DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “a thick metal tube”, “two oblong orifices”, “a first port”, “a second port”, “an internal and tight partition”, “the intake cover”, “exhaust compartment”, “groove”, “a lip”, “special spacer”, “spark plug/injector”, “a thick cover”, etc. The noted items are just a fraction of the elements claimed (i.e. elements in claim 1), but not shown in the drawings or given a reference number in the specifications. The following claims, claim 2 through claim 10 comprise additional elements with the same issues.
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. 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 Objections
Claims appear to be copied directly from the Specifications and do not comply with the rules and laws of Manual of Patent Examining Procedures.
For example, some claims have multiple sentences within a single claim (claim 1, claim 7);, the claims incorporate acronyms (AOA, RFA, AOE, RFF) not described in the claims/ specifications; preambles need to be consistent when claiming a/the distribution cylinder/(CDM), etc.
Applicant is advised to review MPEP 608.01(i-n).
Specification
In the specifications, page 7 recites “this closed ring will be housed” twice in a row. Please delete redundant phrase.
Please carefully review the specification for the similar issues.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 recites the limitation "The distribution cylinder (CDM)" in the preamble. There
is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the following limitations: "the intake ports", “the intake cover”, “the behind”, “the front”, “the engine block”, “the special spacer”, “the spark plug or injector”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In addition, claim 1 recites: “a thick metal tube”, “two oblong orifices”, “a first port”, “a second port”, “an internal and tight partition”, “the intake cover”, “exhaust compartment”, “groove”, “a lip”, “special spacer”, “spark plug/injector”, “a thick cover”, etc. The specifications do not include element numbers for the claimed elements, and it is unclear what are the noted elements in the drawings.
The term “carefully” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “carefully” 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.
Claim 1 further recites: “[[It]] it rotates on a bearing at the speed of one revolution for every two revolutions of the crankshaft, grazing its seat without touching it, a thick cover covers its entire length”. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to with “it” and “its” and the limitations renders the claim indefinite.
These are just a couple of indefinite issues with claim 1.
Claims 2-10 have similar issues that have to be addressed and amended.
For example, claim 5 recites: “The distribution cylinder according to claim 1, is characterized by the fact that the body of the CDM on which the blades are fixed is rotable; the front blades of the rotor, oriented in the opposite direction to the blades, increase the air speed tenfold and thus improve the filling time of the cylinders to be fed; the interior of the CDM, which easily houses the compressor and propeller blades rotating on the same axis, thus offers filling without external obstruction to the entire line of engine cylinders thus equipped, from the smallest to the largest cylinders to the whole line of engine cylinders, from the smallest to the largest cylinders; this equipment gives the engines even more rapid acceleration; an exhaust valve regulates the pressure during pressure during the toning process.” It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “the front blades of the rotor, oriented in the opposite direction to the blades”; and what are “the filling” and “toning” and how they relate to the claimed CDM.
The application will be examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 5,941,206), hereafter Smith.
Regarding claims 1-10, Smith discloses a distribution cylinder (2) comprising intake and exhaust ports (3, 7), having oblong shape (Fig. 1), operating on 45 degree theory (column 6, line 28-60), wherein the combustion is provided with a spark plug or an injector (column 1, line 26-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEUTA B HOLBROOK whose telephone number is (571)270-3276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4:30pm EST.
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.
/TEUTA HOLBROOK/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/GEORGE C JIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747