DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment received on September 2, 2025.
Claim 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar (US Patent No. 11,105,277), hereinafter “Dudar”, in view of Orban (US PG Pub No. 2015/0000620), hereinafter “Orban” and Crower (US Patent No. 3,874,358), hereinafter “Crower”.
Regarding claim 1, Dudar discloses a combustion engine (10) comprising: an engine block (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 136)) including a body defining an inner engine surface (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 140)) and an outer engine surface (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 157)); eight cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)) extending from the outer engine surface (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 157)) to the inner engine surface (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 140)), wherein the eight cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)) are arranged as a first bank (Fig. 3D (302)) arranged along a first axis and a second bank (Fig. 3D (304)) arranged along a second axis, with each of the first bank (Fig. 3D (302)) and the second bank (Fig. 3D (304)) including four of the eight cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)); eight pistons (col. 4, lines 5-10), wherein each piston of the eight pistons is received by one cylinder passage of the eight cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)); a crankshaft (140) coupled to the eight pistons (col. 4, lines 5-14) and at least partially journaled within the engine block (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 136)); seven ignition devices in communication with seven cylinder passages of the eight cylinder passages (col. 5, lines 21-26); and a timing mechanism to control timing of the seven ignition devices (col. 5, lines 21-26).
Dudar fails to disclose that the first bank and the second bank are arranged at a bank angle between 50-degree and 120-degrees; with a remaining one cylinder passage of the eight cylinder passages having no associated ignition device; and, wherein one ignition device of the seven ignition devices is ignited at every 102.85 to 102.86 degrees of rotation of the crankshaft.
However, Orban discloses a first bank and a second bank that are arranged at a bank angle between 50-degree and 120-degrees (Orban (paragraphs 34, lines 1-10)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating a first bank and a second bank that are arranged at a bank angle between 50-degree and 120-degrees as taught by Orban because it is obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., an optimal bank angle that may reduce an amplitude of torque variations experienced by the engine) according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Crower discloses a remaining one cylinder passage of the eight cylinder passages having no associated ignition device (Crower (Fig. 1 (12, 16); Abstract; col. 1, lines 17-29)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating the teachings of Crower in order to reduce fuel consumption and atmospheric pollution and make the engine more economical to operate, while not affecting the balance of the engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that one ignition device of the seven ignition devices is ignited at every 102.85 to 102.86 degrees of rotation of the crankshaft, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 1, wherein the eight pistons (col. 4, lines 5-14) are sized complementary to sidewalls of the eight-cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)).
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 2, wherein seven (col. 20, line 39 – col. 21, line 4) of the eight-cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)) in communication with the seven ignition devices (col. 5, lines 21-26) define seven combustion chambers (14), with each combustion chamber (14) including a corresponding cylinder head (157).
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 3, wherein each combustion chamber (14) of the seven combustion chambers includes an inlet (146) and an outlet (148), wherein an air-fuel mixture (col. 5, lines 44-54) is received by the inlet and combusted gasses are exhausted through the outlet (col. 4, lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 4, wherein the inlet (146) and the outlet (148) include an inlet valve (150) and an outlet valve (156) selectively opened by a set of pushrods coupled to a camshaft (col. 4, line 59 - col. 5, line 2).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 4, wherein the inlet (146) and the outlet (148) include an inlet valve (150) and an outlet valve (156) selectively opened by an overhead cam assembly (col. 4, line 59 - col. 5, line 11).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 4.
The modified invention of Dudar discloses that the inlet for each combustion chamber includes a diameter between 2.150-2.190 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that the inlet for each combustion chamber includes a diameter between 2.150-2.190 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 2, wherein a firing order for the seven ignition devices is: a second ignition device in communication with a second combustion chamber partially defined by a second cylinder passage; then a first ignition device in communication with a first combustion chamber partially defined by a first cylinder passage; then a seventh ignition device in communication with a seventh combustion chamber partially defined by an eighth cylinder passage; then a fourth ignition device in communication with a fourth combustion chamber partially defined by a fourth cylinder passage; then a third ignition device in communication with a third combustion chamber partially defined by a third cylinder passage; then a sixth ignition device in communication with a sixth combustion chamber partially defined by a sixth cylinder passage; and a fifth ignition device in communication with a fifth combustion chamber partially defined by a fifth cylinder passage (col. 10, lines 38-60 and col. 11, lines 6-26).
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 1, wherein the bank angle is equal to 60 degrees or 90 degrees (Orban (paragraphs 34, lines 1-10)).
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 1, wherein an electrical signal is received by each of the ignition devices (col. 5, lines 21-30; col. 8, lines 48-62).
The modified invention of Dudar fails to disclose that the electrical signal is received every 102.8571 degrees of rotation of the crankshaft.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that the electrical signal is received every 102.8571 degrees of rotation of the crankshaft, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Dudar discloses a combustion engine comprising: an engine block (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 136)) with a set of eight cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)) arranged as a first bank (Fig. 3D (302)) of four cylinder passages and a second bank (Fig. 3D (304)) of the remaining four of the eight cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)), wherein the first bank (Fig. 3D (302)) is arranged at a v-angle relative to the second bank (Fig. 3D (304)), and the v-angle is between 50-degrees and 120-degrees (Orban (paragraphs 34, lines 1-10)); a set of eight pistons (col. 4, lines 5-10); a crankshaft (140) coupled to the set of eight pistons (col. 4, lines 5-14) and at least partially journaled within the engine block (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 136)); seven ignition devices in communication with seven cylinder passages of the set of eight cylinder passages (col. 5, lines 21-26), with a remaining one cylinder passage of the eight cylinder passages having no associated ignition device (Crower (Fig. 1 (12, 16); Abstract; col. 1, lines 17-29)); and a timing mechanism operably coupled to the seven ignition devices (col. 5, lines 21-26).
Dudar fails to disclose that the timing mechanism ignites one ignition device of the seven ignition devices at every 102.85 to 102.86 degrees of rotation of the crankshaft.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that the timing mechanism ignites one ignition device of the seven ignition devices at every 102.85 to 102.86 degrees of rotation of the crankshaft, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 15, wherein a bank angle is equal to 60 degrees or 90 degrees (Orban (paragraphs 34, lines 1-10)).
Regarding claim 19, the modified invention of Dudar discloses a method of driving a combustion engine having an engine block (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 136)) wherein eight pistons (col. 4, lines 5-14) coupled to a common crankshaft (140) are received by the engine block (Fig. 1 (surrounding element 136)), and seven ignition devices (col. 5, lines 21-26), the method comprising: driving the crankshaft (140) with seven pistons of the eight pistons (col. 4, lines 5-14), wherein the seven pistons of the eight pistons (col. 4, lines 5-14) partially define seven combustion chambers (14) in communication with the seven ignition devices (col. 4, lines 5-14), and with no associated ignition device at a remaining one piston of the eight pistons (Crower (Fig. 1 (12, 16); Abstract; col. 1, lines 17-29)).
The modified invention of Dudar fails to disclose that driving the seven pistons is timed such that one of the seven ignition devices initiates combustion every 102.85 to 102.86-degrees of rotation of the crankshaft.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that driving the seven pistons is timed such that one of the seven ignition devices initiates combustion every 102.85 to 102.86-degrees of rotation of the crankshaft, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the method of claim 19, wherein a firing order for the ignition devices is: a first ignition device in communication with a first combustion chamber; then a seventh ignition device in communication with a seventh combustion chamber; then a fourth ignition device in communication with a fourth combustion chamber; then a third ignition device in communication with a third combustion chamber; then a sixth ignition device in communication with a sixth combustion chamber; then a fifth ignition device in communication with a fifth combustion chamber; and a second ignition device in communication with a second combustion chamber (col. 10, lines 38-60 and col. 11, lines 6-26).
Claims 9-12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar, in view of Orban and Crower as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferrari (DE 20 2015 001 995 U1), hereinafter “Ferrari”.
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 1, wherein the eight-cylinder passages (Fig. 3D (306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 & 320)) define eight diameters.
The modified invention of Dudar fails to disclose that at least two diameters of the eight diameters are different.
However, Ferrari discloses that at least two diameters of all the cylinder diameters are different (Ferrari (Fig. 1 (17 & 18); paragraph 24)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that at least two diameters of all the cylinder diameters are different as taught by Ferrari in order to lower consumption and emission levels.
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 9.
The modified invention of Dudar fails to disclose that at least one diameter of the eight diameters is greater than 3.72 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that at least one diameter of the eight diameters is greater than 3.72 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 10.
The modified invention of Dudar fails to disclose that a ratio of a stroke length to the at least one diameter of the eight diameters is less than 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that a ratio of a stroke length to the at least one diameter of the eight diameters is less than 1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 1, wherein the combustion engine is a short-stroke combustion engine (Ferrari (paragraphs 25 & 26)).
Regarding claim 16, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 15, wherein the set of eight-cylinder passages define eight diameters, wherein at least two diameters of the eight diameters are different (Ferrari (Fig. 1 (17 & 18); paragraph 24)).
Regarding claim 17, the modified invention of Dudar discloses the combustion engine of claim 16.
The modified invention of Dudar fails to disclose that at least one diameter of the eight diameters is greater than 3.72 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Dudar by incorporating that at least one diameter of the eight diameters is greater than 3.72 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on September 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant contends that the combination of Dudar (US Patent No. 11,105,277), hereinafter “Dudar”, in view of Orban (US PG Pub No. 2015/0000620), hereinafter “Orban” and Crower (US Patent No. 3,874,358), hereinafter “Crower”; fails to disclose a remaining one cylinder passage of the eight cylinder passages having no associated ignition device. Examiner submits that the reference of Crower discloses deactivating cylinders and removing the ignition devices from the deactivated cylinders. Examiner further submits that the spark plug (ignition device) is replaced by a dummy plug, the dummy plug preventing any ignition. Applicant also contends that the reference of Crower does not disclose the independent claim requirements, because the claim requires that only one cylinder have no associated ignition device; and Crower teaches four cylinders having no ignition devices instead. Examiner submits that the combination of Dudar, in view of Orban and Crower teaches deactivating only one cylinder. Crower by itself teaches that the deactivated cylinder would have no associated ignition device. Therefore, it is understood that the combination of Dudar, in view of Orban and Crower teaches all the limitations required by the claims.
Accordingly, the grounds of rejection are deemed proper.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-5923. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. 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.
/O.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747