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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 17-26, 29-38 & 43-44 are pending in the application. Claims 1-16, 27-28 & 39-42 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) and/or PCT Article 7, Paragraph (1). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Offset amount e2
Crankshaft radius r
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 17-26, 29-38 & 43-44 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.
As to Claim 17, the phrase “a central axis of an inner diameter of the cylinder (Acyl)”, in Lines 9-10, should read --a central axis (Acyl) of an inner diameter of the cylinder
The phrase “a rotation center axis of the crankshaft (Acr)”, in Line 10, should read --a rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft
The limitation “βLmin is a local minimum oscillation value of β during a compression stroke of the piston”, in Lines 16-17, is indefinite
It is not clear what is meant by “a local minimum oscillation value”. The phrase is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is not clear which oscillation values the phrase is being compared with which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the value is a local minimum oscillation value.
The limitation “wherein, for the offset amount e1, and βTDC = - βLmin”, in Line 17, is indefinite. The limitation is written in a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret as when two conditions –the offset amount is e1; and when βTDC = - βLmin-- are concurrent, a third condition occurs. However, the third condition is not described. A such, it is not clear how to interpret the limitation.
Additionally, the term βTDC, in Line 17, is written differently than βTDC, in Line 15. As such, it is not clear if the respective iterations of the terms are the same term or different terms. For the purpose of examination, the two terms will be interpreted as the same term.
Similarly, the term βLmin, in Line 16, is written differently than βLmin, in Line 15. As such, it is not clear if the respective iterations of the terms are the same term or different terms. For the purpose of examination, the two terms will be interpreted as the same term.
As to Claim 18, the phrase “a central axis of an inner diameter of the cylinder (Acyl)”, in Lines 10-11, should read --a central axis (Acyl) of an inner diameter of the cylinder
The phrase “a rotation center axis of the crankshaft (Acr)”, in Line 11, should read --a rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft
The limitation “βLmin is a local minimum oscillation value of β during a compression stroke of the piston”, in Lines 16-17, is indefinite
the limitation “βLmin is a local minimum oscillation value of β during a compression stroke of the piston”, in Lines 18-19, is indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by “a local minimum oscillation value”. The phrase is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is not clear which oscillation values the phrase is being compared with which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the value is a local minimum oscillation value.
The limitation “an offset amount e2 is an offset amount at which the oscillation angle P satisfies a relationship βBDC = - βLmin”, in Lines 19-20, is indefinite. The offset requires two structures which are offset from each other. However, neither of these structures have been provided. As such, it is not clear which structures create the offset, rendering the limitation indefinite.
The limitation “the offset amount e satisfies a condition e2≤e<r”, in Lines 20-21, is indefinite. Since it is not clear what structure defines offset e2, it is not clear how offset e is defined by the given equation. Additionally, the less than or equal sign (≤) should not be underlined.
As to Claim 19, the limitation “at a crank angle at which a line segment connecting the rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft and a center of a big end portion bearing of the connecting rod is parallel to the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder”, in Lines 2-5, is indefinite.
The term “a crank angle” has not been defined. The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is not clear which structures define the crank angle, rendering the limitation indefinite.
Additionally, The limitation is written in a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret as when one condition –a crank angle at which a line segment connecting the rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft; and a center of a big end portion bearing of the connecting rod is parallel to the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder-- are concurrent, a third condition occurs. However, the third condition is not described. A such, it is not clear how to interpret the limitation.
The term “the central axis Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder”, in Lines 7-8, should read --the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder.
As to Claim 20, the limitation “at a crank angle at which a line segment connecting the rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft and a center of a big end portion bearing of the connecting rod is parallel to the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder”, in Lines 2-5, is indefinite.
The term “a crank angle” has not been defined. The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is not clear which structures define the crank angle, rendering the limitation indefinite.
Additionally, The limitation is written in a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret as when one condition –a crank angle at which a line segment connecting the rotation center axis (Acr) of the crankshaft; and a center of a big end portion bearing of the connecting rod is parallel to the central axis (Acyl) of the inner diameter of the cylinder-- are concurrent, a third condition occurs. However, the third condition is not described. A such, it is not clear how to interpret the limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, the offset amount e2 is defined in the claims as being separate from the offset amount e. As such, it is not clear what structure defines the offset amount e2, which is why it is necessary for the offset amount e2 to be shown in the drawings.
Applicant argues instant application Figure 7 shows the offset amount e2. Examiner disagrees. Figure 7 only shows a general value for the offset amount e2, not which structure defines offset e2.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the amendments to the claims required new indefinite rejections, as described above.
Applicant argues the specification defines the minimum oscillation angle as corresponding to a crank angle of 270 degrees, which is not zero. Applicant then proceeds to argue there was an interpretation error, where the minimum oscillation angle should actually be a local minimum oscillation value. As such, Applicant believes the application is fully supported and definite. Examiner disagrees.
While the local minimum oscillation angle may occur when the crank angle is 270 degrees, this does not define the boundaries of the local minimum oscillation angle. The application does not define how to interpret a local minimum oscillation angle, and it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the term is still indefinite.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights