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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2-4, 9-10, 12-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the heat sink assembly” (in line 2) without proper antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 1 only provides proper antecedence for “a heat dissipation assembly”. For examination purposes, the recitation in claim 2 will be construed as –the heat dissipation assembly—.
Claim 3 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the water-cooled radiator” without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether claim 3 was intended to depend on claim 2, instead of claim 1. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a water-cooled radiator—.
Claim 4 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the intercooler” without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether claim 4 was intended to depend on claim 2, instead of claim 1. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –an intercooler—.
The claim recites “the water-cooled radiator” without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether claim 4 was intended to depend on claim 2, instead of claim 1. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a water-cooled radiator—.
Claim 9 contains the following issues:
The claim states that X1 is the temperature rising speed of the hydraulic oil, while also writing an equation based on the condition: T2-T2H > X1. As currently recited, X1 appears to contain units of temperature over time, but it is being compared with a mere temperature difference. It is unclear how values between different units/dimensions can be compared.
Claim 10 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which raises ambiguities. It is unclear which combination of variables are actually required for anticipation or infringement. As currently recited, the claim can be construed as: 1) A, B and (C or D); 2) A, B or (C and D); 3) A, B, C or D; 4) A, B, C and D; etc. For examination purposes, the first “and/or” will be omitted.
Claim 12 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “an oil inlet”, despite claim 11 already reciting the same, which may raise ambiguities. For examination purposes, the recitation in claim 12 will instead be construed as –the oil inlet—.
Claim 13 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “second control element”, twice, without a corresponding “first control element”. It is noted that claim 7 recites the first control element, but claim 13 does not depend therefrom. It is unclear how many control elements are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the two recitations in claim 13 will instead be construed as –control element—.
Claim 16 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which raises ambiguities. It is unclear which combination of variables are actually required for anticipation or infringement. As currently recited, the claim can be construed as: 1) A, B and (C or D); 2) A, B or (C and D); 3) A, B, C or D; 4) A, B, C and D; etc. For examination purposes, the first “and/or” will be omitted.
Claim 17 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “third control element”, without a corresponding “first control element” or “second control element”. It is noted that claim 7 recites the first control element and claim 13 recites the “second control element”, but claim 17 does not depend therefrom. It is unclear how many control elements are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation in claim 17 will instead be construed as –control element—.
Claim 20 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the triggering condition” (in line 8), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear which triggering condition is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –a triggering condition—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demonie et al. (US 20170328264 A1), herein Demonie in view of Allen et al. (US 7406835 B2), herein Allen.
As per claim 1, Demonie discloses an engineering vehicle (10) cooling system (70), comprising: an engine cooling system (71) comprising an engine (32), a cooling fan (one of 82), and a heat dissipation assembly (72), the engine (32) drivingly connected to the cooling fan (one of 82; see at least the last sentence of ¶ 39) to cool the heat dissipation assembly (74); a hydraulic cooling system comprising a hydraulic system (“hydraulic circuit”; see at least ¶ 34) and a first electronic fan (a second 82), the first electronic fan (the second 82) is configured to cool the hydraulic system (the “hydraulic circuit”; ¶ 34); a drivetrain cooling system comprising a drivetrain (i.e., the “transmission”; see at least ¶ 29); and an air-conditioning cooling system comprising an air-conditioning system (the “A/C” circuit described in at least ¶ 37) and a third electronic fan (the third 82), the third electronic fan (third 82) is configured to cool the air-conditioning system (evident from at least the last two sentences of ¶ 37).
However, Demonie may not appear to explicitly disclose a second electronic fan configured to cool the drivetrain; or wherein the first electronic fan, the second electronic fan and the third electronic fan are distributed around the cooling fan.
On the other hand, Allen, directed to a cooling system, discloses a second electronic fan (one of 38 or 40) configured to cool (via 18) the drivetrain (30; see at least figs. 1-2); wherein the first electronic fan (e.g., represented by 32), the second electronic fan (38 or 40) and the third electronic fan (e.g., represented by 34) are distributed around the cooling fan (represented by 36).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.1
As per (1), Allen teaches that large commercial vehicles typically provide power to a variety of vehicle subsystems within a limited space (col. 1, lines 10-14). Allen recognizes a need for providing adequate cooling system to prevent overheat or damage to vehicle components that are in close proximity to the engine (col. 1, lines 19-21). Allen then discloses the use of different cooling zones with their own fans to provide independent cooling to each zone (col. 2, lines 29-44). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Allen has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the plurality of cooling fans, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Demonie. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both references are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. vehicle cooling systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Demonie may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Allen, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Demonie by virtue of suggesting independent temperature control for different cooling subsystems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Demonie and to have modified them with the teachings of Allen, by having a second electronic fan configured to cool the drivetrain; wherein the first electronic fan, the second electronic fan and the third electronic fan are distributed around the cooling fan, in order to provide independent temperature controls within a limited space, as similarly suggested by Allen, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 3, Demonie discloses wherein the cooling fan (82 of Demonie) is fixed to an output shaft of the engine (32 of Demonie) and is facing a water-cooled radiator (80; see at least figs. 2-5 of Demonie).
As per claim 4, Demonie discloses wherein the engine cooling system (71 of Demonie) further comprises: a first air guiding cover (72 of Demonie) fixed at the heat dissipation assembly (74 of Demonie), in which first air guiding cover (72 of Demonie) the cooling fan (82 of Demonie) is located (see fig. 5 of Demonie), and an intercooler (see last sentence of ¶ 37 of Demonie) is fixedly connected with a water-cooling radiator (80 of Demonie).
As per claim 17, Demonie discloses wherein the air-conditioning cooling system (the “A/C” circuit; see at least ¶¶ 7, 34 & 37 of Demonie) further comprises: a condenser in fluid communication with the air-conditioning system (i.e., implied by the existence of the refrigerant circuit), the condenser being configured to circulate a refrigerant within the air-conditioning system (see at least ¶ 37 of Demonie); and a control element electrically connected to the third electronic fan for controlling operation parameters of the third electronic fan (see at least col. 5, lines 27-40 of Allen).
As per claim 18, Demonie discloses wherein the first electronic fan (first 82 of Demonie, or one of the fans of Allen), the second electronic fan (second 82 of Demonie, or one of the fans of Allen) and the third electronic fan (third 82 of Demonie, or one of the fans of Allen) are all located inside a power cabin (22) of the engineering vehicle (see fig. 1 of Demonie).
As per claim 19, Demonie discloses an engineering vehicle (10 of Demonie) comprising an engineering cooling system according to claim 1 (see fig. 1 of Demonie and rejection of claim 1 above).
As per claim 20, Demonie discloses a method of cooling an engineering vehicle by using an engineering cooling system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),comprising following steps: detecting the temperature of the engine (32 of Demonie or 28 of Allen), the temperature of hydraulic oil of the hydraulic system (see at least first sentence of ¶ 37 of Demonie), the temperature of the drivetrain (30 of Allen) and the temperature of the air- conditioning system (the “A/C circuit” of Demonie) to determine whether there is a component that needs to be cooled in the engine (32 of Demonie, 28 of Allen), the hydraulic system (¶ 37 of Demonie), the drivetrain (30 of Allen) and the air-conditioning system (the “A/C” of Demonie); if there is a component that needs to be cooled, a triggering condition is met (e.g., col. 2, lines 43-44 of Allen); when the triggering condition is met, cooling in at least one of the following ways: cooling the heat dissipation assembly (72) by means of the cooling fan (82 of Demonie) of the engineering vehicle cooling system (see at least figs. 1-5 of Demonie), cooling a hydraulic oil radiator (80 of the hydraulic circuit of Demonie) by means of the first electronic fan (another 82 of Demonie), cooling a transmission oil radiator (80 of the transmission of Demonie, or 18 of Allen) by means of the second electronic fan (38 or 40 of Allen), and cooling a condenser (of the “A/C” of Demonie) by means of the third electronic fan (82 of Demonie).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 9-10 and 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor renders prima facie obvious the claimed invention as recited in at least claims 5 and 11. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See MPEP § 2143.
