooling unit disposed at a vehicle front side of the power unit” [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wallace- where the air separator and pump are connected and Ajisaka’s placement of the thermal management unit to have some portions of the air separator-pump connection pipe in a space defined by a front side member, a front apron and a wheel guard of a body of the vehicle since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding Claim 11, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 11 depends upon. Ajisaka further teaches: Wherein the pump is fastened to a fender apron of a body of the vehicle ([Abstract]- “first cooling unit including a first heat exchanger disposed at a vehicle front side”, [0034], Fig. 2- “first cooling unit has an oil pump to circulate cooling oil”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wallace in regards to a vehicle thermal management system that uses a pump and the teachings of Ajisaka that teaches the location of the pump (Fig 2- near the fender apron) to have the pump be attached to the fender apron of the body of the vehicle since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding Claim 12, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 12 depends upon. Ajisaka further teaches: Wherein the pump is fastened to two points on a fender apron of a body of the vehicle ([Abstract]- “first cooling unit including a first heat exchanger disposed at a vehicle front side”, [0034], Fig. 2- “first cooling unit has an oil pump to circulate cooling oil”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wallace in regard to a vehicle thermal management system that uses a pump and the teachings of Ajisaka that teaches the location of the pump (Fig. 2- near the fender apron) to have the pump be attached to the fender apron of the body in two points of the vehicle to optimize the attachment since it has been held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense- KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It has also been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding Claim 17, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 17 depends upon. Wallace further teaches: Wherein a region of the air separator-pump connection pipe, which is connected to the air separator (Wallace- [0024], Fig. 2- “the air separator and reservoir 136, 138 are fluidly upstream from and coupled to the pump 132”). While Wallace, in view of Ajisaka does not specifically teach: Is positioned in an internal space defined by the front side member, the front apron, and the wheel guard. Ajisaka does teach- “a first cooling unit disposed at a vehicle front side of the power unit” [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wallace- where the air separator and pump are connected and Ajisaka’s placement of the thermal management unit to have a region of the air separator-pump connection pipe in a space defined by a front side member, a front apron and a wheel guard of a body of the vehicle since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Claims 5-8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al., (US20190039434) and Ajisaka (US20190152287) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamoto et al., (US20220274303). Regarding Claim 5, Wallace teaches an active thermal management coolant consisting of the reservoir, air separator, pump, chiller and compressor [0009], [0024] and Ajisaka teaches the placement of the vehicle temperature regulation system in the front-rear direction of the vehicle [0026] which can be rearranged in a leftward and rightward direction. Ajisaka further teaches: A cross-member part of a vehicle body provided in the vehicle and extending in the leftward and rightward direction ([0027], Fig 1- “bumper reinforcement 16 whose longitudinal direction coincides with the vehicles width direction is provided on front end portions”). However, the combination is silent on: The vehicle of claim 4, further comprising: A transverse pipe configured to connect the pump and the chiller and extending in the leftward and rightward direction; and Wherein the transverse pipe is fixedly coupled to the cross member. Nakamoto in a similar field of endeavor- developing a fixing member to attach to the vehicles, teaches: “A bracketed resin pipe 20 employed in a cooling pipe system of a vehicle” [0028], Fig 1 and “there is a greater flexibility for deciding a fixing position of the resin pie when designing an attachment target for the resin pipe, thereby enabling a greater degree of freedom for the design of the resin pipe attachment target” [0105] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wallace and Ajisaka, in view of Nakamoto to have a thermal management system in the front leftward and rightward region of the vehicle, having a bracketed resin pipe that connects the elements of one region of the claimed invention with the other region of the claimed invention and attached to the cross member of the vehicle since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding Claim 6, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 5 that claim 6 depends upon. Nakamoto further teaches: The vehicle of claim 5, further comprising: a clip member coupled to the transverse pipe ([0028], Fig 1- “bracketed resin pipe 20). However, while Nakamoto does not specifically teach: “wherein the cross member has a recess portion having a shape corresponding to the clip member, the shape being recessed, and the clip member being configured to be inserted into the recess portion Nakamoto does teach: “an attachment hole 24C for attaching the bracket 24 to a non-illustrated attachment target is formed in the attachment section 24B” [0033], Fig. 2 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wallace and Ajisaka in view of Nakamoto to have a bracketed resin pipe that is transverse connecting the left and the right region using the attachment area of the bracketed resin pipe to be attached to the cross member of the vehicle since it has been held that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest expressly or in so many words the changes or possible improvements the inventor made but that the knowledge be clearly present. In re Sernaker, 217 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Regarding Claim 7, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 6 which claim 7 depends upon. While Wallace in view of Ajisaka and further in view of Nakamoto does not specifically teach: The vehicle of claim 6, wherein the clip member comprises: A first clip member provided on the transverse pipe and positioned close to the left region of the vehicle; and A second clip member provided on the transverse pipe and positioned close to the right region of the vehicle. However, Nakamoto teaches the “resin pipe having a fixing member” [0004] and “straight sections 22A are respectively formed at both axial direction end sides of the resin pipe 22, and the brackets are integrally formed at the straight sections 22A” ([0030, Fig. 1] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wallace in view of Ajisaka and further in view of Nakamoto to have a transverse pipe that connects the leftward and the rightward region of the thermal management system and that pipe have a clip member (brackets) on both the leftward and rightward region of the vehicle to optimize its attachment. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding Claim 8, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 5 that claim 8 depends upon. Nakamoto further teaches: Wherein the transverse pipe has a curved section provided in a partial region ([0030], Fig. 1- “the resin pipe 22 includes straight sections and bend sections (bending pipe sections) 22B”). Regarding Claim 13, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 5 which claim 13 depends upon. Wallace teaches an active thermal management coolant consisting of the reservoir, air separator, pump, chiller and compressor [0009], [0024]. Similarly, Ajisaka teaches the placement of the vehicle temperature regulation system in the front-rear direction of the vehicle [0026] which can be rearranged in a leftward and rightward direction and Nakamoto teaches of a bracketed resin pipe employed in a cooling pipe system of the vehicle [0028]. Wallace in view of Ajisaka and further in view of Nakamoto does not specifically teach: Wherein at least a part of the transverse pipe is positioned in an internal space defined by a fender apron, the cross member, and a wheel guard of a body of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the transverse pipe as employed by Nakamoto, in the space defined by the claim limitation (fender apron, the cross member, and a wheel guard of a body) to connect parts of the vehicle thermal management system that are in different regions of the vehicle, as taught by Wallace in view of Ajisaka, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding Claim 18, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 13 which claim 18 depends upon. Wallace teaches an active thermal management coolant consisting of the reservoir, air separator, pump, chiller and compressor [0009], [0024]. Similarly, Ajisaka teaches the placement of the vehicle temperature regulation system in the front-rear direction of the vehicle [0026] which can be rearranged in a leftward and rightward direction and Nakamoto teaches of a bracketed resin pipe employed in a cooling pipe system of the vehicle [0028]. Wallace in view of Ajisaka and further in view of Nakamoto does not specifically teach: Wherein a region of the transverse pipe, which is connected to the pump, is positioned in an internal space defined by the fender apron, the cross member, and the wheel guard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the transverse pipe as employed by Nakamoto in the space defined by the claim limitation (fender apron, the cross member, and a wheel guard of a body) to connect parts of the vehicle thermal management system that are in different regions of the vehicle, as taught by Wallace in view of Ajisaka, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al., (US20190039434) in view of Ajisaka (US20190152287) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Koguchi et al., (US20180066568). Regarding Claim 14, Wallace teaches: A battery system assembly (BSA) connected to the chiller so the cooling fluid discharged from the chiller is introduced into the BSA; ([0025], Fig 1- “In the RESS coolant loop- interconnects a RESS (second) electronic heat exchanger (chiller) 142 and a RESS (second) pump 144 with the RESS section 114” (a rechargeable energy storage system [0020]). A chiller-BSA connection pipe configured to connect the chiller and the BSA ([0025], Fig 1- “In the RESS coolant loop- interconnects a RESS (second) electronic heat exchanger (chiller) 142 and a RESS (second) pump 144 with the RESS section 114” (a rechargeable energy storage system [0020]). Wallace in view of Ajisaka does not specifically teach: An interference member positioned in a route along which the chiller-BSA connection pipe extends; and, Wherein the chiller-BSA connection pipe surrounds at least a partial region of the interference member to bypass the interference member. However, Koguchi in a similar field of endeavor teaches: [0062] Fig. 4-6- “the first and second pipes 73 and 74 are “coolant pipes” and, [0077], Fig. 4-6- “just like the downstream portion of 73a of the first pipe, the downstream portion 74a is inclined to prevent itself from coming into contact with both of the crankshaft pulley 65 and the drive shaft 101. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wallace in view of Ajisaka to have the chiller BSA connection pipe that bypasses the interference member just like the cooling pipes bypassed the interference member (crankshaft pulley and the drive shaft) in Koguchi so as to optimize the space within the vehicle architecture for the vehicle temperature management system since it has been held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense - KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It has also been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results- KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding Claim 15, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 14 which claim 15 depends upon. While Wallace and Ajisaka in view of Koguchi does not specifically teach: Wherein the interference member comprises a steering gear, a drive shaft, and a flywheel However, Koguchi teaches: [0077], Fig. 4-6- “just like the downstream portion of 73a of the first pipe, the downstream portion 74a is inclined to prevent itself from coming into contact with both of the crankshaft pulley 65 and the drive shaft 101. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the architecture of the vehicle in the front including a steering gear, a drive shaft, and a flywheel as an interference member just like the crankshaft pulley and the drive shaft in Koguchi and have the chiller-BSA connection pipe positioned to bypass these interference members to have an optimal placement of the pipes within the vehicle architecture since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al., (US20190039434) and Ajisaka (US20190152287) in view of Koguchi et al., (US20180066568) and further in view of Nakamoto et al., (US20220274303). Regarding Claim 16, Wallace and Ajisaka in view of Koguchi teaches a chiller-BSA connection in the front side of the vehicle (Wallace [0009], [0024] and Ajisaka [0026]). Koguchi teaches us the placement of cooling pipes that avoid interference members ([0077]) and Nakamoto teaches us the bracketed resin pipe having brackets that act as coupling members that are associated with the vehicle ([0004]). However, the combination above does not specifically teach: A plurality of coupling members configured to fix the chiller-BSA connection pipe to a body of the vehicle; Wherein the plurality of coupling members comprises: A first coupling member coupled to a region of the chiller-BSA connection pipe that is opposite to a direction in which the steering gear faces the driver shaft; A second coupling member coupled to a region of the chiller-BSA connection pipe positioned between the driver shaft and the flywheel; and A third coupling member coupled to a region of the chiller-BSA connection pipe that is opposite to a direction in which the flywheel faces the drive shaft. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wallace and Ajisaka to have a chiller- BSA connection in the front side of the vehicle and use the teachings of Nakamoto and Koguchi to have a connection pipe having brackets for attachment that avoids the interference member of the vehicle and hence have coupling members (brackets) of the connection pipe that connect to and placed in 1) opposite direction in which the steering gear faces the driver shaft 2) positioned between the driver shaft and the flywheel, and 3) positioned opposite to a direction in which the flywheel faces the drive shaft since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results - KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It has also been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAURAV K JHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700. 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, Alison L. Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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. /S.K.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741