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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Wording in Paragraph 0017, Line 4. Replacing “the inverter may overlap the battery in a plan view” with “the battery may overlap the inverter in a plan view” is suggested.
Wording in Paragraph 0053, Lines 3-4. Replacing “the inverter 14 is under the battery 4 and overlaps the battery 4 in a plan view” with “the inverter 14 is under the battery 4 and is overlapped by the battery 4 in a plan view” is suggested.
Wording in Paragraph 0054, Lines 3-4. Replacing “motor M is under the battery 4 and overlaps the battery 4 in a plan view” with “motor M is under the battery 4 and is overlapped by the battery 4 in a plan view” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 6. Replacing “the inverter overlaps the battery in a plan view” with “the battery overlaps the inverter in a plan view” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiyomihara et al. (JP 2019147425 A) (hereinafter “Kiyomihara”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Kiyomihara teaches an electric work vehicle [Kiyomihara Paragraph 0008: “The present invention relates to a cooling device for an electrically driven vehicle.”] comprising: a body [Kiyomihara Fig. 1; Paragraph 0021: “As shown in FIG. 1, front side frames 2 and 2 extending in the front-rear direction of the vehicle are provided on the left and right sides of the motor room 1. The front side frame 2 is a vehicle body strength member having a closed cross section that extends in the front-rear direction of the vehicle by joining the front side frame inner and the front side frame outer.”]; a travel device on the body; a motor to drive the travel device [Kiyomihara Paragraph 0019: “in a front wheel drive type electric vehicle, a drive motor is suspended below a power unit cross member in a motor room provided outside the vehicle compartment at the front of the vehicle.”]; a radiator to cool a coolant; and a cooling path through which the coolant cooled by the radiator circulates through a plurality of cooling targets including the motor and returns to the radiator [Kiyomihara Fig. 2, Reference Characters 81 (radiator); W7 (radiator coolant outlet pipe); and W5 (radiator coolant inlet pipe); Kiyomihara Paragraph 0024: “A cooling water pipe W for taking cooling water into and out of the driving motor 50, a pump 70 for driving the cooling water, and a heat exchanger (so-called radiator) 80 for cooling the cooling water with outside air”]; the motor being cooled in a region downstream of each other cooling target in the cooling path [Kiyomihara Fig. 2, Reference Characters 10 (inverter); 40 (DC-DC converter); 50 (motor); Kiyomihara Paragraph 0024: “As shown in FIGS. 1 to 6, the power unit 9 includes an inverter 10, a junction box 20, a charger 30, a DC-DC converter 40, a drive motor 50 and a gear box 60 as a plurality of electric units.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Kiyomihara teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: an inverter to supply electric power to the motor; and a DC/DC converter to convert a voltage of electric power to be supplied to an electric component; wherein the inverter and the DC/DC converter are included in the plurality of cooling targets [Kiyomihara Fig. 2, 5, and 7, Reference Characters 10 (inverter); 40 (DC-DC converter); 50 (motor); Kiyomihara Paragraph 0024: “As shown in FIGS. 1 to 6, the power unit 9 includes an inverter 10, a junction box 20, a charger 30, a DC-DC converter 40, a drive motor 50 and a gear box 60 as a plurality of electric units.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Kiyomihara teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the cooling path extends from the radiator, passes through the inverter, the DC/DC converter, and the motor in this order, and returns to the radiator [Kiyomihara Fig. 7, Reference Characters 80 (radiator); 10 (inverter); 40 (DC/DC converter; and 50 (motor)].
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyomihara et al. (JP 2019147425 A) (hereinafter “Kiyomihara”) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 20220377959 A1) (hereinafter “Nakayama”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Kiyomihara teaches an electric work vehicle comprising a radiator, inverter, and motor, but does not teach the radiator in front of the inverter and the inverter in front of the motor. Nakayama teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the radiator, the inverter, and the motor are arranged in this order in a front-rear direction of the body from a front side corresponding to a forward travel direction of the body [Nakayama Fig. 2, Reference Characters 15 (radiator); 14 (inverter); and M (motor)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric work vehicle of Kiyomihara, comprising a radiator, inverter, and motor, to arrange the radiator in front of the inverter and the inverter in front of the motor, in view of Nakayama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kiyomihara and Nakayama because this would have achieved the desirable results of optimizing heat exchange between the environment and the radiator, and enabling the advantageous use of cooling air passages to cool both the inverter and the motor, which is positioned aft of the inverter, as recognized by Nakayama [Nakayama Paragraph 0109: “a portion of which cooling air reaches the first space S1 and then passes through the left and right ventilation openings K and the left and right outlet sections 12b to be let out of the cover 12.”; and Nakayama Paragraph 0110: “This cools a lower portion of the travel battery 4 and the inverter 14.”]. It should be noted that, as a reason for arranging the radiator in front of the inverter and the inverter in front of the motor has not been provided in the claimed invention, the change in form or shape, as a matter of design choice without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Kiyomihara teaches an electric work vehicle comprising a battery and an inverter but does not teach the inverter being under the battery. Nakayama teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 4, further comprising: a battery to store electric power to be supplied to the motor via the inverter; wherein the inverter is under the battery; and the inverter overlaps the battery in a plan view [Nakayama Fig. 2, Reference Characters 4 (battery) and 14 (inverter)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric work vehicle of Kiyomihara, comprising a radiator, inverter, and motor, to arrange the inverter under the battery, in view of Nakayama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kiyomihara and Nakayama because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the advantageous use of cooling air passages to cool both a lower portion of the battery and the inverter, as recognized by Nakayama [Nakayama Paragraph 0109: “a portion of which cooling air reaches the first space S1 and then passes through the left and right ventilation openings K and the left and right outlet sections 12b to be let out of the cover 12.”; and Nakayama Paragraph 0110: “This cools a lower portion of the travel battery 4 and the inverter 14.”]. It should be noted that, as a reason for arranging the inverter under the battery has not been provided in the claimed invention, the change in form or shape, as a matter of design choice without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights